## 3 Results
### Relationship between Hormone Levels and Performance Changes  
Figures 5 and 6 show the bivariate correlations analysis between the levels of these hormones and some of the performance tests performed on the participants.  
At time T1, significant negative correlations of T with the agility test were observed (r = \(-\)0.596 [high]; \(p\) = 0.05). Negative relationships between the outcomes were also noted for these same tests with the T/C index: agility test (r = \(-\)0.598 [high]; \(p\) = 0.05). At this first moment, strong correlations of the T with the ABK jump longitudinal (r = 0.631 [high]; \(p\) = 0.04) and power watts (r = 0.622 [high]; \(p\) = 0.04) can be seen. Likewise, the T/C index with the CMJ jump: length (r = 0.598 [high]; \(p\) = 0.05) and watts (r = 0.590 [high]; \(p\) = 0.05), the ABK jump: length (r = 0.646 [high]; \(p\) = 0.03) and power (r = 0.640 [high]; \(p\) = 0.03).  
At time T2, negative correlations were found between CMJ and C, both in its longitudinal measure (r = \(-\)0.594 [high]; \(p\) = 0.05) and in its translation into watts of power (r = \(-\)0.588 [high]; \(p\) = 0.05). The same trend holds between SJ jump and T/C index: longitudinal (r = \(-\)0.624 [high]; \(p\) = 0.04) and power watts (r = \(-\)0.623 [high]; \(p\) = 0.04). Strong correlations are now established between the DJ jump and the T/C index: length (r = 0.604 [high]; \(p\) = 0.05) and watts (r = 0.602 [high]; \(p\) = 0.05).  
Figure 4: Significant and absolute percentage changes.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **T1 (r = 11)** & **T2 (r = 11)** & **t** & **\%\(\Delta\)** & \(p\)** & **n\({}^{2}\)p** & **Change** & **Probabilistic** \\ \hline SJ (cm) & 26.0 \(\pm\) 3.2 & 25.0 \(\pm\) 1.2 & \multirow{2}{*}{22.28} & \(-\)4.0 \(\pm\) 11.3 & 0.335 & 0.436 & Moderate & Probably harmful \\ \cline{3-8} CMJ (cm) & 30.3 \(\pm\) 3.6 & 31.2 \(\pm\) 4.0 & & 3.0 \(\pm\) 2.2 & 0.002 & \(-\)0.277 & Small & Probably beneficial \\ \hline ABK (cm) & 34.3 \(\pm\) 5.0 & 34.8 \(\pm\) 3.4 & \multirow{2}{*}{2.228} & 2.2 \(\pm\) 3.1 & 0.028 & \(-\)0.2089 & Small & Possibly beneficial \\ \cline{3-8} DJ (cm) & 26.1 \(\pm\) 3.9 & 27.1 \(\pm\) 40.5 & & 3.5 \(\pm\) 6.6 & 0.103 & \(-\)0.261 & Small & Probably beneficial \\ \cline{3-8} MBT (m) & 7.2 \(\pm\) 1.0 & 7.2 \(\pm\) 1.1 & & 0.7 \(\pm\) 11.0 & 0.823 & \(-\)0.0563 & Trivial & Probably trivial \\ \hline Illinois (s) & 18.6 \(\pm\) 0.9 & 18.9 \(\pm\) 1.1 & & 1.8 \(\pm\) 3.8 & 0.149 & \(-\)0.351 & Small & Possibly harmful \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* T1: Time 1; T2: Time 2; t t de Student; the %\(\Delta\) was calculated as [(T2 \(-\) T1)/T1] \(\times\) 100; \(p\): \(p\)-value; \(\eta^{2}_{\text{P}}\): effect size.  
\end{table}
Table 3: Variation in physical fitness scores.  
The rest of the results are not shown in this section, as they are not significant at \(p\) > 0.05.  
The percentage change for hormone levels (Table 2) are 2.945% for T, 3.470% for C and 10.574% for the T:C ratio. As for the performance results, the percentage changes (Table 3) are for the SJ jump--4.0% \(\pm\) 11.3%, for the CMJ jump--3.0% \(\pm\) 2.2%, for the ABK jump--2.2% \(\pm\) 3.1%, for the DJ jump--3.5% \(\pm\) 6.6%, for the MBT--0.7% \(\pm\) 11.0% and for the agility test--1.8% \(\pm\) 3.8%.