## 3 Results  
All athletes completed the measurements without injuries. Table 1 presents the results of anthropometric characteristics, body composition, CMJ performance and VL muscle architecture characteristics. Weightlifters had 3.7% lower body height compared to throwers. In addition, throwers had 20.9% greater trunk lean mass compared to weightlifters, but weightlifters had 21.2% higher CMJ height and produced 8.2% more power relative to body mass. Interestingly, weightlifters had a significant 13.8% higher VL fascicle length and 17.1% higher VL fascicle length relative to body height compared to throwers. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variable** & **Weightlifters** & **Throwers** & \(p\) & **Cohen’s d** \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{Body Composition} \\ \hline Body mass (kg) & \(91.9\pm 11.4\) & \(98.4\pm 5.3\) & 0.164 & 0.734 \\ Body height (m) & \(1.78\pm 0.06\) & \(1.83\pm 0.06\)* & 0.039 & 1.136 \\ Fat (\%) & \(16.9\pm 2.9\) & \(18.3\pm 4.4\) & 0.483 & 0.360 \\ BMD (gr-cm\({}^{-2}\)) & \(1.475\pm 0.09\) & \(1.441\pm 0.04\) & 0.342 & 0.495 \\ LMI (kg-m\({}^{-2}\)) & \(23.1\pm 1.9\) & \(23.1\pm 1.2\) & 0.988 & 0.006 \\ Total lean mass (kg) & \(72.2\pm 8.2\) & \(77.5\pm 4.7\) & 0.132 & 0.799 \\ Legs lean mass (kg) & \(26.4\pm 2.8\) & \(25.3\pm 3.7\) & 0.497 & 0.348 \\ Trunk Lean Mass (kg) & \(32.2\pm 4.9\) & \(38.9\pm 3.4\)* & 0.007 & 1.588 \\ Arms lean mass (kg) & \(9.1\pm 1.1\) & \(8.3\pm 1.0\) & 0.164 & 0.736 \\ Trunk and arms lean mass (kg) & \(41.3\pm 5.9\) & \(47.2\pm 3.1\)* & 0.025 & 1.252 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Results of anthropometric characteristics, body composition, CMJ variables and VL muscle architecture for weightlifters and throwers. Figure 1A presents the force in absolute values during the isometric leg press test. No significant difference was found between groups. However, when force was expressed per total lean mass, weightlifters produced 24.5% more force at 80 ms (\(p\) = 0.045, d = 1.102), 24.5% more force at 100 ms (\(p\) = 0.031, d = 1.120) and 21.7% more force at 150 ms (\(p\) = 0.036, d = 1.159) compared to throwers (Figure 1B). Similarly, Figure 1C presents the RFD in absolute values. No significant difference was observed between weightlifters and throwers. However, when RFD was expressed relative to total lean mass, weightlifters had 24.1% higher RFD at 80 ms (\(p\) = 0.045, d = 1.102), 24.6% higher RFD at 100 ms (\(p\) = 0.031, d = 1.202) and 21.8% higher RFD at 150 ms (\(p\) = 0.036, d = 1.159) (Figure 1D). Performance in 1-RM strength in snatch and back squat is presented in Figure 2. Weightlifters had 22.8% greater 1-RM strength in snatch (\(p\) = 0.001, d = 2.161) and 13.2% greater 1-RM strength in back squat (\(p\) = 0.038, d = 1.188) compared to throwers. Table 2 presents the correlation coefficients between snatch and back squat with LMI and CMJ (\(n\) = 16). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline \hline  & **LMI** & **CMJ Height** & **CMJ Power** & **CMJ Power per BM** \\ \hline Snatch & 0.498 * & 0.685 ** & 0.528 * & 0.558 * \\ Back Squat & 0.667 * & 0.553 * & 0.522 * & 0.342 \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{5}{l}{* \(p\) \(<\) 0.05, ** \(p\) \(<\) 0.01, RFD = rate of force development, LMI = lean mass index, CMJ = countermovement jump.} \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Correlation coefficients between snatch and back squat with LMI and CMJ (\(n\) = 16). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline \hline  & **RFD30** & **RFD50** & **RFD80** & **RFD100** & **RFD150** & **RFD200** & **RFD250** \\  & **ms** & **ms** & **ms** & **ms** & **ms** & **ms** \\ \hline Snatch & 0.550 * & 0.593 * & 0.608 * & 0.627 ** & 0.637 ** & 0.610 * & 0.605 * \\ Back Squat & 0.521 * & 0.534 * & 0.502 * & 0.527 * & 0.539 * & 0.521 * & 0.515 * \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* \(p\) \(<\) 0.05, ** \(p\) \(<\) 0.01, RFD = Rate of force development.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Correlation coefficients between snatch and back squat with isometric leg press rate of force development (\(n\) = 16).