# Effects of Specific Training Using a Rowing Ergometer on Sport Performance in Adolescents
## 3 Results  
Table 2 shows the frequency analysis of the sample. Participants were divided according to sex, group, age, and age category (Table 2). The analysis of the descriptive statistics by sample group shows that control group subjects obtained lower averages in all phases of the study, compared to the experimental group (Table 3). Figure 1 shows the evolution of the averages obtained by the different groups according to the phase of the study. This graph shows a positive evolution for both study groups, but it is higher in the experimental group (\(\mathrm{dif_{pre-test/post-test}}\) = +29.94 W) with respect to the control group (\(\mathrm{dif_{pre-test/post-test}}\) = +5.88 W). Statistically significant differences were found between groups (F\({}_{(3,216)}\) = 0.81; two-way ANOVA and Holm-Sidak test). Table 4 analyzes the influence of the category to which subjects belong in the study groups. There is an improvement in the mean values obtained in the parameters of muscular strength (W), which is statistically higher in those subjects in the experimental group (EG10-11 years old: \(\mathrm{diff_{pre/post-test}}\) = +15.82 W; EG12-13 years old: \(\mathrm{diff_{pre/post-test}}\) = +39.35 W) than that obtained by the control groups (CG10-11 years old: \(\mathrm{diff_{pre/post-test}}\) = +4.56 W; CG12-13 years old: \(\mathrm{diff_{pre/post-test}}\) = +7.21 W). In addition, the measurements obtained by the 12-13-year-old subjects are statistically higher than those of the subjects aged 10-11 years old (Table 4). [F\({}_{(9.208)}\) = 0.54; two-way ANOVA and Holm-Sidak test; \(p<0.05\)]. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Frequency**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Percentage (\%)**} \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Age (years)} & 10 & 9 & 16.07 \\  & 11 & 13 & 23.21 \\  & 12 & 18 & 32.14 \\  & 13 & 16 & 28.57 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Sex} & Male & 32 & 57.14 \\  & Female & 24 & 42.85 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Group} & Control & 26 & 46.42 \\  & Experimental & 30 & 53.57 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Category} & 10–11 years old & 25 & 44.64 \\  & 12–13 years old & 31 & 55.35 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Frequency analysis. Figure 1: Evolution of the averages obtained (W) on the rowing ergometer. Statistically significant interaction between tests and groups were found [F\({}_{(3,216)}\) = 0.81; two-way ANOVA and Holm-Sidak test; \({}^{*}\), \(p<0.05\); \({}^{**}\), \(p<0.001\)]. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline  & **Control (Mean \(\pm\) SEM)** & **Experimental (Mean \(\pm\) SEM)** \\ \hline Pre-test (W) & 134.21 \(\pm\) 8.99 & 156.89 \(\pm\) 8.01 \\ Intermediate-test (W) & 137.13 \(\pm\) 8.98 & 179.44 \(\pm\) 10.56 \\ Post-test (W) & 140.10 \(\pm\) 9.21 & 186.83 \(\pm\) 10.69 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Descriptive statistics by group. Figure 2 offers the evolution of the different values obtained by sex and the study group. Although the improvement is noticeable in both groups, there is a more prominent positive trend in the experimental groups, especially in the male group. Table 5 examines how sex influences the study groups, and how the averages obtained in the experimental group are statistically higher than those obtained in the control group in both male and female cases [F\({}_{(9,208)}\) = 0.39; two-way ANOVA and Holm-Sidak test]. Comparing changes produced throughout the different phases of the study by sex, an improvement can be seen for both the control group (male CG: \(\text{diff}_{\text{pre/post-test}}\) = +3.86 W; female CG: \(\text{diff}_{\text{pre/post-test}}\) = +8.65 W), and the experimental group (male EG: \(\text{diff}_{\text{pre/post-test}}\) = +34.06 W; female EG: \(\text{diff}_{\text{pre/post-test}}\) = +24.54 W), although the change is statistically more pronounced in the latter (Table 5).