## 5 Discussion
Despite this small measurement error, only the equation generated by DL/BM did not differ significantly when compared (\(p=0.051\)). Similarly, DL/BM also showed a moderate relationship between the actual and predicted \(\rm V_{Peak}\) measurements (r = 0.651; \(p=0.005\)), however, with a very high measurement error (18.7%) and statistically different from the actual \(\rm V_{Peak}\) measurement (\(p=0.002\)), which makes it unusable. When observing the SQ and SQ/BM measurements in the predictive context of the MART, the estimated SQ was different from the real measurement (\(p=0.019\)), however, SQ/BM showed borderline statistical equality between the predicted and the real measurement (\(p=0.05\)), despite the high measurement error of 17.3%. The same did not occur for SQ and SQ/BM as a predictive mechanism for V\({}_{\text{Peak}}\). In this case, the correlation did not demonstrate a significant relationship (r = 0.430 \(-\)\(p\) = 0.085; r = 0.089 \(-\)\(p\) = 0.733), in addition to presenting significant statistical differences, therefore, its practical use is not appropriate. Ultimately, we observed a good relationship between predicted and predictor measures for the sum of SQ and DL workload (r = 0.683 \(-\)\(p\) = 0.003; r = 0.573 \(-\)\(p\) = 0.016, respectively, for actual MART and V\({}_{\text{Peak}}\) measures), however, only anaerobic performance benefited from the prediction, showing no differences between predicted and actual measures (\(p\) = 0.148), as well as a low aggregate measurement error (6.3%). Despite these outcomes, as previously mentioned, it seems unnecessary to use both loads, since the measurement of DL or DL/BM to predict MART results alone already presents good correlation and low measurement error. We know that the cross-validation process is a procedure required to analyze whether a measure actually predicts what it is intended to predict [40]. Evidence over the past few years has produced predictive equations for maximal oxygen consumption [41; 42] as well as for external load variables related to aerobic and anaerobic performance [43; 44; 45], with varying results. [PERSON] et al. [43] analyzed the predictive validity of the equations generated by the Progressive Aerobic Cardiovascular Endurance Run (PACER) test in adolescents and observed that the regression demonstrated that the quadratic model and the linear model were slightly more accurate than other VO\({}_{2}\)Max estimation models. The correlations for these models between measured and estimated VO\({}_{2}\)Max were r = 0.75 and r = 0.74 and had very similar levels of precision (total error of 6.37 and 6.59 mL\(\cdot\)kg\({}^{-1}\cdot\)min\({}^{-1}\), respectively). Similar to our outcomes, for some predictive models, despite presenting moderate to high correlations, low estimation accuracies were observed (V\({}_{\text{Peak}}\) estimation through DL/BM = 18.7%; SQ = 10.0%; SQ/BM = 17.4% typical measurement error). Finally, the fact that the sample was selected by convenience, in this case, recreationally active university students, can be considered a limitation of the present study, as it may limit the extrapolation of these findings to other populations. Therefore, we suggest that the results of the present study be interpreted with some caution.