## 3 Results  
Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for skin temperature and running speed for the study's first and second weeks. The table shows mean values and standard deviations for each measure, including baseline values, post-warm-up values, and values measured after 12 min of recovery. In the first week, the mean skin temperature for both the AB and BA group decreased after the warm-up, then increased slightly during recovery. For running speed, there was an increase in the mean for 10 m, 20 m, and 30 m sprints after the recovery compared to post-warm-up times for both the AB and BA group. In the second week, the mean skin temperature for both the AB and BA group decreased after the warm-up, then increased slightly during recovery. For running speed, there was an increase in the mean for 10 m and 20 m sprints after the recovery period compared to post-warm-up times for both AB and BA groups. However, the mean time for 30 m sprints decreased after recovery compared to post-warm-up times for both the AB and BA group. The two-way ANOVA (repeated-measure design) showed a significant treatment-time-point interaction effect for the 10 [\(F\) (1, 35) = 6.55, \(p\) = 0.015, \(\eta_{p}{}^{2}\) = 0.16], 20 [\(F\) (1, 35) = 12.03, \(p\) = 0.001, \(\eta_{p}{}^{2}\) = 0.26], and 30 [\(F\) (1, 35) = 8.88, \(p\) = 0.005, \(\eta_{p}{}^{2}\) = 0.20] meter sprint tests. When we observed the pairwise comparisons of simple main effects, it was evidentthat the interaction effect of response variables differed between treatments. A similar pattern emerges in all response variables, where baseline values did not significantly differ from those after 12 min following experimental treatment. Conversely, baseline values significantly differed from values after 12 min following the control treatment, indicating a decay in performance (see Figure 2). A significant treatment (experimental vs. control) main effect was observed for the 10 m [\(F\) (1, 35) = 4.45, \(p\) = 0.042, \(\eta_{p}{}^{2}\) = 0.35], 20 m [\(F\) (1, 35) = 6.00, \(p\) = 0.020, \(\eta_{p}{}^{2}\) = 0.55], and 30 m [\(F\) (1, 35) = 9.16, \(p\) = 0.005, \(\eta_{p}{}^{2}\) = 0.58] sprint tests. Moreover, baseline-measurement responses significantly differed from responses after 12 min for the 10 m [\(F\) (1, 35) = 9.63, \(p\) = 0.004, \(\eta_{p}{}^{2}\) = 0.17], 20 m [\(F\) (1, 35) = 18.41, \(p\) < 0.001, \(\eta_{p}{}^{2}\) = 0.36], and 30 m [\(F\) (1, 35) = 12.88, \(p\) = 0.001, \(\eta_{p}{}^{2}\) = 0.32] sprint tests. Additionally, a two-way ANOVA (2 \(\times\) 3 design) showed no significant treatment \(\times\) time-point interaction effect for Ts [\(F\) (1, 35) = 0.18, \(p\) = 0.731, \(\eta_{p}{}^{2}\) = 0.01]. The treatment (experimental vs. control) main effect for Ts [\(F\) (1, 35) = 0.13, \(p\) = 0.721, \(\eta_{p}{}^{2}\) = 0.02] was also insignificant. However, baseline-measurement responses significantly differed between time points [\(F\) (1, 35) = 40.36, \(p\) < 0.001, \(\eta_{p}{}^{2}\) = 0.51]. By observing pairwise comparisons of simple effects, it was evident that skin temperature significantly dropped following the warm-up protocol and significantly rose following the 12 min of passive rest for both experimental and control treatments. Interestingly, the skin temperature remained significantly lower after 12 min of passive rest compared to baseline values following the experimental but not the control treatment. Moreover, a repeated-measure ANOVA (2 \(\times\) 2 crossover) showed a significant sequence \(\times\) trial-interaction effect for 10 m [\(F\)(1,17) = 14.19; \(p\) = 0.002], 20 m [\(F\)(1,17) = 24.99, \(p\) < 0.001], and 30 m [\(F\) (1, 17) = 18.86, \(p\) < 0.001] sprints. The pairwise comparisons of simple main effects revealed that the interaction effect of response variables differed between the treatment sequences, indicating some carry-over effects where the experimental treatment was more beneficial following the BA sequence (see Figure 3). However, the main effects of the sequence or trial factors alone were insignificant.