## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Test** & **Group** & **Mean** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Std.** \\ **Deviation** \\ \end{tabular} & **Error** & **a-b** & **Sig.b** & **a-c** & **Sig.b** & **b-c** & **Sig.b** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} One standing \\ Balance test \\ \end{tabular} } & a. underweight & 11.557 & 9.936 & 1.286 & \multirow{3}{*}{4.947 *} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.002} & \multirow{3}{*}{6.245 *} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.000} & \multirow{3}{*}{1.298} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.492} \\  & b. normal weight & 6.610 & 6.135 & 0.559 & & & & & \\  & c. overweight & 5.312 & 2.990 & 0.743 & & & & & \\  & a. underweight & 41.857 & 4.855 & 1.383 & & & & & \\  & b. normal weight & 41.950 & 5.630 & 0.601 & & & & & \\  & c. overweight & 41.047 & 7.778 & 0.798 & & & & & \\  & a. underweight & 4.213 & 4.347 & 0.721 & & & & & \\  & b. normal weight & 4.489 & 3.838 & 0.314 & & \multirow{3}{*}{0.000} & \multirow{3}{*}{1.342} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.326} & \multirow{3}{*}{1.627 *} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.006} \\  & c. overweight & 2.871 & 1.245 & 0.416 & & & & & \\  & a. underweight & 4.047 & 3.556 & 0.800 & & & & & \\  & b. normal weight & 5.099 & 2.954 & 0.348 & & \multirow{3}{*}{0.051} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.689} & \multirow{3}{*}{-5.619 *} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.000} & \multirow{3}{*}{-4.568 *} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.000} \\  & c. overweight & 9.666 & 4.700 & 0.462 & & & & & \\  & a. underweight & 66.000 & 14.679 & 2.806 & & & & & \\  & b. normal weight & 73.639 & 12.584 & 1.220 & & \multirow{3}{*}{0.040} & \multirow{3}{*}{3.762} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.741} & \multirow{3}{*}{11.402 *} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.000} \\  & c. overweight & 62.238 & 12.708 & 1.620 & & & & & \\ Walk and turn & a. underweight & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.116 & & & & & \\ field sobriety & b. normal weight & 0.162 & 0.437 & 0.051 & \(-\)0.162 & 0.607 & \(-\)0.571 * & 0.000 & \(-\)0.409 * & 0.000 \\ test & c. overweight & 0.571 & 0.734 & 0.067 & & & & & \\  & a. underweight & 17.190 & 21.671 & 5.611 & & & & & \\ Fukuda test & b. normal weight & 18.927 & 23.760 & 2.440 & \(-\)1.737 & 1.000 & \(-\)13.048 & 0.136 & \(-\)11.310 * & 0.017 \\  & c. overweight & 30.238 & 29.899 & 3.239 & & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Analysis of the significance of the differences between the mean values on BMI steps in the balance tests. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **BMI** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **One Leg** \\ **Standing** \\ \end{tabular} & **Functional** & **Stork** & **Flamingo** & **Bass** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Walk and** \\ **Turn** \\ \end{tabular} & **Fukuda** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{BMI} & \(\rho\) (rho) & 1.000 & \(-\)0.106 & \(-\)0.067 & \(-\)0.197 * & 0.468 * & \(-\)0.212 ** & 0.414 * & 0.261 * \\  & Sig. &. & 0.139 & 0.352 & 0.006 & 0.000 & 0.003 & 0.000 & 0.000 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).  
\end{table} 
Table 7: The value of Spearman correlations between BMI values and performance in balance tests. functional reach test (\(p\) = 0.657 and only 0.4% of the variance explained by the influence of BMI framing steps). The comparative analysis of the average values between pairs, at the level of the independent gender variable, identifies 3 cases of significant differences, all in favor of women: one standing balance test (\(p\) = 0.000), flamingo test (\(p\) = 0.000) and functional reach test (\(p\) = 0.046), according to Table 5. Thus, hypothesis 1 (H1) is partially confirmed. The group of women has better values (makes fewer mistakes) also in the walk and turn field sobriety test, but no significant differences were reported (\(p\) = 0.161). The superior result of the group of women in the functional reach test could be favorably influenced also by the better level of flexibility of the spine (specific to the female gender), so it must be viewed with caution.