## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Variables**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Method**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**MD (95\% CI)**} \\ \cline{3-5}  & & **MiL vs. MoL** & **MiL vs. HiL** & **MoL vs. HiL** \\ \hline \(\mathrm{F_{r}}\) (N) & FP & \(-\)18.70 (\(-\)20.53—16.85) *** & \(-\)97.92 (\(-\)101.16—94.69) *** & 79.23 (\(-\)83.00—75.46) *** \\  & HRD & \(-\)19.6 (\(-\)21.7—17.4) *** & \(-\)97.1 (\(-\)99.5—94.8) *** & \(-\)77.5 (\(-\)80.2—74.9) *** \\ \hline \(\mathrm{F_{avg}}\) (N/kg) & FP & \(-\)0.04 (\(-\)0.09–0.02) & \(-\)0.49 (\(-\)0.61–0.37) *** & \(-\)0.45 (\(-\)0.55—0.35) *** \\  & HRD & \(-\)0.05 (\(-\)0.10–0.01) & \(-\)0.48 (\(-\)0.59—0.38) *** & \(-\)0.44 (\(-\)0.53–0.35) *** \\ \hline \(\mathrm{P_{avg}}\) (W/kg) & FP & 0.05 (\(-\)0.25–0.35) & \(-\)0.95 (\(-\)1.64—0.26) ** & \(-\)1.00 (\(-\)1.53–0.47) *** \\  & HRD & 0.01 (\(-\)0.28–0.29) & \(-\)0.92 (\(-\)1.49—0.35) *** & 0.93 (\(-\)1.41–0.44) *** \\ \hline \(\mathrm{F_{0}}\) (N/kg) & FP & \(-\)0.61 (\(-\)1.01—0.21) ** & \(-\)1.80 (\(-\)2.30—1.30) *** & \(-\)1.20 (\(-\)1.70—0.70) *** \\  & HRD & \(-\)0.26 (\(-\)0.64–0.12) & \(-\)1.49 (\(-\)1.91—1.07) *** & \(-\)1.23 (\(-\)1.67—0.79) *** \\ \hline \(\mathrm{v_{0}}\) (m/s) & FP & 0.38 (0.27–0.50) *** & 1.43 (1.10–1.77) *** & 1.05 (0.79–1.32) *** \\  & HRD & 0.29 (0.18–0.40) *** & 1.34 (1.03–1.66) *** & 1.05 (0.79–1.32) *** \\ \hline \(\mathrm{P_{max}}\) (W/kg) & FP & \(-\)0.39 (\(-\)1.15–0.37) & \(-\)0.07 (\(-\)1.05–0.92) & 0.32 (\(-\)0.53–1.17) \\  & HRD & 0.07 (\(-\)0.65–0.79) & 0.18 (\(-\)0.72–1.07) & 0.11 (\(-\)0.66–0.88) \\ \hline \end{tabular} F\({}_{0}\), maximal theoretical horizontal force; F\({}_{\mathrm{avg}}\), average force; F\({}_{\mathrm{r}}\), resistance force; HiL, high overload; MD, mean difference; MiL, minimal overload; MoL, moderate overload; N, Newtons; P\({}_{\mathrm{avg}}\), average power; P\({}_{\mathrm{max}}\), maximal theoretical power; \(\mathrm{v_{0}}\), maximal theoretical velocity; W, Watts; and 95% CI, 95% confidence interval. ***\(p<0.001\) and ***\(p<0.01\).  
\end{table} 
Table 3: The mean difference (MD) in variables calculated from the force plate (FP) and the hydraulic resistance device (HRD) between overloads. Figure 2: Differences between minimal overload (white bars), moderate overload (grey bars), and high overload (black bars) determined with the force plate (FP) and the hydraulic resistance device (HRD): (**a**) resistance force (F\({}_{\mathrm{r}}\)); (**b**) average force (F\({}_{\mathrm{avg}}\)); and (**c**) average power (P\({}_{\mathrm{avg}}\)). The figure shows significant differences between the variables. The FvP profiles of the sprints calculated from the FP and the HRD under three overload conditions are shown in Figure 3. A significant interaction effect was found for F0, \(\mathrm{v_{0}}\), and \(\mathrm{P_{max}}\) (F \(\geq\) 12.9; \(p\) < 0.001). Under all overload conditions, the HRD-calculated F0 and \(\mathrm{P_{max}}\) were significantly lower than those calculated by the FP (Table 2). Conversely, the HRD under MoL and HiL conditions showed a significantly higher \(\mathrm{v_{0}}\) than the FP (Table 2). Regardless of the method used, the F0 was higher under HiL than under MoL and MiL, and only under the FP were the differences in F0 between the MoL and MiL conditions significant (Table 3). For both methods, MiL \(\mathrm{v_{0}}\) was higher than for MoL and HiL, and MoL \(\mathrm{v_{0}}\) was higher than HiL (Table 3). There were no differences in \(\mathrm{P_{max}}\) between the overloads. F\({}_{\mathrm{r}}\) showed a small-to-moderate correlation, while all other variables showed a nearly perfect-to-perfect correlation between the FP and the HRD (Table 2).