## 3 Results
### The Results Based on Time: Condition Interaction  
The two-way ANOVA showed that the main effect of time (i.e., six linear sprints applied for the RAST) had a statistically significant difference (\(F_{5,75}=187.96\), \(p=0.01\), \(\eta^{2}=0.71\)). However, the main effect of the three experimental conditions (\(F_{2,30}=1.59\),  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variables** & **Groups** & **N** & **Mean** & **SD** & \(F_{\text{(d/1.4/2)}}\) & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\(\mathrm{HR}_{\mathrm{mean}}\)} & CON & 18 & 164.83 & 9.21 & \multirow{4}{*}{0.56\({}_{\text{(2,51)}}\)} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.57} \\  & BS85\% & 18 & 161.00 & 12.03 & & \\  & BS90\% & 18 & 162.28 & 11.57 & & \\  & CON & 18 & 181.00 & 6.63 & & \\ \multirow{4}{*}{\(\mathrm{HR}_{\mathrm{max}}\)} & BS85\% & 18 & 179.11 & 7.26 & \multirow{4}{*}{0.31\({}_{\text{(2,51)}}\)} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.73} \\  & BS90 & 18 & 180.11 & 7.67 & & \\  & CON & 18 & 6.56 & 1.20 & & \\ \multirow{4}{*}{\(\mathrm{RPE}_{\mathrm{score}}\)} & BS85\% & 18 & 6.83 & 1.04 & \multirow{4}{*}{0.31\({}_{\text{(2,51)}}\)} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.73} \\  & BS90\% & 18 & 6.78 & 1.11 & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} _Legend._ CON: control group; BS85%: Smith machine back squat 85% of 1 RM; BS90%: Smith machine back squat 90% of 1 RM; \(F\): \(F\)-value, \(p\)-value: significance level; max: maximum.  
\end{table}
Table 2: Comparisons of potential moderators.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Control Group**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**BS85\% Group**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**BS90\% Group**} \\ \cline{2-11}  & **[PERSON]-** & **[PERSON]-** & **[PERSON]** & **[PERSON]-** & **[PERSON]-** & **[PERSON]** & **[PERSON]-** & **[PERSON]-** & **[PERSON]-** & **[PERSON]** \\  & **[PERSON]** & **[PERSON]** & **[PERSON]** & **[PERSON]** & **[PERSON]** & **[PERSON]** & **[PERSON]** & **[PERSON]** & **[PERSON]** & **[PERSON]** \\  & **(\(\star\))** & **(\(p\)-Value)** & **(\(p\)-Value)** & **(\(\star\))** & **(\(p\)-Value)** & **(\(p\)-Value)** & **(\(\star\))** & **(\(p\)-Value)** & **(\(\star\))** & **(\(p\)-Value)** & **(\(p\)-Value)** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\(\mathrm{HR}_{\mathrm{max}}\)} & 1 & 1 & 0.01 * & 0.01 * & 0.73 & 0.06 & 0.05 & 1 & 0.01 * & 0.01 * \\  & 2 & 0.87 & 0.02 * & 0.01 * & 1 & 0.01 * & 0.01 * & 1 & 0.01 * & 0.01 * \\  & 3 & 0.86 & 0.02 * & 0.01 * & 0.33 & 0.45 & 0.46\(p=0.221,\eta^{2}=0.01\)) and the time-condition interaction did not have a statistically significant difference (\(F_{10,150}=0.78,\)\(p=0.65,\)\(\eta^{2}=0.01\)).  
The time main effect and the time-condition interaction were understood to violate the assumption of sphericity (time: W = 0.077, \(p=0.01\); time-condition: W = 0.00, \(p=0.02\)), and the Greenhouse-Geisser (GG) correction was applied. The GG correction showed a significant effect for the time main effect (\(F_{2,5,37.46}=187.96,\)\(p=0.01\)), while the time-condition interaction was not significant after the GG correction (F\({}_{5,19,77.79}=0.78,\)\(p=0.57\)). The analysis revealed a significant main effect of time but no significant effect on the condition or time-condition interaction. The details of the two-way ANOVA are presented in Figure 3.  
Figure 2: Group-based comparison of RAST metrics. _Legend_. CON: control group; BS85: Smith machine back squat 85% of 1 RM; BS90: Smith machine back squat 90% of 1 RM; \(F\): F-value, \(p\): significance level; \(\omega^{2}\): Omega kare; Cl\({}_{95\%}\): 95% confidence interval lower and upper limit; \(n\): number of participants; (**a**) best RAST score; (**b**) mean RAST score; (**c**) total RAST score.