## 4 Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Bs 720** & **Bs 1080** & **Bs 1440** & **Bs 1800** & **F3,36** & \(p\)**-Value** & \(\mathbf{n_{p}^{2}}\) \\ \hline Moment of inertia [kg. m\({}^{2}\)] & & & & & & & \\ \hline Maximum & 7.84 \(\pm\) 1.48 & 9.24 \(\pm\) 0.95 a & 10.65 \(\pm\) 1.8 ab & 11.79 \(\pm\) 1.43 ab & 10.2 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.55 \\ Minimum & 4.81 \(\pm\) 0.78 & 4.61 \(\pm\) 0.8 & 4.47 \(\pm\) 0.89 & 4.15 \(\pm\) 0.29 & 2.25 & 0.11 & 0.21 \\ Range & 3.03 \(\pm\) 1.36 & 4.63 \(\pm\) 0.69 a & 6.18 \(\pm\) 1.84 ab & 7.65 \(\pm\) 1.55 abc & 16.5 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.66 \\ Average & 2.6 \(\pm\) 0.19 & 3.38 \(\pm\) 0.52 a & 3.77 \(\pm\) 0.41 ab & 4.09 \(\pm\) 0.27 ab & 29 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.71 \\ Rotational energy [] & & & & & & & \\ \hline Maximum & 170.7 \(\pm\) 143 & 187.5 \(\pm\) 101 & 306.9 \(\pm\) 145.9 a & 408.2 \(\pm\) 132.8 ab & 7.11 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.37 \\ Average & 53.64 \(\pm\) 25.6 & 79.76 \(\pm\) 35.31 a & 111.99 \(\pm\) 31.55 ab & 148.37 \(\pm\) 12.1 abc & 22 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.65 \\ Departure moment & 60.5 \(\pm\) 66.6 & 91.7 \(\pm\) 57.7 & 114.8 \(\pm\) 43.3 & 248.2 \(\pm\) 132.3 abc & 10.1 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.46 \\ Moment of inertia to rotational energy ratio [rad\({}^{-2}\)] & & & & & & & \\ \hline Average & 0.059 \(\pm\) 0.024 & 0.047 \(\pm\) 0.012 & 0.036 \(\pm\) 0.011 a & 0.028 \(\pm\) 0.003 ab & 8.2 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.41 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} a significant difference from Bs 720; b significant difference from Bs 1080; c significant difference from Bs 1440.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Moments of inertia and rotational energies of SBA athletes across varying difficulty levels during the takeoff phase. motion control and ensuring stability and fluidity in the air [35]. These adjustments not only improve the efficiency of force transmission but also provide the necessary body coordination for complex technical movements, underscoring the importance of integrated lower and upper body actions in snowboard performance. As maneuver difficulty increases, athletes significantly adjust the range of motion (ROM) of various kinematic variables to optimize performance. Enhanced ROM in upper trunk twist and shoulder horizontal abduction generates greater rotational momentum, thereby improving stability and fluidity during aerial maneuvers. For example, in gymnastics, increased ROM in the upper trunk and shoulders is essential for maintaining stability during flight [36]. Greater hip and knee ROM enable better force transfer and propulsion, resulting in higher takeoff height and faster rotational speed [37]. Adjustments in elbow ROM allow for more precise control during takeoff, contributing to stability and balance for subsequent flight actions [38]. These adaptations highlight the importance of coordinated upper and lower body movements when executing complex technical maneuvers at higher difficulty levels. As maneuver difficulty increases, athletes demonstrate significant adaptive changes in joint angular velocities. The rise in upper trunk twist angular velocity enhances rotational momentum, thereby optimizing stability and fluidity during flight. Similarly, increased shoulder horizontal adduction angular velocity underscores the importance of coordinated upper limb movements for boosting rotational capacity and maintaining balance. These findings are consistent with previous research in high-performance sports such as gymnastics and figure skating, where effective management of joint angular velocity has been linked to improved performance [39; 40]. Additionally, the increase in hip flexion angular velocity suggests that athletes optimize hip movements to improve force transfer and propulsion, leading to greater takeoff height and rotational speed [41]. Collectively, these adaptations highlight the critical role of coordinated joint actions in enabling high-difficulty maneuvers, providing essential biomechanical support for complex technical executions.