## 3 Results
### Structural Equations Model Analysis  
Looking at the structural equation models, the model developed for participants showing a low level of weekly physical activity shows a good fit for each of the indices. The chi-square test showed a non-significant \(p\)-value (X\({}^{2}\) = 47.631; df = 16; pl = 0.000), but these data cannot be interpreted in an anonymous way due to the size and susceptibility of the sample [41], so other indices were used to study the fit of the model. In this case, the CFI, NFI, IFI, and TLI obtained scores above 0.910. In addition, RMSEA obtained a value of 0.037. Figure 2 and Table 2 show the effects of the variables for participants showing a low level of weekly physical activity. In this case, a positive relationship is observed between MDA and TC (\(p\leq\) 0.05; r = 0.204). A positive relationship is also shown between adherence MDA and EC (r = 0.029). Regarding TC, a positive relationship is observed with IR (r = 0.938), (EI; \(p\leq\) 0.001; r = 0.816), and (CL; \(p\leq\) 0.001; r = 0.848). Continuing with EC, positive relationships are obtained with PM (r = 0.826), unequal recognition UR (\(p\leq\) 0.001; r = 0.900), and MR (\(p\leq\) 0.001; r = 0.488). The relationship between ANX and MDA shows a positive relationship (\(p\leq\) 0.05; r = 0.038). Focusing attention on anxiety ANX and TC, a negative relationship is observed between both variables (r = \(-\)0.078). On the contrary, a positive relationship is obtained between ANX and ego climate EC (\(p\leq\) 0.05; r = 0.183). Finally, a negative relationship is observed between the two motivational climates (\(p\leq\) 0.001; r = \(-\)0.574). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Associations**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**R.W.**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**S.R.W.**} \\ \cline{2-6} \multicolumn{1}{c}{**between Variables**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Estimations**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**S.E.**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**C.R.**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\(p\)**} & **Estimations** \\ \hline MDA \(\leftarrow\) TC & 0.036 & 0.014 & 2.490 & **\(\ast\)** & 0.101 \\ \hline MDA \(\leftarrow\) EC & 0.006 & 0.016 & 0.344 & 0.731 & 0.310 \\ \hline IR \(\leftarrow\) TC & 1.000 & & & & 0.859 \\ \hline EI \(\leftarrow\) TC & 0.775 & 0.044 & 17.649 & **\(\ast\ast\)** & 0.914 \\ \hline CL \(\leftarrow\) TC & 0.925 & 0.049 & 18.848 & **\(\ast\ast\)** & 0.840 \\ \hline PM \(\leftarrow\) EC & 1.000 & & & & 0.869 \\ \hline UR \(\leftarrow\) EC & 1.440 & 0.112 & 12.833 & **\(\ast\ast\)** & 0.880 \\ \hline MR \(\leftarrow\) EC & 0.715 & 0.093 & 7.735 & **\(\ast\ast\)** & 0.631 \\ \hline ANX \(\leftarrow\) MDA & 0.189 & 0.308 & 0.613 & **\(\ast\)** & 0.030 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Structural model for participants showing a low level of weekly PA.  
Figure 2: Theoretical model proposed for participants showing a low level of weekly PA. **Note:** EC = Ego climate; TC = Task climate; PM = Punishment for mistakes; UR = Unequal recognition; MR = Member rivalry; CL = Cooperative learning; EI = Effort/improvement; IR = Important role; ANX = Anxiety; MDA = Mediterranean diet adherence. The model developed for participants showing an average level of weekly physical activity shows a good fit for each of the indices. The chi-square test showed a non-significant \(p\)-value (X\({}^{2}\) = 44.836; df = 16; pl = 0.000). Similarly, the CFI, NFI, IFI, and TLI obtained higher scores of 0.910. In addition, RMSEA showed a value of 0.053. Figure 3 and Table 3 show the effects of the variables for participants with a low level of weekly physical activity. In this case, a positive relationship is observed between MDA and TC (\(p\leq\) 0.05; r = 0.128), with exactly the same occurring between MDA and EC (r = 0.054). In terms of TC, positive relationships are obtained with IR (r = 0.911), EI (\(p\leq\) 0.001; r = 0.816), and CL (\(p\leq\) 0.001; r = 0.899). Positive relationships are also observed between EC and PM (r = 0.817), UR (\(p\leq\) 0.001; r = 0.918), and MR (\(p\leq\) 0.001; r = 0.654).