## 3 Results  
Data related to 1 RM, power output, RFD, and RVD are shown in Table 1.  
Significant differences between exercises were produced in 1 RM (F = 27.50, \(p<0.001\)), mean power output (F = 161.97, \(p<0.001\)), and peak power output (F = 227.28, \(p<0.001\)) (see Table 1). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**VARIABLE** & **BP-EC** & **BP-C** & **MP-EC** & **MP-C** \\ \hline
1 RM (kg) & 100.4 \(\pm\) 21.2 \(\lx@math@degree\) & 93.0 \(\pm\) 22.8 \(\lx@math@degree\) & 70.7 \(\pm\) 10.2 & 66.5 \(\pm\) 8.7 \\ AP (W) & 364.9 \(\pm\) 100.8 \(\lx@math@degree\) & 322.4 \(\pm\) 109.4 \(\lx@math@degree\) & 233.5 \(\pm\) 66.3 & 232.9 \(\pm\) 61.9 \\ PP (W) & 582.7 \(\pm\) 160.3 \(\lx@math@degree\) & 527.8 \(\pm\) 172.3 \(\lx@math@degree\) & 356.5 \(\pm\) 74.9 & 347.8 \(\pm\) 80.9 \\ PRFD (N \(\cdot\) s\({}^{-1}\)) & 3869.7 \(\pm\) 3740.4 \(\lx@math@degree\) & 2281.2 \(\pm\) 2211.1 & 1746.4 \(\pm\) 1622.1 & 1764.9 \(\pm\) 1234.9 \\ TPRED (ms) & 126 \(\pm\) 247 & 136 \(\pm\) 109 & 175 \(\pm\) 70.7 & 119 \(\pm\) 60.2 \\ CP-PRFD (\%) & 11.9 \(\pm\) 8.0 \(\lx@math@degree\) & 13.9 \(\pm\) 7.6 \(\lx@math@degree\) & 11.8 \(\pm\) 4.5 & 13.55 \(\pm\) 5.1 \\ PRVD (m \(\cdot\) s\({}^{-1}\)) & 5.1 \(\pm\) 4.9 \(\lx@math@degree\) & 3.7 \(\pm\) 3.3 & 3.5 \(\pm\) 2.5 & 3.6 \(\pm\) 2.2 \\ TPRVD (ms) & 305 \(\pm\) 426.1 & 435.7 \(\pm\) 565.4 & 450.2 \(\pm\) 602.3 & 357 \(\pm\) 498.5 \\ CP-PRVD (\%) & 27.3 \(\pm\) 27.9 & 34.5 \(\pm\) 29.6 & 33.8 \(\pm\) 30.5 & 30.7 \(\pm\) 26.4 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
Data are presented as mean \(\pm\) SD. Abbreviations used: 1 RM = one repetition maximum; AP = mean power; PP = peak power; PRFD = peak rate of force development; TPRFD = time to peak rate of force development; \(\%\)CP-PRFD = portion (%) of concentric phase to peak rate of force development; PRVD = peak rate of velocity development; TPRVD = time to peak rate of velocity development; \(\%\)CP-PRVD = portion (%) of concentric phase to peak rate of velocity development; BP = bench press; MP = military press; C = concentric muscle action; EC = eccentric-concentric muscle action. \(\lx@math@degree\) Significantly different from the BP-C, MP-EC, MP-C (\(p<0.001\)), \(\lx@math@degree\) Significantly different from the BP-C (\(p<0.05\)), \(\lx@math@degree\) Significantly different from the MP-EC, MP-C (\(p<0.001\)).  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Data related to 1 RM, power output, rate of force development, and rate of velocity development. Peak RFD was greater in BP-EC (F = 25.57, \(p\) < 0.001) compared to other exercises. Significant differences were also produced between exercises in the portion of the concentric phase (%) until reaching peak RFD (F = 4.28, \(p\) = 0.005). However, no differences emerged in the time (ms) required to reach peak RFD (see Table 1). Peak RVD was higher in BP-EC (F = 7.89, \(p\) < 0.001) compared to other exercises. In addition, significant differences were observed in the time (ms) required to reach peak RVD (F = 2.86, \(p\) = 0.036). No significant differences were detected between MP and BP exercises in the time (ms) required to reach peak RVD (\(p\) > 0.05). Neither were differences observed between exercises modalities in the portion of the concentric phase (%) needed to reach peak RVD (\(p\) > 0.05). In the relative contribution (%) of the total concentric phase duration, significant differences were detected in peak velocity when lifting lighter loads (BP-EC and BP-C vs. MP-C; \(p\) < 0.01). However, no differences were produced between BP-EC vs. BP-C and MP-EC vs. MP-C at each % of 1 RM (\(p\) > 0.05) (see Table 2). Moreover, no significant differences were observed in the braking phase at each %1 RM between exercises (\(p\) > 0.05) (see Table 2). No significant differences in peak velocity were produced between exercises (\(p\) > 0.05) (see Figure 2A). Significant differences were detected between exercises in peak and mean power output until reaching peak velocity (F = 55.86, \(p\) < 0.001; F = 41.88, \(p\) < 0.001, respectively) (see Figure 2B.C).