## 3 Results
### Energy and Fatigue Combined
#### 3.3.4 High Energy/High Fatigue vs. High Energy/Low Fatigue  
Post hoc between-group comparisons showed that the high-energy and high-fatigue group had significantly less variation in left leg heel strike angle, variation in right arm swing velocity, and less variation in right arm ROM compared to individuals who reported being high-energy and low-fatigue.  
_High Energy/High Fatigue vs. Low Energy/High Fatigue_  
Group comparisons found that individuals who reported being highly energetic and highly fatigued had significantly less imbalance between legs for double leg support time compared to individuals who were low energy and high fatigue.  
_High Energy/High Fatigue vs. Low Energy/Low Fatigue_  
Individuals who reported being highly energetic and highly fatigued had greater variation in turn angles compared to individuals who reported being low energy and low fatigue.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variable** & **High Energy/Low Fatigue** & **High Energy/High Fatigue** & **Sig.** & \(\mathbf{d}\) \\ \hline  & Means \(\pm\) SD & Means \(\pm\) SD & & \\ \hline Variation R Arm Swing & 50.5 \(\pm\) 26.9 & 35.24 \(\pm\) 14.73 & 0.004 & 0.70 \\ Velocity (\({}^{\circ}\)/s) & & & & \\ \hline Variation L Heel Strike Angle & 1.90 \(\pm\) 0.48 & 1.61 \(\pm\) 0.35 & 0.033 & 0.69 \\ (\({}^{\circ}\)) & & & & \\ \hline Variation R Arm ROM (\({}^{\circ}\)) & 8.66 \(\pm\) 4.25 & 6.77 \(\pm\) 2.29 & 0.045 & 0.55 \\ \hline  & **Low Energy/Low Fatigue** & **Low Energy/High Fatigue** & & \\ \hline Variation Max. Lumbar R Rot & 6.57 \(\pm\) 3.74 & 4.15 \(\pm\) 2.7 & 0.018 & 0.74 \\ ROM (\({}^{\circ}\)) & & & & \\ \hline Variation Max. Back L Rot & 6.44 \(\pm\) 3.82 & 4.11 \(\pm\) 2.72 & 0.032 & 0.70 \\ ROM (\({}^{\circ}\)) & & & & \\ \hline  & **High Energy/High Fatigue** & **Low Energy/High Fatigue** & & \\ \hline Imbalance DLS-GCT between legs (\%) & 0.42 \(\pm\) 0.41 & 0.73 \(\pm\) 0.42 & 0.045 & \(-\)0.75 \\ \hline  & **High Energy/Low Fatigue** & **Low Energy/High Fatigue** & & \\ \hline Variation R Arm Swing & 50.5 \(\pm\) 26.9 & 38.19 \(\pm\) 18.78 & 0.022 & 0.53 \\ Velocity (\({}^{\circ}\)/s) & & & & \\ \hline Mean R Arm ROM (\({}^{\circ}\)) & 44.72 \(\pm\) 16.81 & 36.56 \(\pm\) 14.23 & 0.048 & 0.52 \\ \hline  & **High Energy/Low Fatigue** & **Low Energy/Low Fatigue** & & \\ \hline Variation R Toe Off Angle (\({}^{\circ}\)) & 1.61 \(\pm\) 0.5 & 1.3 \(\pm\) 0.29 & 0.049 & 0.76 \\ \hline Imbalance Arm Swing velocity & 209.95 \(\pm\) 65.67 & 164.94 \(\pm\) 40.06 & 0.042 & 0.83 \\ between arms (\({}^{\circ}\)/s) & & & & \\ \hline  & **High Energy/High Fatigue** & **Low Energy/Low Fatigue** & & \\ \hline Variation Turns Angle (\({}^{\circ}\)) & 6.07 \(\pm\) 1.43 & 4.88 \(\pm\) 1.13 & 0.018 & 0.92 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 7: Post hoc significant differences between groups for energy and fatigue.  
High Energy/Low Fatigue vs. Low Energy/High Fatigue  
Post hoc between-group comparisons found that individuals who reported being high energy and low fatigue had significantly greater variation in right upper arm swing velocity and greater mean right upper arm ROM compared to individuals who were low energy and high fatigue.  
High Energy/Low Fatigue vs. Low Energy/Low Fatigue  
Group comparisons found that individuals who reported being high energy and low fatigue had significantly higher variations in right leg toe off angle and slower arm swing velocity compared to individuals who were low energy/low fatigue.  
Low Energy/High Fatigue vs. Low Energy/Low Fatigue  
Individuals reporting low energy/high fatigue had significantly lower variation in maximum lumbar bending to the right and rotation ROM to the left side compared to individuals who were low energy and low fatigue.