## 4 Discussion
### Lower Limb Explosive Power  
In order to determine which method was more conducive to the participants adopting explosive adaptations and a better badminton performance, BQ-1 RM, CMJ, SJ, SLJ, and SJS were comprehensively compared in the present study. The data and plots show that both the intervention training modalities produced similar improvements in lower extremity explosive power. The earlier studies pointed out that in badminton, strength enables players to maintain a high level of competitiveness, and lower limb strength is particularly important [23]. Those with greater lower limb strength can cover the court better and are more stable when moving. The deep squat 1 RM is a basic movement that improves lower limb explosive strength; an increase in the deep squat 1 RM metric strongly correlates with the development of explosive strength. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline
**Variables** & **LRF(S)** & **FBF(S)** & **FF(S)** \\ \hline F & 18.842 & 6.753 & 15.352 \\ \(p\) & 0.000 * & 0.019 * & 0.001 * \\ \(\eta^{2}\) & 0.526 & 0.284 & 0.777 \\ \hline \end{tabular} All data are presented as means \(\pm\) SD. * Significant differences are represented pre- and post-PBRT and -VBRT at \(p<0.05\).  
\end{table} 
Table 6: The analysis of covariance results for the adjusted means of footwork movement speed post-test indicators in the two groups. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline
**Variables** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **BQ-** \\ **1 RM(KG)** \\ \end{tabular} & **CMJ(CM)** & **SJ(CM)** & **SLJ(CM)** & **SJS(M/S)** \\ \hline F & 19.089 & 14.262 & 5.230 & 6.402 & 21.595 \\ \(p\) & 0 * & 0.002 * & 0.035 * & 0.022 * & 0 * \\ \(\eta^{2}\) & 0.529 & 0.456 & 0.235 & 0.274 & 0.560 \\ \hline \end{tabular} All data are presented as means \(\pm\) SD. * Significant differences are represented pre- and post-PBRT and -VBRT at \(p<0.05\).  
\end{table} 
Table 5: The ANCOVA results for the adjusted means of lower limb explosive power post-test indicators in the two groups. The data show that after 6 weeks of back squat exercises among the group, both the interventions significantly improved their back squat 1 RM value. However, the VBRT group showed more significant gains, possibly due to the participants' ability to provide real-time feedback. Effort can be used as a measure during strength training, as it is a reliable method for athletes with experience in resistance training [24]. However, this is not the case for elite university badminton players who do not have extensive training experience. In addition, the resistance training program is a progressive linear cycle structure with 2 weeks of training weights close to 1 RM; when the training intensity is relatively high, the VBRT can monitor fatigue to achieve a better effect and can also better improve the participant's neuromuscular adaptation and maximal muscle strength through monitoring, reducing the risk of fatigue injury [22; 25]. Finally, VBRT was better able to induce neuromuscular adaptations and maintain a better and higher-quality work performance among the participants when VL was monitored during training [26]. According to the existing studies, VBRT is more effective than PBRT is in improving participants' CMJ and SJ performances. In VBRT, less and more VL significantly improve a person's strength and jumping and sprinting abilities. Less VL more significantly improves their jumping performance, thus increasing the trainer's level of explosiveness, which is challenging to do with PBRT [26]. The optimal VL value was studied. After the intervention, the group with a VL value of 10% performed fewer repetitions than those in the group with a VL value of 30% did. However, the EMG variables of those a VL value of 10% were elevated. A VL value as low as 10% could significantly improve the neural adaptation of muscles and make a person more efficient and economical in resistance training [27].