## 3 Results  
During SC30, quadriceps activation was higher than that of the hamstrings, except for RMS50 and RMS100, where hamstring activation exceeded that of the quadriceps. The highest H/Q ratio during this directional change was found in the explosive ratio H/Q50 (1.027 \(\pm\) 2.55). In SC45, all RMS values in the quadriceps were higher than those in the hamstrings. Regarding coactivation ratios, the values were nearly 1 in all cases, although in the traditional ratio H/QMVC, the quadriceps value was slightly higher than that of the hamstrings. Finally, the RMS and ratios were found for SC45 cl. In this case, all quadriceps activations were greater than those of the hamstrings. Concerning the ratio, in no case did it exceed the value of 1, indicating higher activation of the anterior musculature compared to the posterior (Table 2). Regarding sex differences (Table 3), although RMSQ showed higher values in men compared to women and RMSH was higher in women than in men, the differences found were not statistically significant in SC30 (\(p\) > 0.05). However, the Ratio_H/Q50 was significantly higher in women than in men (\(p\) = 0.020). During SC45, there were significant differences in RMSQ for 50 ms, 100 ms, and 200 ms based on sex, where men showed higher values (\(p\)\(\leq\) 0.05). Although RMSH was not significantly higher in women, the coactivation ratios at 50 ms (\(p\) = 0.044) and 100 ms (\(p\) = 0.016) were. In SC45 cl in phase 0, RMSQ was significantly higher in men than in women in all cases (\(p\)\(\geq\) 0.05). In the case of RMSH, we did not find significant differences between sexes. Regarding coactivation, all ratios are significantly higher in women than in men except for the Ratio_H/Q100, which, although higher, was not significant. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**SC30**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**SC45**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**SC45 cl**} \\ \hline
**Variable** & **Mean** & **SD** & **Mean** & **SD** & **Mean** & **SD** \\ \hline RMSQ\_MVC (mV) & 0.6469 & 0.098 & 0.6558 & 0.096 & 0.6682 & 0.108 \\ \hline RMSH\_MVC (mV) & 0.6405 & 0.125 & 0.6385 & 0.126 & 0.6471 & 0.121 \\ \hline RMSQ\_50 ms (mV) & 0.6448 & 0.098 & 0.6483 & 0.106 & 0.6730 & 0.101 \\ \hline RMSH\_50 ms (mV) & 0.6464 & 0.118 & 0.6406 & 0.132 & 0.6506 & 0.124 \\ \hline RMSQ\_100 ms (mV) & 0.6466 & 0.099 & 0.6544 & 0.102 & 0.6747 & 0.102 \\ \hline RMSH\_100 ms (mV) & 0.6469 & 0.116 & 0.6395 & 0.117 & 0.6484 & 0.123 \\ \hline RMSQ\_150 ms (mV) & 0.6428 & 0.099 & 0.6504 & 0.104 & 0.6727 & 0.101 \\ \hline RMSH\_150 ms (mV) & 0.6415 & 0.120 & 0.6473 & 0.111 & 0.6478 & 0.126 \\ \hline RMSQ\_200 ms (mV) & 0.6402 & 0.099 & 0.6495 & 0.105 & 0.6703 & 0.102 \\ \hline RMSH\  
Finally, to reflect the possible effect of body mass and height of the subjects, the adjustment of the covariate body mass index was obtained to determine the differences between men and women (Table 4). The data show significant differences in the three changes of direction for the variables analyzed. However, a greater number of significant differences was found in the closed directional changes. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Variables**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**SC30**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**SC45**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**SC45 cl**} \\ \cline{2-10}  & \(p\) & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Partial Eta Squared (\(\eta^{2}\))**} & \(p\) & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Partial Eta Squared (\(\eta^{2}\))**} & \(p\) & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Partial Eta Squared (\(\eta^{2}\))**} \\ \hline RMS\({}_{\text{Q}}\)\_MVC (mV) & 0.020 & 0.053 & 0.013 & 0.038 & 0.001 & 0.155 \\ \hline RMS\({}_{\text{H}}\)\_MVC (mV) & 0.142 & 0.013 & 0.703 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.163 \\ \hline RMS\({}_{\text{Q}}\)\_50 ms (mV) & 0.039 & 0.026 & 0.467 & 0.003 & 0.001 & 0.275 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: ANCOVA to determine the effect of the BMI covariate on the differences between men and women.