## 3 Results  
The mean value (\(\pm\) SD) for the bench press 1-RM test was 100.5 \(\pm\) 10.2 kg. All results for strength and power assessments are reported in Table 1. In addition, percentage changes in the UB and LB groups, following both the HI and POW protocols, are reported in Figures 1 and 2, respectively. A significant group x time interaction was found for CMJP in the HI protocol (F = 7.625; \(p\) = 0.012; \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.266). Post hoc tests revealed that CMJP was elevated (+1.6%) in the UB group only (\(p\) = 0.025). No significant group x time interactions were detected for CMJP in the POW protocol (F = 3.600; \(p\) = 0.072; \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.153) and for BPT in both the HI (F = 1.320; \(p\) = 0.718; \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.006) and the POW protocols (F = 1.571; \(p\) = 0.225; \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.073).  
Significant main effects of time were found in the POW protocol for CMJP (F = 5.500; \(p\) = 0.029; \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.216) and for BPT (F = 12.206; \(p\) = 0.002; \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.379). No significant main effects were noted in the HI trial for CMJP (F = 0.456; \(p\) = 0.507; \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.021) and for BPT (F = 0.134; \(p\) = 0.264; \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.059). Figure 3a,b shows the individual changes following the HI protocol in the UB and LB groups, respectively. As reported in Figure 3, eight of the twelve participants of UB group obtained an improvement in CMJP following the HI bench press protocol, while only two participants of LB group improved in the same assessment following the HI squat protocol. These Figures, together with Figures 1 and 2, shows the variability in the individual response following the HI protocol for the upper and the lower body.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Group**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**UB**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**LB**} \\ \hline
**Trial** & **Assessment** & **Pre** & **Post** & **Cohen’s d** & **Pre** & **Post** & **Cohen’s d** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**HI**} & BPT (W) & 414.9 \(\pm\) 54.8 & 411.3 \(\pm\) 49.4 & 0.06 & 438.9 \(\pm\) 53.0 & 441.4 \(\pm\) 57.6 & 0.045 \\ \cline{2-8}  & CMJP (W) & 3882.4 \(\pm\) 433.2 & 3943.8 \(\pm\) 445.6 * & 0.14 & 4007.8 \(\pm\) 504.2 & 3983.0 \(\pm\) 520.6 & 0.17 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**POW**} & BPT (W) & 430.1 \(\pm\) 55.9 & 424.5 \(\pm\) 49.2 & 0.10 & 421.3 \(\pm\) 59.4 & 425.9 \(\pm\) 60.3 & 0.07 \\ \cline{2-8}  & CMJP (W) & 3914.4 \(\pm\) 389.9 & 3906.2 \(\pm\) 404.4 & 1.27 & 4130.3 \(\pm\) 491.4 & 4052.4 \(\pm\) 437.2 & 0.18 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Results of the performance assessments performed pre and post the two resistance exercise protocols. UB = upper body; LB = lower body; BPT = bench press throw; CMJP = countermovement jump power; * indicates a significant difference between pre and post.  
Figure 1: Percentage changes in power assessments (BPT = bench press throw power; CMJP = countermovement jump power) following the high-intensity protocol (HI) in both UB (upper body) and LB (lower body) group. * indicates a significant difference between the two groups (\(p<0.05\)).  
Figure 2: Percentage changes in power assessments (BPT = bench press throw power; CMJP = countermovement jump power) following the power protocol (POW) in both UB (upper body) and LB (lower body) group.