## 3 Results
In a comparison according to position, we found statistically significant differences for all the skinfolds except the front thigh skinfold (\(p\) = 0.057), with forwards presenting higher values than backs. However, in a comparison of position in each sex, statistically significant differences were only observed for the tricipital (\(p\) = 0.044) and iliac crest skinfolds in male backs (\(p\) = 0.023) compared to forwards. Subscapular skinfold values were higher in forwards than backs (16.7 \(\pm\) 8.5 vs. 10.9 \(\pm\) 4.0 mm, \(p\) = 0.005), in male (\(p\) = 0.037) and female rugby players (\(p\) = 0.45) alike. Forwards also presented higher medial calf skinfold values (14.0 \(\pm\) 6.7 vs. 11.6 \(\pm\) 5.5 mm, \(p\) = 0.045), but this statistically significant difference was only observed in female rugby players (\(p\) = 0.045). In relation to the sum of six skinfolds, we found differences in favour of forwards (115.3 \(\pm\) 37.6 vs. 92.3 \(\pm\) 33.9 mm, \(p\) = 0.028), but statistical significance was only reached in male rugby players (\(p\) = 0.032). Regarding somatotype (see Figure 1), no statistically significant differences by sex were detected for any component (endomorph, \(p\) = 0.543; mesomorph, \(p\) = 0.146; ectomorph, \(p\) = 0.737). However, a comparison by position revealed a higher endomorph component in forwards compared to backs (\(p\) = 0.018), which only reached statistical significance in male rugby players (\(p\) = 0.013). The higher endomorph component paralleled a trend towards having a lower ectomorph component in forwards with respect to backs (\(p\) = 0.052), with no differences in the mesomorph component (\(p\) = 0.141). In general, muscle-adipose development predomin \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Variable**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Sex**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Position**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(p\)**-Value Sex**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(p\)**-Value**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(p\)**-Value**} \\ \cline{3-3} \cline{5-6}  & & **Backs (n:46)** & & & & **Position** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} Triceps skinfold \\ (mm) \\ \end{tabular} } & Male & 12.2 \(\pm\) 5.0 *\({}^{\lambda}\) & 16.9 \(\pm\) 7.4 \({}^{\lambda}\) & & & \\ \cline{2-6}  & Female & 16.4 \(\pm\) 4.7 * & 20.4 \(\pm\) 6.6 & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} Subscapular \\ skinfold (mm) \\ \end{tabular} } & Male & 12.1 \(\pm\) 4.9 \({}^{\lambda}\) & 17.5 \(\pm\) 9.8 \({}^{\lambda}\) & & & \\ \cline{2-6}  & Female & 9.5 \(\pm\) 1.9 \({}^{\lambda}\) & 15.5 \(\pm\) 5.8 \({}^{\lambda}\) & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} Iliac crest \\ skinfold (mm) \\ \end{tabular} } & Male & 13.5 \(\pm\) 8.2 \({}^{\lambda}\) & 20.8 \(\pm\) 10.7 \({}^{\lambda}\) & & & \\ \cline{2-6}  & Female & 12.4 \(\pm\) 6.2 & 16.5 \(\pm\) 7.5 & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} Abdominal \\ skinfold (mm) \\ \end{tabular} } & Male & 21.4 \(\pm\) 10.9 * & 28.3 \(\pm\) 10.6 * & & & \\ \cline{2-6}  & Female & 12.6 \(\pm\) 3.8 * & 21.0 \(\pm\) 6.1 * & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} Front thigh \\ skinfold (mm) \\ \end{tabular} } & Male & 16.1 \(\pm\) 6.7 & 20.0 \(\pm\) 8.7 & & & \\ \cline{2-6}  & Female & 24.0 \(\pm\) 7.1 & 28.2 \(\pm\) 7.3 & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} Medial \\ calf skinfold \\ (mm) \\ \end{tabular} } & Male & 9.9 \(\pm\) 6.5 & 11.4 \(\pm\) 5.4 * & & & \\ \cline{2-6}  & Female & 13.7 \(\pm\) 3.2 \({}^{\lambda}\) & 18.3 \(\pm\) 6.4 *\({}^{\lambda,\lambda}\) & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} Sum of 6 \\ skinfolds (mm) \\ \end{tabular} } & Male & 86.5 \(\pm\) 39.1 \({}^{\lambda}\) & 115.9 \(\pm\) 41.1 \({}^{\lambda}\) & & & & \\ \cline{2-6}  & Female & 98.5 \(\pm\) 27.9 & 114.3 \(\pm\) 32.1 & & & \\ \hline \end{tabular} Data presented as M \(\pm\) SD * Statistically significant differences (\(p\) < 0.05) according to sex for the same position; \({}^{\lambda}\) Statistically significant differences (\(p\) < 0.05) according to position within the same sex.  
\end{table}