## 2 Materials and Methods
### Intervention  
Both the experimental and control groups were required to participate in two hours of basketball training each day from Monday to Friday. This training included technical drills and team practice games directed by two basketball coaches, with personnel management overseen by the research team. Additionally, the experimental group undertook a pyometric training program (PTP) twice a week. The intervention measures were as follows.  
In recent years, many studies have employed pyometric training as a method to enhance lower-limb strength across various sports [11; 23; 24; 25; 26]. Based on the existing literature on pyometric training, this study formulated intervention measures for a pyometric training program (PTP). The intervention spanned 12 weeks, as muscle strength adaptations typically require about 12 weeks [27]. The lower-limb pyometric training program, as shown in Table 2, was conducted twice a week [28], and each session lasted 120 min [29]. The lower-limb pyometric training exercises, as listed in Table 2, were conducted.  
The experimental group was to undergo PTP twice a week for a total of 12 weeks. Each session was to follow a circuit training format, with each set followed by a 10-30 s rest, and a 3-5 min rest after completing one circuit. A total of three circuits needed to be completed [30]. Each cycle of PTP required a load intensity based on the individual's maximum strength. Before performing the PTP, each participant in the experimental group was tested for their one-repetition maximum (1 RM) for each item, as follows [31]:  
First circuit: A light load with high repetitions, with each set repeated 12 to 15 times, at 60% to 70% of the 1 RM (one-repetition maximum).  
Second circuit: A moderate load with moderate repetitions, with each set repeated 8 to 10 times, at 70% to 80% of the 1 RM (one-repetition maximum).  
Third circuit: A heavy load with low repetitions, with each set repeated 1 to 5 times, at 80% to 100% of the 1 RM (one-repetition maximum).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variable** & **EG (\(n=15\))** & **CG (\(n=15\))** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**95\% Confidence Interval**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(t\)**-Value**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(p\)**-Value**} \\  & **M \(\pm\) SD** & **M \(\pm\) SD** & **Lower Bound** & **Upper Bound** & \\ \hline Age (years) & \(22\pm 1.06\) & \(22\pm 1.08\) & \(-0.70\) & \(0.69\) & \(-0.021\) & \(0.984\) \\ Height (cm) & \(177.5\pm 3.78\) & \(177.6\pm 4.05\) & \(-2.65\) & \(2.04\) & \(-0.281\) & \(0.783\) \\ Weight (kg) & \(74.5\pm 8.91\) & \(74.5\pm 6.90\) & \(-6.38\) & \(6.32\) & \(-0.009\) & \(0.993\) \\ Years of athletic experience & \(9.25\pm 1.15\) & \(9.28\pm 1.28\) & \(-0.74\) & \(0.69\) & \(-0.080\) & \(0.937\) \\ Number of sports injuries (\%) & \(22\pm 12.06\) & \(26\pm 14.73\) & \(-8.05\) & \(15.83\) & \(0.698\) & \(0.496\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* EG represents the experimental group, and CG represents the control group. The mean \(\pm\) standard deviation is expressed as M \(\pm\) SD. \(t\)-test values are indicated by \(t\)-values (\(p\)-values). \(p<0.05\).  
\end{table}
Table 1: Participant homogeneity analysis.  
Based on the PTP measures outlined above, to control the impact of muscle strength enhancement on athletic performance, this study identified the independent and dependent variables.  
Independent Variables: 1. PTP: This includes training frequency, intensity, duration, and exercises (as shown in Table 2). 2. Muscle Strength Enhancement: Quantified through indicators of muscle strength growth, such as PTP and maximum repetitions.  
Dependent Variables: 1. Athletic Performance: Specific performance indicators such as vertical jump reaction force, lateral jump resultant force, step-back resultant force, and jump shot accuracy. 2. Sports injury rate: This evaluates the risks of the training plan, helping to reduce the risk of injuries among athletes and improve overall athletic performance.