## 3 Results  
The contractile properties of the main muscle involved in the canoe stroke showed a _sex_ effect in the LD and ST muscles of the stroke side with a large effect size. Males presented 34.6% higher Tc (F = 10.062; \(p\) = 0.006; \(\eta_{\text{p}}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.372) and 27.3% Dm (F = 7.709; \(p\) = 0.017; \(\eta_{\text{p}}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.292) in the LD muscle than female canoeists. In addition, they also presented 21.1% higher Tc in the ST muscle (F = 9.345; \(p\) = 0.007; \(\eta_{\text{p}}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.355). On the other hand, performance level had a significant effect on the BF, ES, and TZ muscles with a large  
Figure 3: Stroke simulation in the canoe-specific maximal incremental FEMD test. (**a**) Catch position; (**b**) extraction position. effect size. Males classified as Tier 5 showed 25.2% greater Vrd in the BF muscle of the stroke side (F = 4.467; \(p\) = 0.05; \(\eta_{\rm p}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.208), with large effect size, 25% greater Vrd in the ES muscle of the non-stroke side (F = 4.441; \(p\) = 0.05; \(\eta_{\rm p}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.206), and 33% greater Vrd in the TZ muscle on the non-stroke side (F = 5.379; \(p\) = 0.033; \(\eta_{\rm p}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.240) than Tier 4 canoeists (see Table 2). In addition, the _sex x international performance level_ interaction had a significant effect with a large effect size in the LD (stroke side Dm: F = 5.521; \(p\) = 0.031; \(\eta_{\rm p}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.245), PM (non-stroke side Tc: F = 7.724; \(p\) = 0.013; \(\eta_{\rm p}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.312), and TA (non-stroke side Vrd: F = 6.048; \(p\) = 0.025; \(\eta_{\rm p}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.262) muscles (see Table 2). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & **Side** & **Men** & **Women** & **Diff (\%)** & **Tier 5** & **Tier 4** & **Diff (\%)** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{BF} & \multirow{2}{*}{Tc} & Stroke & 37.29 \(\pm\) 4.51 & 39.48 \(\pm\) 4.54 & 5.87 & 32.12 \(\pm\) 4.06 & 44.64 \(\pm\) 4.94 & 38.97 \\  & & Non-Stroke & 44.16 \(\pm\) 3.81 & 37.99 \(\pm\) 3.83 & 13.97 & 39.91 \(\pm\) 3.43 & 42.24 \(\pm\) 4.17 & 5.83 \\ \cline{2-10}  & \multirow{2}{*}{Dm} & Stroke & 7.75 \(\pm\) 0.77 & 9.72 \(\pm\) 0.77 & 25.41 & 8.60 \(\pm\) 0.69 & 8.88 \(\pm\) 0.84 & 3.25 \\  & & Non-Stroke & 9.69 \(\pm\) 0.84 & 9.03 \(\pm\) 0.84 & 6.81 & 9.76 \(\pm\) 0.75 & 8.95 \(\pm\) 0.92 & 8.29 \\ \cline{2-10}  & \multirow{2}{*}{Vrd} & Stroke & 171.56 \(\pm\) 18.62 & 214.83 \(\pm\) 18.74 & 25.22 \({}^{*}\) & 221.11 \(\pm\) 16.78 & 165.27 \(\pm\) 20.40 & 25.25 \({}^{*}\) \\  & & Non-Stroke & 183.37 \(\pm\) 19.36 & 194.40 \(\pm\) 19.48 & 6.01 & 210.39 \(\pm\) 17.45 & 167.38 \(\pm\) 21.21 & 20.44 \\ \hline \multirow{4  
Regarding ROM assessments, canoeists' performance levels showed no significant effects, with only a _sex_ effect on the YBT-UQ in the medial direction of the stroke side (F = 6.349; \(p\) = 0.023; \(\eta_{\text{p}}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.284), where male canoeists showed 5.64% greater mobility than female canoeists. The _sex_\(x\)_\(  
Regarding the canoe dynamometry assessments, the performance of the specific isometric test showed a great _sex_ effect on \(\rm F_{m}\) (F = 13.778; \(p\) = 0.002; \(\rm\eta_{p}{{}^{2}}\) = 0.448) and \(\rm F_{peak}\) (F = 14.773; \(p\) = 0.001; \(\rm\eta_{p}{{}^{2}}\) = 0.465). Male canoeists achieved 29.5% and 31.5% greater \(\rm F_{m}\) and \(\rm F_{peak}\) than female canoeists. Similarly for the maximal incremental test, \(\rm N_{\rm reps}\) (F = 62.326; \(p\) = 0.000; \(\rm\eta_{p}{{}^{2}}\) = 0.786), \(\rm F_{peak}\) (F = 30.690; \(p\) = 0.000; \(\rm\eta_{p}{{}^{2}}\) = 0.644), and \(\rm P_{max}\) (F = 15.902; \(\rm P_{max}\)).