## 3 Results  
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics of the EMG measures for the middle, posterior deltoid, and infraspinatus across different conditions (baseline, after 50 shots, and after 100 shots). No significant interaction between time and group was found in the middle deltoid when considering the mean amplitude EMGRMS (F = 2.579; \(p=0.090\); \(\eta_{p}^{2}=0.125\)), maximal amplitude EMGRMS (F = 1.323; \(p=0.279\); \(\eta_{p}^{2}=0.068\)), and EMGMED (F = 1.408; \(p=0.258\); \(\eta_{p}^{2}=0.073\)). Significant differences over time were observed in the middle deltoid for the mean amplitude EMGRMS (F = 8.225; \(p=0.001\); \(\eta_{p}^{2}=0.314\)) and maximal amplitude EMGRMS (F = 4.432; \(p=0.033\); \(\eta_{p}^{2}=0.198\)), although no significant differences were found in EMGMED (F = 2.884; \(p=0.085\); \(\eta_{p}^{2}=0.138\)). Specifically, after 100 shots, the mean amplitude EMGRMS significantly increased compared to the baseline (182.3 vs. 224.6 \(\mu\)V; \(p=0.006\)). No significant interaction between time and group was found in the posterior deltoid when considering the mean amplitude EMGMS (F = 0.299; \(p=0.743\); \(\eta_{p}^{2}=0.016\)), maximal amplitude EMGRMS (F = 1.567; \(p=0.223\); \(\eta_{p}^{2}=0.080\)), and EMGMED (F = 1.264; \(p=0.295\); \(\eta_{p}^{2}=0.066\)). No significant differences over time were observed in the posterior deltoid for the mean amplitude EMGRMS (F = 2.647; \(p=0.085\); \(\eta_{p}^{2}=0.128\)), although significant differences were found in maximal amplitude EMGRMS (F = 4.313; \(p=0.021\); \(\eta_{p}^{2}=0.193\)) and in EMGMED (F = 9.925; \(p<0.001\); \(\eta_{p}^{2}=0.355\)). Specifically, after 100 shots, the maximal amplitude EMGRMS significantly increased compared to the baseline (742.9 vs. 619.4 \(\mu\)V; \(p=0.020\)). Moreover, at the baseline, the EMGMED was significantly smaller than after 50 shots (61.9 vs. 66.5 Hz; \(p<0.001\)) and 100 shots (61.9 vs. 65.6 Hz; \(p=0.028\)). No significant interaction between time and group was found in the infraspinatus when considering the mean amplitude EMGRMS (F = 0.895; \(p=0.418\); \(\eta_{p}^{2}=0.047\)), maximal amplitude EMGRMS (F = 1.180; \(p=0.319\); \(\eta_{p}^{2}=0.062\)), and EMGMED (F = 3.879; \(p=0.060\); \(\eta_{p}^{2}=0.177\)). Significant differences over time were observed in the infraspinatus for the mean amplitude EMGRMS (F = 5.620; \(p=0.008\); \(\eta_{p}^{2}=0.238\)), maximal amplitude EMGRMS (F = 6.227; \(p=0.005\); \(\eta_{p}^{2}=0.257\)), and EMGMED (F = 6.762; \(p=0.016\); \(\eta_{p}^{2}=0.273\)). Post hoc comparisons revealed a significantly greater mean amplitude EMGRMS after 50 shots compared to 100 shots (162.0 vs. 113.2 \(\mu\)V; \(p=0.033\)). Similar results were observed for maximal amplitude EMGRMS (357.7 vs. 218.5 \(\mu\)V; \(p=0.018\)). For EMGMED, greater values were observed after 50 shots compared to the baseline (58.1 vs. 60.7 Hz; \(p=0.045\)) and after 100 shots (60.7 vs. 49.3 Hz; \(p=0.021\)). in EMG\({}_{\text{MED}}\) (\(F\) = 2.948; \(p\) = 0.822; \(\eta_{p}^{2}\) = 0.011). Post hoc comparisons revealed a significantly smaller mean amplitude EMG\({}_{\text{RMS}}\) at the baseline compared to after 50 shots (130.2 vs. 164.9 \(\mu\)V; \(p\) = 0.008) and 100 shots (130.2 vs. 175.5 \(\mu\)V; \(p\) < 0.001). Similar results were observed for maximal amplitude EMG\({}_{\text{RMS}}\), with the baseline presenting smaller values than after 50 shots (325.0 vs. 404.5 \(\mu\)V; \(p\) = 0.013) and 100 shots (325.0 vs. 498.4 \(\mu\)V; \(p\) = 0.005).