## 3 Results
### Maximum Strength  
The results for 1 RMs in absolute terms are shown in Table 1. Figure 2 illustrates the mean and individual changes in relative strength in bench press and bench pull within HL, LL, and CON, respectively. Maximal strength tests revealed large main effects for the time (i.e., from pre to post) for relative strength in bench press (F = 18.184, \(p\) < 0.001, partial \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.532) and bench pull (F = 13.507, \(p\) = 0.002, partial \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.458), as well as for the interaction effect group \({}^{\star}\) time (F = 5.255, \(p\) = 0.018, partial \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.963) for relative strength in bench pull. The Scheffe test showed that the relative strength in bench press increased significantly in HL (0.72 \(\pm\) 0.08 kg\(\cdot\)kg\({}^{-1}\) to 0.82 \(\pm\) 0.10 kg\(\cdot\)kg\({}^{-1}\), d = -2.561, \(p\) < 0.05) and LL (0.63 \(\pm\) 0.14 kg\(\cdot\)kg\({}^{-1}\) to 0.67 \(\pm\) 0.13 kg\(\cdot\)kg\({}^{-1}\), d = -0.780, \(p\) < 0.05) but not in CON (0.66 \(\pm\) 017 kg\(\cdot\)kg\({}^{-1}\) to 0.68 \(\pm\) 0.14 kg\(\cdot\)kg\({}^{-1}\)) and the relative strength in bench pull increased significantly in HL (0.81 \(\pm\) 0.04 kg\(\cdot\)kg\({}^{-1}\) to 0.93 \(\pm\) 0.04 kg\(\cdot\)kg\({}^{-1}\), d = -2.754, \(p\) < 0.05) and LL (0.69 \(\pm\) 0.10 kg\(\cdot\)kg\({}^{-1}\) to 0.80 \(\pm\) 0.13 kg\(\cdot\)kg\({}^{-1}\), d = -0.926, \(p\) < 0.05) but not in CON (0.84 \(\pm\) 0.14 kg\(\cdot\)kg\({}^{-1}\) to 0.83 \(\pm\) 0.11 kg\(\cdot\)kg\({}^{-1}\)) from pre-test to post-test, respectively. The group differences determined by the Scheffe test showed significant differences between HL and LL, as well as HL and CON, for relative strength in bench press (\(p\) < 0.05), as well as significant differences between HL and CON, as well as LL and CON, for relative strength in bench pull (\(p\) < 0.05). No significant differences could be determined between HL and LL for relative strength in bench pull, as well as LL and CON for relative strength in bench press. Figure 3 shows correlations between changes in 1 RM and VO\({}_{\text{2 peak}}\), as well as DPP\({}_{\text{peak}}\) and DPP\({}_{\text{15s}}\) including all participants within the study. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variable** & **Group** & **Baseline (T1)** & **Post-Test (T2)** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Effect Sizes** \\ **(d)** \\ \end{tabular}  & **Time Effect** & \ \begin{tabular}{c} **Interaction** \\ **Effect** \\ \end{tabular}  \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**1 RM Bench Pull (kg)**} & HL & 48.8 \(\pm\) 6.3 & 55.8 \(\pm\) 7.5 & \multirow{4}{*}{\(-\)2.416 *  } \\  & (n = 9) & (43.9–53.6) & (50.1–61.6) & & \\ \cline{2-6}  & LL (n = 6) & 36.7 \(\pm\) 7.4 & 42.5 \(\pm\) 8.7 & \multirow{4}{*}{\(-\)0.998 *  } & F = 15.464 & F = 3.485 \\  & LL (n = 6) & (28.9–44.4) & (33.4–51.6) & & \(p\) = 0.001 & \(p\) = 0.055 \\  & CG (n = 4) & 47.5 \(\pm\) 10.2 & 47.5 \(\pm\) 9.8 & \multirow{4}{*}{\(0.000\)} & \multirow{4}{*}{\(\eta^{2}\) = 0.491} & \multirow{4}{*}{\(\eta^{2}\) = 0.303} \\  & (31.3–63.7) & (31.9–63.1) & & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**1 RM Bench Press (kg)**} & HL & 43.1 \(\pm\) 7.2 & 48.9 \(\pm\) 8.9 & \multirow{4}{*}{\(-\)2.694 *\%\#} & \multirow{4}{*}{\(\tau\)= 30.635} & \multirow{4}{*}{\(F\) = 5.456} \\  & (n = 9) & (37.6–48.6) & (42.0–55.8) & & \\ \cline{2-6}  & LL (n = 6) & 32.9 \(\pm\) 8.7 & 35.8 \(\pm\) 8.3 & \multirow{4}{*}{\(-\)0.998 *  } & \multirow{4}{*}{\(p\) = 0.001} & \multirow{4}{*}{\(p\) = 0.016} \\  & (23.8–42.1) & (27.1–44.6) & & & \\ \cline{2-6}  & CG (n = 4) & 37.5 \(\pm\) 11.6 & 38.8 \(\pm\) 10.3 & & \\  & (19.1–55.9) & (24.5–55.2) & & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **VO\({}_{2\text{-}}\)\(\text{\bf poly}_{2\text{-}}\)\(\text{\bf-}\text{\bf-}\text{\bf DP}_{\text{}}\) \\ \end{tabular}