## 3 Results  
Consistency in the performance of rapid muscular contractions represented by the coefficient of determination of the RTD-SF regression line remained high, from pre-test to post-test (median R\({}^{2}\) = 0.951, range 0.936-0.959). Figure 3 depicts the relationship of peak torque relative to Tmax and the respective peak RTD (%Tmax) for trained and non-trained legs in EMS and VOL groups, respectively. Table 1 depicts the changes in the dependent variables from pre-test and post-test. Regarding the trained leg, ANOVA revealed significant main effect of time for all dependent variables, with generally large effect sizes observed both within EMS and VOL groups (0.78-2.2). The largest change was observed for Tmax (29%), followed by RTDmax (\(\sim\)13%), RTD-SF (\(\sim\)\(-\)15%), and Intercept. The main effect of group factor and interaction of factors were not significant, indicating that EMS and VOL exercises induced similar changes over a six-week period, as supported by the analysis of the standardized differences (Figure 3; lower panel), since the ES always ranged from \(-\)0.20 to 0.20 (i.e., trivial differences). For the non-trained leg (Table 1), time factor and group \(\times\)time interaction were significant only for RTD-SF, whereas a subsequent post hoc test revealed that significant change was observed only within EMS group. However, note that although differences between training modalities reached significance only for RTD-SF, Figure 4 (upper panel) indicates that differences for RTD-SF, Intercept, and Tmax are substantially greater for the EMS than VOL group (ES \(<-0.20\)). This is also supported by moderate within-group effect sizes (0.60-0.76), whereas [PERSON]'s d was trivial across the VOL group. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**EMS**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**VOL**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**ANOVA**} \\ \cline{2-13}  & **Pre-Test** & **Post-Test** & **\% Change** & **[PERSON]’s** & **Pre-Test** & **Post-Test** & **\% Change** & **[PERSON]’s** & **F-Value** & **F-Value** & **F-Value** & **F-Value** \\ \hline Trained leg & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \(\mathrm{Tmax}\) (Nm/kg) & \(15.7\pm 2\) & \(20.2\pm 3.5\) & \(29.3\) & \(2.12\) & \(16.6\pm 2.2\) & \(21.4\pm 3.4\) & \(28.8\) & \(2.11\) & \(82.0\) ** & \(0.9\) & \(0.0\) \\ RTD (Nm/kg/s) & \(83\pm 13\) & \(93\pm 17\) & \(12.3\) & \(0.92\) & \(85\pm 18\) & \(97\pm 15\) & \(16.6\) & \(1.10\) & \(16.4\) ** & \(0.1\) & \(0.2\) \\ RTD-SF & \(6.0\pm 0.6\) & \(5.1\pm 0.7\) & \(-14.6\) & \(1.10\) & \(5.9\pm 0.8\) & \(5.0\pm 0.6\) & \(-14.9\) & \(1.01\) & \(25.1\) ** & \(0.1\) & \(0.0\) \\ Intercept & \(0.9\pm 0.18\) & \(1.07\pm 0.21\) & \(22.5\) & \(0.78\) & \(0.86\pm 0.29\) & \(1.08\pm 0.17\) & \(24.9\) & \(0.72\) & \(12.5\) ** & \(0.0\) & \(0.1\) \\ \hline \multicolumn{13}{l}{Non-trained leg} & & & & & & & & & \\ \(\mathrm{Tmax}\) (Nm/kg/s) & \(17\pm 19\) & \(19\pm 3.6\) & \(11.9\) & \(0.76\) & \(19.2\pm 2.8\) & \(19.4\pm 2.9\) & \(2.2\) & \(0.20\) & \(3.28\) & \(1.4\) & \(2.1\) \\ RTD & \(87\pm 16\) & \(89\pm 20\) & \(2\) & \(0.34\) & \(96\pm 18\) & \(94\pm 18\) & \(-0.6\) & \(0.01\) & \(0.04\) & \(0.9\) & \(0.4\) \\ RTD-SF & \(5.9\pm 0.6\) & \(5.1\pm 0.5\) \({}^{\star}\) & \(-12.6\) & \(0.76\) & \(5.5\pm 0.6\) & \(5.4\pm 0.7\) & \(-0.1\) & \(0.20\) & \(6.35\) * & \(0.0\) & \(5.5\)* \\ Intercept & \(0.94\pm 0.25\) & \(1.10\pm 0.17\) & \(16.6\) & \(0.60\) & \(1.02\pm 0.17\) & \(0.99\pm 0.24\) & \(-2.2\) & \(0.25\) & \(1.13\) & \(0.0\) & \(2.7\) \\ \hline \multicolumn{13}{l}{* Main effect or factor interaction significant at \(p<0.05\); ** main effect or factor interaction significant at \(p<0.01\); ** post hoc significant at \(p<0.01\).} \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Descriptive data for dependent variables shown as mean \(\pm\) standard deviation. Mean relative changes between pre-test and post-test (% change) are given as raw values.