## 3 Results  
### Resisted Sprint Performance and Mechanical Variables  
To investigate the impact of resisted sprint training with short rest periods on resisted sprint performance and mechanical variables, we compared the RST40S and RST2M. A 2-way ANOVA (group \(\times\) trial) was performed to examine the effect of rest duration on the interaction effect between group and trial for the RST40S compared with the RST2M. As shown in Table 1, there were no significant differences between RST2M and RST40S at 0-20 m (\(p>0.05\)). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} **Sprint** \\ **Variables** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{**Group**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**M**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**SE**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**95\% CI**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**ANOVA**} \\ \cline{3-10}  & & & & & **LL** & & **UL** & **Group** & **Trial** & **Group \(\times\) Trial** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Sprint time [s]} & RST2M & 4.05 \(\pm\) 0.14 & 0.015 & 4.034 & 4.095 & \(\begin{array}{c}p\\ F\end{array}\) & 0.178 & 1.00 & 0.928 \\ \cline{2-10}  & RST40S & 4.03 \(\pm\) 0.16 & 0.017 & 3.996 & 4.067 & \(\begin{array}{c}p\\ \eta^{2}\end{array}\) & 1.835 & 0.013 & 0.271 \\ \cline{2-10}  & RST2M & 6.64 \(\pm\) 0.28 & 0.030 & 6.561 & 6.680 & \(\begin{array}{c}p\\ \eta^{2}\end{array}\) & 0.494 & 0.997 & 0.356 \\ \cline{2-10}  & RST40S & 6.66 \(\pm\) 0.25 & 0.027 & 6.594 & 6.703 & \(\begin{array}{c}p\\ \eta^{2}\end{array}\) & 0.003 & 0.002 & 0.034 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Peak force [N]} & RST2M & 192.00 \(\pm\) 21.51 & 2.281 & 186.741 & 196.102 & \(\begin{array}{c}p\\ F\end{array}\) & 0.590 & 0.194 & 0.678 \\ \cline{2-10}  & RST40S & 190.56 \(\pm\) 21.72 & 2.303 & 184.839 & 194.378 & \(\begin{array}{c}p\\ \eta^{2}\end{array}\) & 0.292 & 1.497 & 0.628 \\ \cline{2-10}  & RST2M & 1059.95 \(\pm\) 78.53 & 8.325 & 1036.495 & \(\begin{array}{c}p\\ \eta^{2}\end{array}\) & 0.002 & 0.046 & 0.020 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Peak power [W]} & RST2M & 1059.95 \(\pm\) 78.53 & 8.325 & 1036.495 & 1068.911 & \(\begin{array}{c}p\\ F\end{array}\) & 0.621 & 0.992 & 0.152 \\ \cline{2-10}  & RST40S & 1063.26 \(\pm\) 68.39 & 7.249 & 1043.732 & 1072.527 & \(\begin{array}{c}p\\ \eta^{2}\end{array}\) & 0.002 & 0.003 & 1.641 \\ \cline{2-10}  & RST2M & 1.17 \(\pm\) 0.04 & 0.005 & 1.155 & 1.176 & \(\begin{array}{c}p\\ \eta^{2}\end{array}\) & 0.230 & 0.750 & 0.912 \\ \cline{2-10}  & RST40S & 1.17 \(\pm\) 0.05 & 0.006 & 1.164 & 1.186 & \(\begin{array}{c}p\\ \eta^{2}\end{array}\) & 1.449 & 0.535 & 0.301 \\ \cline{2-10}  & RST2M & 4.23 \(\pm\) 0.19 & 0.020 & 4.200 & 4.283 & \(\begin{array}{c}p\\ \eta^{2}\end{array}\) & 0.906 & 0.837 & 0.996 \\ \cline{2-10}  & RST40S & 4.23 \(\pm\) 0.18 & 0.020 & 4.203 & 4.286 & \(\begin{array}{c}p\\ \eta^{2}\end{array}\) & 0.000 & 0.013 & 0.003 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{c} M = mean; SE = standard error; CI = confidence interval; LL = 95\% confidence interval lower limit; UL = 95\% confidence interval upper limit; \(\eta^{2}\) = partial eta squared.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Group \(\times\) Trial differences in resisted sprint performance and mechanical variables at 0–20 m.  
The results in Table 2 reveal no significant differences between RST2M and RST40S at 0-5 m.  
No significant differences between RST2M and RST40S at 10-15 m were observed (Table 4; \(p>0.05\)).