## 3 Results
### Non-Contact Boxing Training Outcomes
#### 3.2.3 Metabolic Responses  
Table 5 shows that PDCI participants exhibited a significantly lower VO2 avg than controls in all rounds of both sessions (\(p\leq 0.05\)). In session one, PDCI participants also showed a significantly lower VO2 avg than PD non-CI participants in the first two rounds (\(p\) = 0.024, \(p\) = 0.019). PD non-CI participants showed a significantly lower VO2 avg than controls in the second and third rounds (\(p\) = 0.043, \(p\) = 0.011) of session one, and all rounds of session two (\(p\leq 0.05\)). The %VO2 peak was significantly lower in PDCI participants compared to controls across all rounds of session one and two (\(p\leq 0.05\)), but only in rounds one and two of session one when compared to PD non-CI participants (\(p\leq 0.05\)). PD non-CI participants showed a significantly lower %VO2 peak in rounds one, two, and three (\(p\leq 0.05\)), but not in round four (\(p\geq 0.05\)) of session one, and in all rounds of session two compared to controls (\(p\leq 0.05\)). The VO2 avg (\(p\) = 0.71) and %VO2 peak (\(p\) = 0.67) were not significantly different between boxing session one and two for all participants. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline  & **PDCI** & **PD Non-CI** & **Control** \\  & **(\(\mathbf{n}\) = 11)** & **(\(\mathbf{n}\) = 14)** & **(\(\mathbf{n}\) = 14)** \\ \hline HI-85\% & & & \\ Round 1 S1 & 43.6 \(\pm\) 9.83 [24; 63] \({}^{*}\) & 65.5 \(\pm\) 8.06 [49; 82] & 74.4 \(\pm\) 7.98 [58; 90] \\ Round 1 S2 & 49.0 \(\pm\) 9.25 [30; 68] \({}^{*}\) & 66.3 \(\pm\) 7.02 [52; 80] & 85.8 \(\pm\) 7.31 [52; 80] \\ Round 2 S1 & 52.0 \(\pm\) 10.17 [32; 72] \({}^{*}\) & 74.6 \(\pm\) 8.06 [58; 91] & 86.2 \(\pm\) 7.94 [70; 102] \\ Round 2 S2 & 64.7 \(\pm\) 9.35 [46; 84] & 75.8 \(\pm\) 7.02 [62; 90] & 89.3 \(\pm\) 7.39 [62; 90] \\ Round 3 S1 & 65.2 \(\pm\) 10.17 [45; 85] \({}^{*}\) & 84.0 \(\pm\) 8.17 [68; 100] & 93.9 \(\pm\) 7.94 [78; 110] \\ Round 3 S2 & 80.8 \(\pm\) 9.35 [62; 100] & 80.5 \(\pm\) 7.22 [66; 95] & 87.5 \(\pm\) 7.39 [66; 95] \\ Round 4 S1 & 71.4 \(\pm\) 10.17 [51; 92] & 83.5 \(\pm\) 8.30 [69; 100] & 90. \(\pm\) 7.94 [74; 106] \\ Round 4 S2 & 84.4 \(\pm\) 9.53 [62; 104] & 81.6 \(\pm\) 7.22 [67; 96] & 96.7 \(\pm\) 7.47 [82; 112] \\ HI-VT2 & & & \\ Round 1 S1 & 13.0 \(\pm\) 11.57 [\(-\)10, 36] \({}^{*}\) & 37.0 \(\pm\) 9.40 [18; 56] & 59.4 \(\pm\) 9.23 [41; 78] \\ Round 1 S2 & 27.2 \(\pm\) 11.82 [34; 51] \({}^{*}\) & 37.2 \(\pm\) 8.98 [19; 55] \({}^{*}\) & 70.8 \(\pm\) 9.32 [52; 90] \\ Round 2 S1 & 29.1 \(\pm\) 12.04 [49; 53] \({}^{*}\) & 49.1 \(\pm\) 9.40 [30; 68] \({}^{*}\) & 78.1 \(\pm\) 9.17 [60; 97] \\ Round 2 S2 & 42.3 \(\pm\) 11.99 [18; 66] & 52.5 \(\pm\) 8.98 [34; 71] & 75.5 \(\pm\) 9.44 [57; 94] \\ Round 3 S1 & 53.7 \(\pm\) 12.04 [29; 78] \({}^{*}\) & 66.6 \(\pm\) 9.57 [47; 86] & 92.1 \(\pm\) 9.17 [74; 111] \\ Round 3 S2 & 66.4 \(\pm\) 11.99 [42; 90] & 67.5 \(\pm\) 9.24 [49; 86] & 76.0 \(\pm\) 9.44 [57; 95] \\ Round 4 S1 & 59.0 \(\pm\) 12.04 [35; 83] & 66.6 \(\pm\) 9.77 [47; 86] & 87.3 \(\pm\) 9.17 [69; 106] \\ Round 4 S2 & 71.4 \(\pm\) 12.24 [47; 96] & 66.5 \(\pm\) 9.24 [48; 85] & 87.0 \(\pm\) 9.55 [68; 106] \\ \hline \end{tabular}  
All values are in mean \(\pm\) SE (95% confidence interval). HI-85%: percentage of time spent at and above 85% of maximum heart rate obtained from the cardiopulmonary exercise test; HI-VT2: percentage of time spent at and above the second ventilatory threshold (VT2); \({}^{*}\)\(p\)\(\leq\) 0.05 vs. control; \({}^{*}\)\(p\)\(\leq\) 0.05 vs. PD non-CI; \(\mathbf{n}\)\(p\)\(\leq\) 0.05 between sessions.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Percentage of time exercised \(\geq\) 85% HRmax (HI-85%) and \(\geq\) VT2 (HI-VT2) for each round during the first and second boxing sessions. Three PDCI participants, three PD non-CI participants, and one control were unable to complete the four rounds of at least one session. Thus, their data were not included in the EE analysis (Table 5). In session one, the EE was significantly lower in PDCI participants than controls (\(p\) = 0.03), but not PD non-CI participants (\(p\) = 0.12).