## 3 Results  
The results of the analysis on leg length differences by sport type revealed that the absolute lengths of the tibia and tibia + femur were significantly shorter in the LD group compared to the MD group (\(p\) = 0.019; \(p\) = 0.011, respectively). However, no significant differences were observed between the groups when leg length was expressed as a relative value to height (Table 2).  
A significant correlation was observed between the tibia length relative to height and physical performance variables, including muscular strength, muscular endurance, muscular power, agility, flexibility, and lower limb anaerobic peak power (\(p\) < 0.05 for both).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Variable**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Groups**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**LD (n = 41)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**MD (n = 87)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**HD (n = 184)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**F**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**_p-Value_**} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{6-6}  & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{6}{l}{absolute leg length} \\ \hline tibia (cm) & 34.80 \(\pm\) 2.86 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 36.35 \(\pm\) 2.93 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 35.86 \(\pm\) 3.09 & 3.695 & 0.026 \({}^{\text{*}}\) \\ \hline femur (cm) & 42.84 \(\pm\) 3.05 & 44.17 \(\pm\) 3.72 & 43.69 \(\pm\) 2.71 & 2.655 & 0.072 \\ \hline femur + tibia (cm) & 77.63 \(\pm\) 4.93 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 80.52 \(\pm\) 5.90 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 79.55 \(\pm\) 4.97 & 4.244 & 0.015 \({}^{\text{*}}\) \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{l}{relative leg length} \\ \hline tibia, \% of body length & 20.82 \(\pm\) 1.10 & 21.20 \(\pm\) 1.10 & 21.15 \(\pm\) 1.26 & 1.495 & 0.226 \\ \hline femur, \% of body height & 25.65 \(\pm\) 1.28 & 25.75 \(\pm\) 1.23 & 25.78 \(\pm\) 1.01 & 0.240 & 0.787 \\ \hline femur + tibia, \% of body height & 46.47 \(\pm\) 1.41 & 46.95 \(\pm\) 1.48 & 46.93 \(\pm\) 1.40 & 1.869 & 0.156 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* LD: low dynamic sport; MD: moderate dynamic sport; HD: high dynamic sport. Significance (\(p\) < 0.05) is denoted by the following: \({}^{\text{a}}\): relative to LD, \({}^{\text{b}}\): relative to MD. Differences between groups: \({}^{\text{a}}\): \(p\) < 0.05.
* \end{table}
Table 2: Differences in leg length according to activity level.  
A significant correlation was found between femur length relative to the height and physical performance variables, specifically muscular power and flexibility (\(p<0.05\) for both).  
A significant correlation was observed between the tibia + femur length relative to the height and physical performance variables, including muscular strength, muscular power, agility, flexibility, cardiorespiratory endurance, and lower limb anaerobic peak power (\(p<0.05\) for both) (Table 3; Figure 2).  
Figure 2: Relationships between the relative leg lengths and physical performance. (**A**) Tibia length; (**B**) femur length; and (**C**) tibia + femur length. The leg lengths were normalized with body height to calculate relative leg lengths, which were expressed as percentages (i.e., the % of body height).  
In the correlation analysis between relative leg length by sport group and physical performance, tibia length showed a stronger correlation with agility (10 m shuttle run test) in the HD group. On the other hand, femur length exhibited a higher correlation with muscular power (standing long jump test) in the MD group compared to the other groups (Table 3; Figure 3).