## 3 Results  
Table 2 illustrates the distribution of the running parameters across different ACWRs. CT generally increases as the workload progresses from underload to danger zone across all conditions. FT, instead, slightly decreases, increasing the load. K\({}_{\text{vert}}\) shows a decrease in the danger zone compared to other conditions.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} External Load \\ Data \\ \end{tabular} } & \begin{tabular}{c} Acute-Chronic Workload Ratio, computed based on \\ total distance (TD) [m], running meters at speeds \textgreater{} 19.8 km/h \\ (HS19) [m], running meters at speeds \textgreater{} 25.2 km/h (HS25) [m], \\ and mechanical work (MW) \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} Running \\ Parameters \\ \end{tabular} } &
\begin{tabular}{c} Average vertical stiffness (kN/m), average vertical stiffness \\ z-score, average contact time (ms), average contact time z-score, \\ average flight time (ms), average flight time z-score, and \\ average speed (km/h) \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Extracted external load data and running parameters.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**ACWR**} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Load** \\ **Condition** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Contact Time** \\ **(ms)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Flight Time** \\ **(ms)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Vertical** \\ **Stiffness** \\ **(kN/m)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Total Distance (TD)} & Underload & 212 \(\pm\) 26 & 106 \(\pm\) 25 & 59.8 \(\pm\) 6.5 \\  & Sweet spot & 217 \(\pm\) 26 & 95 \(\pm\) 23 & 59.3 \(\pm\) 6.5 \\  & Danger zone & 227 \(\pm\) 27 & 95 \(\pm\) 24 & 54.7 \(\pm\) 6.4 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} Speed \textgreater{} 19.8 km/h \\ (HS19) \\ \end{tabular} } & Underload & 209 \(\pm\) 25 & 102 \(\pm\) 23 & 60.5 \(\pm\) 6.3 \\  & Sweet spot & 217 \(\pm\) 26 & 94 \(\pm\) 23 & 59.4 \(\pm\) 6.5 \\  & Danger zone & 226 \(\pm\) 26 & 95 \(\pm\) 24 & 55.1 \(\pm\) 6.2 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} Speed \textgreater{} 25.2 km/h \\ (HS25) \\ \end{tabular} } & Underload & 219 \(\pm\) 27 & 96 \(\pm\) 24 & 58.1 \(\pm\) 5.7 \\  & Sweet spot & 216 \(\pm\) 26 & 95 \(\pm\) 23 & 59.9 \(\pm\) 6.8 \\  & Danger zone & 224 \(\pm\) 26 & 94 \(\pm\) 23 & 56.3 \(\pm\) 6.9 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} Mechanical work \\ (MW) \\ \end{tabular} } & Underload & 215 \(\pm\) 26 & 97 \(\pm\) 23 & 58.5 \(\pm\) 4.6 \\  & Sweet spot & 217 \(\pm\) 26 & 95 \(\pm\) 23 & 59.5 \(\pm\) 6.5 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Danger zone & 212 \(\pm\) 26 & 106 \(\pm\) 25 & 59.8 \(\pm\) 6.5 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Running parameters’ distributions.  
Kvert demonstrates statistically significant differences in distinguishing the danger zone group from the other two groups across all ACWR calculation methods, as shown in Table 3. In contrast, FT does not reveal significant differences between groups, as indicated in Table 4. CT differentiates athletes in the sweet spot from those in the danger zone under most ACWR methods; however, only the HS19 method identifies differences between underload and danger zone, as detailed in Table 5. The complete results, including all statistical comparisons across workload ratios, presented in Tables 3-5, support these observations: for CT, significant differences between athletes in the sweet spot and in the danger zone are noted in TD, HS19, and HS25 ACWRs, with effect sizes ([PERSON]'s d) of 0.37, 0.33, and 0.28, respectively. For Kvert, significant differences are present between the danger zone and both other conditions across all parameters (TD, HS19, HS25, MW), with very strong effect sizes for TD (d = 0.91), HS19 (d = 0