## 3 Results  
The results of F-V profiles are displayed in Table 2. ANOVA and effect size results are presented in Table 3. Significantly higher P\({}_{\max}\) (Figure 1) (\(p\) = 0.01) and jump height (\(p\) = 0.009) were found in middle-distance women athletes compared to long-distance women athletes (21.20 \(\pm\) 4.78 W\(\cdot\)kg\({}^{-1}\) vs. 15.80 \(\pm\) 2.83 W\(\cdot\)kg\({}^{-1}\) and 26.00 \(\pm\) 0.05 cm vs. 19.50 \(\pm\) 0.03 cm). Long-distance men also presented significantly higher P\({}_{\max}\) (\(p\) = 0.03) and jump height (\(p\) = 0.047) than long-distance women (19.70 \(\pm\) 2.87 W\(\cdot\)kg\({}^{-1}\) and 24.10 \(\pm\) 0.02 cm vs. 15.70 \(\pm\) 2.78 W\(\cdot\)kg\({}^{-1}\) and 20.10 \(\pm\) 3.39 cm). However, the rest of the F-V profile variables were similar between groups. In addition, no significant differences were found between groups regarding F-V profile imbalance.  
Figure 1: (**A**) F–V profile differences between middle- and long-distance women athletes. (**B**) F–V profile differences between men and women long-distance athletes. F, relative force. V, velocity. P, relative power. \({}^{*}\), \(p\leq 0.05\). \({}^{**}\), \(p\leq 0.01\).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline  & & **F\({}_{0}\)** & **V\({}_{0}\)** & **P\({}_{max}\)** & **Jump height** & **FV\({}_{imb}\)** \\ \hline Middle-distance men & _MI (CI)_ & \(0.983(-4.640,6.606)\) & \(-0.156(-1.064,0.752)\) & \(-0.733(-4.270,2804)\) & \(-0.040\)\(-0.077\), \(-0.002\) & \(2.000\)\((-36.344,\) \\ \(\times\) long-distance men & \(p\) & \(0.984\) & \(0.985\) & \(0.974\) & \(0.163\) & \(1.000\) \\  & \(d\) & \(0.177\) & \(-0.174\) & \(-0.211\) & \(-1.067\) & \(0.053\) \\ \hline Middle-distance & _MI (CI)_ & \(-0.832(-6.104,4.440)\) & \(-0.581(-1.432,0.271)\) & \(-5.488(-8.804,2.172)\) & \(-0.059(-0.094,-0.024)\) & \(9.176\)\((-26.776,\) \\  & women & \(p\) & \(0.988\) & \(0.516\) & \(0.010\)\({}^{**}\) & \(0.009\)\({}^{**}\) & \(0.954\) \\  & women & \(d\) & \(-0.150\) & \(-0.650\) & \(-1.577\) & \(-1.597\) & \(0.243\) \\ \hline Middle-distance men & _MI (CI)_ & \(-0.619(-6.876,5.638)\) & \(-0.170(-1.181,0.840)\) & \(-0.690(-4.626,3.245)\) & \(0.021(-0.021,0.063)\) & \(-4.952(-47.617,\) \\  & middle-distance & \(p\) & \(0.997\) & \(0.986\) & \(0.984\) & \(0.744\) & \(0.995\) \\  & women & \(d\) & \(-0.112\) & \(-0.190\) & \(-0.198\) & \(0.563\) & \(-0.131\) \\ \hline Long-distance men & _MI (CI)_ & \(1.196(-3.306,5.698)\) & \(0.255(-0.472,0.982)\) & \(4.064(1.232,6.896)\) & \(0.040\)\((0.010,0.071)\) & \(-12.128(-4.282,\) \\ \(\times\) long-distance & \(p\) & \(0.949\) & \(0.892\) & \(0.030\)\({}^{*}\) & \(0.047\)\({}^{*}\) & \(0.853\) \\  & women & \(d\) & \(0.216\) & \(0.285\) & \(1.168\) & \(1.093\) & \(-0.321\) \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline  & & **F\({}_{0}\)**, maximum estimated force. V\({}_{0}\), maximum estimated velocity. P\({}_{max}\), maximum estimated power. FV\({}_{imb}\), relative power. \({}^{*}\), \(p\leq 0.05\). \({}^{**}\), \(p\leq 0.01\). _d,_ effect size. _Md,_ mean difference. _CI,_ confidence interval.  
\end{table}
Table 3: ANOVA results and effect size.  
Regarding the correlations between F-V profile variables and performance, biomechanics, and physiological variables, no significant correlations were found for most variables. However, both P\({}_{\text{max}}\) and jump height show a significant correlation with SL at low intensity during RE assessment (r = 0.374, \(p\leq\) 0.05; r = 0.374, \(p\leq\) 0.05, respectively) and high intensity during the GXT (r = 0.361, \(p\leq\) 0.05; r = 0.400, \(p\leq\) 0.05, respectively). In addition, P\({}_{\text{max}}\) was positively related to RE (r = 0.396, \(p\leq\) 0.05) and VO\({}_{\text{2 max}}\) (r = 0.346, \(p\leq\) 0.05) and negatively related to FV\({}_{\text{imb}}\) (r = \(-\)0.531, \(p\leq\) 0.001).