## 3 Results and Discussion
### Kick Training
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l l l l l} \hline \hline  & & **10\({}^{\circ}\)** & **20\({}^{\circ}\)** & **30\({}^{\circ}\)** & **40\({}^{\circ}\)** & **50\({}^{\circ}\)** & **60\({}^{\circ}\)** & **70\({}^{\circ}\)** & **80\({}^{\circ}\)** & **90\({}^{\circ}\)** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Male Sitting Position} & Avg.1 ** & 1.455 & 1.422 & 1.440 & 1.370 & 1.492 & 1.409 & 1.492 & 1.487 & 1.512 \\  & Std.2  & 0.470 & 0.451 & 0.524 & 0.532 & 0.546 & 0.500 & 0.592 & 0.575 & 0.587 \\  & Q1\({}^{3}\) & 1.247 & 1.191 & 1.080 & 0.979 & 1.037 & 1.024 & 0.985 & 1.034 & 0.989 \\  & Q3\({}^{4}\) & 1.767 & 1.637 & 1.719 & 1.790 & 1.778 & 1.735 & 1.845 & 1.878 & 1.927 \\ \cline{2-10}  & Avg. & 0.850 & 0.832 & 0.808 & 0.791 & 0.795 & 0.879 & 0.845 & 0.857 & 0.906 \\  & Std. & 0.395 & 0.372 & 0.380 & 0.393 & 0.457 & 0.498 & 0.493 & 0.478 & 0.486 \\  & Q1 & 0.588 & 0.593 & 0.573 & 0.565 & 0.547 & 0.606 & 0.502 & 0.548 & 0.583 \\  & Q3 & 1.003 & 1.037 & 0.828 & 0.864 & 0.799 & 0.924 & 1.012 & 0.945 & 1.109 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Male Sitting Position} & Avg. & 1.178 & 1.148 & 1.152 & 1.217 & 1.253 & 1.192 & 1.229 & 1.229 & 1.189 \\  & Std. & 0.310 & 0.257 & 0.922 & 0.397 & 0.370 & 0.341 & 0.304 & 0.297 & 0.256 \\  & Q1 & 0.966 & 0.966 & 0.973 & 0.973 & 0.978 & 0.971 & 0.980 & 0.977 & 0.970 \\  & Q3 & 1.372 & 1.293 & 1.364 & 1.382 & 1.393 & 1.379 & 1.373 & 1.415 & 1.341 \\ \cline{2-10}  & Avg. & 1.168 & 1.083 & 1.022 & 1.063 & 1.016 & 0.992 & 1.006 & 0.966 & 1.028 \\  & Std. & 0.415 & 0.401 & 0.378 & 0.368 & 0.441 & 0.381 & 0.405 & 0.395 & 0.418 \\  & Q1 & 0.787 & 0.830 & 0.688 & 0.806 & 0.676 & 0.715 & 0.711 & 0.670 & 0.702 \\  & Q3 & 1.456 & 1.289 & 1.288 & 1.351 & 1.207 & 1.225 & 1.181 & 1.144 & 1.236 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Summary of observations for the ratio of internal/external muscle strength between male and female subjects in a sitting and standing position with 10\({}^{\circ}\)–90\({}^{\circ}\) kick training. In the case of a single subject where 45 male subjects were in a 10\({}^{\circ}\)-90\({}^{\circ}\) sitting and standing kick, the percentage of times of the sitting effect that was greater than the standing position was 75%-85%. In the overall kick training, 60.44% of the sitting posture was larger than the standing position, the force value of 74.31% of VMO/VL on Quadriceps Femoris Muscle was greater than 1, and 97.78% of the force value of VMO/VL on quadriceps femoris muscle was greater than the walking pattern of the pretest, indicating that the kicking action contributed to the muscle training of the VMO, with 40\({}^{\circ}\) being the best. Among the 38 female subjects, the percentage of standing postures greater than sitting posture was 64% to 76%. In the overall kick training, 84.34% of the standing posture was larger than the sitting posture, showing that the standing posture had a better effect for female subjects. In addition, 37.71% of the VMO/VL force value was greater than 1 and 84.34% of VMO/VL force value of quadriceps femoris muscle was greater than the pretest walking mode, indicating that the kicking action could not immediately strengthen VMO muscle greater than the VL effect, but could still contribute to VMO muscle strength training, which was maximized at 20\({}^{\circ}\), as shown in Figure 6.  
Based on the preliminarily estimation at 10\({}^{\circ}\) and 90\({}^{\circ}\), VVR of the quadriceps femoris muscle was more scattered because the leg lift was not obvious, or the lift was not easy. The VVR of the quadriceps femoris muscle was more scattered. The remaining angles were analyzed by ANOVA, and the results showed no significant difference between the angles. However, the average VVR of the kick was best at about 50\({}^{\circ}\)-60\({}^{\circ}\) compared with the normal gait, and the difference was up to 52%, in which the leg kick was more effective than the leg lift. The overall subject was also more than normal gait at 20\({}^{\circ}\)-90\({}^{\circ}\).