## 4 Discussion  
This was the first study that tried to explore the effect of three pre-season training protocols with different training frequencies on performance, muscle damage and oxidative stress markers. Firstly, after observing the somatometric and performance characteristics of the participants of the three teams, it seems that there are no significant differences between the three teams before the start of the study. This finding is considered very important, as it shows that all three teams started from the same level of physiological attributes, \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Variables** & \(r\) \\ \(r\)**Correlation (\(p\) Value)** & **Magnitude** \\ \hline CK (\(\uparrow\)) and LDH (\(\uparrow\)) & Large \\
0.638 (\(\uparrow\)) and Speed 20 m. (\(\uparrow\)) (Speed \(\downarrow\)) & Medium \\
0.408 (0.039) & \\ Aerobic Capacity (\(\uparrow\)) and Hamstrings Maximum Strength (\(\uparrow\)) & Medium \\
0.413 (0.029) & \\ Speed 20 m. (\(\downarrow\)) (Speed \(\uparrow\)) and Acceleration 10 m. (\(\downarrow\)) (Acceleration \(\uparrow\)) & Large \\
0.912 (\(<\)0.001) & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 10: Correlations between the differences (\(\Delta\)) of the measured variables. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & **Before** & **After** & \(\Delta\) & **ES** & **T** & **TG** & **G** \\
**(nmol/mg)** & **Before** & **After** & _(\(p\))_ & **(95\% CI)** & _(\(p\))_ & _\(p\)_ & _\(p\)_ & _\(p\)_ \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**PC** **(nmol/mg)**} & **Team 1** & \multirow{4}{*}{1.54 \(\pm\) 0.7} & \multirow{4}{*}{1.29 \(\pm\) 0.44} & \(-\)0.25 \(\pm\) 0.58 & \(-\)0.43 & & \\  & (Heavy) & & & (0.288) & (\(-\)1.75, 0.89) & & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{3-8}  & **Team 2** & \multirow{4}{*}{1.64 \(\pm\) 0.5} & \multirow{4}{*}{1.66 \(\pm\) 0.19} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.02 \(\pm\) 0.56} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.05} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.139} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.469} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.359} \\  & (Moderate) & & & (0.929) & (\(-\)1.19, 1.29) & & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{3-8}  & **Team 3** & \multirow{2}{*}{1.54 \(\pm\) 0.31} & \multirow{2}{*}{1.27 \(\pm\) 0.48} & \(-\)0.27 \(\pm\) 0.4 & \(-\)0.67 & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{3-8}  & (Light) & & & (0.124) & (\(-\)2.01, 0.67) & & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{3-8}  & \(p\) & 0.915 & 0.090 & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**GPx** **(U/L)** & **Team 1** & \multirow{4}{*}{107.78 \(\pm\) 11.89} & \multirow{4}{*}{117.78 \(\pm\) 17.16} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.034} & \multirow{4}{*}{(\(-\)0.67, 2.02)} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.815} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.571} \\  & (Heavy) & & & & & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{3-8}  & **Team 2** & \multirow{4}{*}{115.13 \(\pm\) 21.16} & \multirow{4}{*}{125.13 \(\pm\) 23.21} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.266} & \multirow{4}{*}{(\(-\)0.81, 1.71)} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.008 \({}^{\dagger}\)} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.815} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.571} \\  & (Moderate) & & & & & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{3-8}  & **Team 3** & \multirow{2}{*}{110.33 \(\pm\) 14.25} & \multirow{2}{*}{116.33 \(\pm\) 14.78} & \multirow{2}{*}{(0.266)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(\(-\)0.81, 1.71)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(0.270)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(0.018)} & \multirow{2}{*}{(0.048)} \\  & (Light) & & & & & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{3-8}  & \(p\) & 0.640 & 0.590 & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 9: Effects on oxidative stress markers. and consequently, we were able to better comprehend any alterations that were caused by the three different training protocols. Nevertheless, the present study was created with certain limitations, such as the small sample size for each team, the absence of a long-term follow-up or the lack of a control group. Fat percentage was reduced for Teams 1 (\(-\)0.3 \(\pm\) 0.32%) and 2 (\(-\)1.29 \(\pm\) 0.59%) but not for team 3. Team 3 performed the light protocol with the lowest training units compared to Teams 1 and 2, so this may explain why we did not find a significant reduction in the fat percentage of Team 3.