## 3 Results  
Analysis of Body Composition, Bioelectrical Parameters Changes, and MD Adherence in Total Team of Volleyball Players  
The anthropometric characteristics, bioelectrical parameters, and MD adherence assessed by the MEDAS score of the volleyball athletes studied are shown in Table 1. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline  & **Total Team** \\  & **(\(n\) = 11)** \\ \hline  & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** \\ \hline  & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** \\ \hline  & **Height** \\  & **(cm)** \\ \hline  & **Weight** \\  & **(Kg)** \\ \hline  & **BMI** \\  & **(kg/m\({}^{2}\))** \\ \hline  & **Rz** \\  & **(Ohm)** \\ \hline  & **Xc** \\  & **(Ohm)** \\ \hline  & **PhA** \\  & **(\({}^{\circ}\))** \\ \hline  & **FM** \\  & **(kg)** \\ \hline  & **FFM** \\  & **(kg)** \\ \hline  & **BCM** \\  & **(kg)** \\ \hline  & **BCMI** \\  & **(Kg/m\({}^{2}\))** \\ \hline  & **ECM** \\  & **(kg)** \\ \hline  & **\\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Anthropometric, bioimpedance parameters, and MEDAS score in the total team of volleyball athletes at enrollment (T0). In the whole team, all data were reported in three \"key times\" referring to pre-season training session (P), championship (C), and play-off (PO) periods and are shown in Table 2. We found statistically significant improvements in all parameters except for Rz, Xc, BCM, ICW, and ECW when analyzed by ANOVA. Similarly, significant changes between P vs. C and C vs. PO were observed, while no differences between P vs. PO were displayed by the post hoc test. Regarding the MEDAS score, high adherence to the MD in all players was maintained over the study period (Table 2). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline  & **Total Team** \\  & **(\(\it{n}\) = 11)** \\ \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Mean \(\pm\) SD**} \\ \hline
**SMM** & 37.5 \(\pm\) 4.2 \\
**(\(\it{kg}\))** & 51.7 \(\pm\) 6.7 \\ \hline
**ECW** & 22.6 \(\pm\) 3.6 \\
**(\(\it{kg}\))** & 29.2 \(\pm\) 3.1 \\ \hline
**Na/K** & 0.7 \(\pm\) 0.1 \\ \hline
**BMR** & 2310.4 \(\pm\) 295.7 \\
**(\(\it{Kcal}\))** & 9.8 \(\pm\) 1.1 \\ \hline \end{tabular} BMI, body mass index; Rz, resistance; Xc: reactance; PhA, phase angle; FM, fat mass; FFM, fat-free mass; BCM, body cell mass; BCLM, body cell mass index; ECM: extracellular mass; SMM, skeletal muscle mass; TBW, total body water; ECW, extracellular water; ICW, intracellular water; Na/K: Sodium/Potassium rate; BMR, basal metabolic rate. MEDAS (Mediterranean Diet Adherence Screener).  
\end{table} 
Table 1: _Cont._ \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline  & **P** & **C** & **PO** & **ANOVA** & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Post Hoc**} \\ \hline  & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & & **P vs. C** & **C vs. PO** & **P vs. PO** \\ \hline
**BMI** & 24.5 \(\pm\) 0.3 & 25.3 \(\pm\) 0.3 & 25.7 \(\pm\) 0.6 & **0.002** & **0.011** & **0.004** & ns \\
**(\(\it{kg}\)/m\({}^{2}\))** & 459.2 \(\pm\) 15.2 & 447.3 \(\pm\) 2.4 & 447.4 \(\pm\) 0.3 & ns & ns & ns \\ \hline
**Rx** & & & & & & \\
**(\(\it{Ohm}\))** & 55.6 \(\pm\) 2.0 & 59.4 \(\pm\) 1.8 & 59.9 \(\pm\) 0 & **ns** & **0.045** & ns & ns \\ \hline
**PhA** & 6.9 \(\pm\) 0.5 & 7.4 \(\pm\) 0.5 & 7.6 \(\pm\) 0.5 & **\(\bf{<0.0001}\)** & **0.003** & **0.001** & ns \\ \hline
**FM** & 12.8 \(\pm\) 0.3 & 13.6 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 14.2 \(\pm\) 0.1 & **0.002** & **0.024** & **0.004** & ns \\ \hline
**FFM** & 77.6\(\pm\) 0.9 & 79.7 \(\pm\) 0.7 & 80.6 \(\pm\) 0.2 & **0.006** & **0.009** & **0.008** & ns \\ \hline
**BCM** & 40.6 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 43.5 \(\pm\) 2.7 & 44.0 \(\pm\) 0. & ns & ns & ns & ns \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Anthropometric, bioelectrical parameters and MEDAS score referring to “Key times” selected from the entire study period in total population. We also graphically represented the most relevant parameters regarding the body composition and MEDAS score over study period in total population using the linear trends, showing that these parameters improved in a time-dependent manner with constant training (Supplementary Figure S1).