## 3 Results  
The Shapiro-Wilk test confirmed a normal distribution of all variables. A one-way ANOVA showed a significant effect of the overload condition on \(\
u_{\rm{max}}\) (F = 508.3; \(p<\) 0.001; \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.95). The post hoc analysis revealed a significant decrease in \(\
u_{\rm{max}}\) from MiL to MoL (MD [95 CI] = 0.56 [0.47-0.66] m/s; \(p<\) 0.001), from MiL to HiL (MD [95 CI] = 2.29 [2.04-2.54] m/s; \(p<\) 0.001), and from MoL to HiL (MD [95 CI] = 1.73 [1.53-2.92] m/s; \(p<\) 0.001). The results of a two-way ANOVA are shown in Table 1. There was no significant interaction effect for F\({}_{\rm r}\), F\({}_{\rm avg}\), and P\({}_{\rm avg}\) (F \(\leq\) 1.3; \(p\)\(\geq\) 0.286); however, the main effects of overload and method were observed for these variables (F \(\geq\) 24.7; \(p\)\(<\) 0.001). In all overload conditions, the HRD yielded significantly lower F\({}_{\rm r}\), F\({}_{\rm avg}\), and P\({}_{\rm avg}\) than the FP (Table 2). Regardless of the calculation method, F\({}_{\rm r}\) increased significantly with the overload and was highest in HiL (Table 3 and Figure 2). F\({}_{\rm avg}\) and P\({}_{\rm avg}\) were highest at HiL, with no significant difference between MiL and MoL (Table 3 and Figure 2). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Variable**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Overload**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Calculation Method**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Two-Way ANOVA**} \\ \cline{3-5}  & & **FP** & **HRD** & **Main Effect** & **Interaction** \\ \hline F\({}_{\rm r}\) & MiL & 16.86 (2.64) & 13.53 (2.28) & _ overload_: F = 6167.0; \(p\)\(<\) 0.001; \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.99 & _overload_\(\times\)_method_: F = 1.3; \\ (N) & MiL & 35.55 (3.78) & 33.11 (3.64) & _method_: F = 28.2; \(p\)\(<\) 0.001; \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.51 & \(p\) = 0.286; \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.04 \\  & HiL & 114.80 (6.60) & 110.60 (4.13) & _overload_: F = 120.4; \(p\)\(<\) 0.001; \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.82 & _overload_\(\times\)_method_: F = 0.5; \\ \hline F\({}_{\rm avg}\) & MiL & 2.24 (0.30) & 2.19 (0.28) & _overload_: F = 120.4; \(p\)\(<\) 0.001; \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.82 & _overload_\(\times\)_method_: F = 0.5; \\ (N/kg) & MiL & 2.23 (0.37) & 2.24 (0.37) & _method_: F = 30.5; \(p\)\(<\) 0.001; \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.53 & \(p\) = 0.589; \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.02 \\  & HiL & 2.72 (0.28) & 2.67 (0.25) & _overload_: F = 16.3; \(p\)\(<\) 0.001; \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.38 & _overload_\(\times\)_method_: F = 0.5; \\ \hline P\({}_{\rm avg}\) & MiL & 8.77 (1.72) & 8.56 (1.60) & _overload_: F = 16.3; \(p\)\(<\) 0.001; \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.38 & _overload_\(\times\)_method_: F = 0.5; \\ (W/kg) & MiL & 8.73 (1.71) & 8.55 (1.55) & _method_: F = 24.7; \(p\)\(<\) 0.001; \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.48 & \(p\) = 0.587; \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.02 \\  & HiL & 9.72 (1.98) & 9.47 (1.83) & _overload_: F = 16.3; \(p\)\(<\) 0.001; \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.38 & _overload_\(\times\)_method_: F = 0.5; \\ \hline F\({}_{\rm 0}\) & MiL & 7.44 (0.99) & 7.33 (0.99) & _overload_: F = 49.5; \(p\)\(<\) 0.001; \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.65 & _overload_\(\times\)_method_: F = 27.2; \\ (N/kg) & MiL & 8.05 (1.04) & 7.59 (0.88) & _method_: F = 152.6; \(p\)\(<\) 0.001; \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.85 & \(p\) \(<\) 0.001; \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.50 \\  & HiL & 9.24 (1.19) & 8.82 (1.10) & _overload_: F = 14.52; \(p\)\(<\) 0.001; \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.35 & _overload_\(\times\)_method_: F = 12.9; \\ (m/s) & MiL & 7.29 (0.72) & 7.36 (0.70) & _method_: F = 109.0; \(p\)\(<\) 0.001; \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.80 & \(p\) \(<\) 0.001; \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.32 \\  & HiL & 6.23 (1.08) & 6.31 (1.06) & _overload_: F = 14.50; \(p\)\(<\) 0.001; \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.35 & _overload_\(\times\)_method_: F = 12.9; \\ \hline P\({}_{\rm max}\) & MiL & 14.32 (2.60) & 14.08 (2.53) & _overload_: F = 0.24; \(p\)\(=\) 0.77; \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.01 & _overload_\(\times\)_method_: F = 14.7; \\ (W/kg) & MiL & 14.70 (2.63) & 14.01 (2.34) & _method_: F = 103.1; \(p\)\(<\) 0.001; \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.80 & \(p\) \(<\) 0.001 \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.13 \\  & HiL & 14.39 (3.03) & 13.90 (2.90) & _overload_: F = 14.01 (2.80) & _overload_: F = 14.7; \\  & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}