## 3 Results  
The results in Table 1 showed that Group A demonstrated significant increases in knee extension (KE) maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) compared to the control group (CG) across all evaluation moments (M1, M2, and M3). Group B did not show statistically significant increases in KE MVIC. There was a decrease in KE MVIC in the CG between M1 and M2, as well as between M1 and M3. Group A exhibited a significant increase in KE MVIC between M1 and M3 and between M2 and M3. Group B did not show significant increases in KE MVIC at any time point. Regarding knee flexion (KF) MVIC, Group A showed significantly higher values compared to the CG at all evaluation moments. Group B also demonstrated higher KF MVIC compared to the CG, but the difference was only significant at M3. There were no significant differences between groups in KF MVIC between M1 and M2. The CG exhibited a decrease in EF MVIC between M1 and M2, as well as between M1 and M3. Group A showed a significant increase in EF MVIC between M1 and M3, as well as between M2 and M3. Group B showed a significant increase in KF MVIC only between M1 and M3. The results in Table 2 showed that, in terms of EF MVIC, Group A had significantly higher values compared to the CG at all evaluation moments. Group B also showed higher EF MVIC compared to the CG, but the difference was significant only at M1 to M3. There were no significant differences between groups in EF MVIC between M1 and M2. The CG exhibited a decrease in EF MVIC between M1 and M2, as well as between M1 and M3. Group A showed a significant increase in EF MVIC between M1 and M3, as well as between M2 and M3. Group B showed a significant increase in EF MVIC only between M1 and M3. Handgrip strength exhibited statistically significant differences between groups at all evaluation moments (M1, M2, and M3), as well as in the overall comparison from M1 to M3. Group A demonstrated higher HGS than the control group (CG) at M1, M2, and M3. Group B had higher HGS than the CG at M2 and M3. There were no significant differences between groups in HGS from M1 to M2. However, when comparing the changes over time, the CG showed a decrease in HGS between M1 and M3, as well as between M2 and M3. Group A did not show significant differences between moments. Group B demonstrated a significant increase in HGS between M1 and M3. Table 3 presents the results of the multiple regression analysis examining the significant variations (\(\Delta\)) identified in the previous analysis while controlling for the \"age\" confounding factor. R2 statistics ranged from 15% (\(\Delta\)1 Model, KE MVIC) to 44% (\(\Delta\)2 Model, KE MVIC variable), indicating the proportion of variance explained by the models. The adjusted R2 effect sizes ranged from 12% to 42%, taking into account the number of predictors in each model. All reported models achieved statistical significance and were not influenced by the adjustment for \"age\". Among the five significant models, Group A exhibited a larger slope in two variables (KF MVIC and EF MVIC), while Group B demonstrated a larger slope in two variables (KE \(\Delta\)1 and HGS). The KE \(\Delta\)2 model showed similar slopes for both Group A and Group B. These significant slopes indicated significant differences between Group A, Group B, and the control group in either M1 and M3 or M1 and M2, suggesting distinct patterns of change over time.