## 4 Discussion  
The aim of this study was to evaluate body composition and performance characteristics in elite female futsal players and analyze associations between the measured characteristics. This study showed that different characteristics of body composition and anthropometric measures presented correlations with performance parameters. Aerobic endurance capacity was inversely correlated with abdominal skinfold and abdominal girth and positively correlated with the mesomorphic component. The abdominal skinfold also was related positively with agility, that could be affected by the endomorphy component and the sum of four and four skinfolds. The highest players obtained better results in the ABK jump and players who had more mesomorphy component obtained better results in the 25 m velocity test. The RSA test was the only test with no relation with any performance parameter. In other studies, body composition and anthropometric variables have shown some relationship with certain components of athletic performance [43; 44; 45]. Body fat percentage is one of the limiting factors in terms of the ability to perform explosive actions [46]. The results obtained in this study in terms of fat mass percentages (21.30 \(\pm\) 3.51) were similar to the percentages found in the scientific literature with athletes in sports with the same characteristics [27; 28; 47; 48; 49]. On the other hand, the mean percentage of muscle mass obtained (38.39 \(\pm\) 2.05) was below that obtained by [PERSON] et al., 2018 [49] in a team of female indoor football players, where they presented percentage levels of 45.4 \(\pm\) 4.5. However, the result concurred with the study carried out by [PERSON] (2016) [49], whose mean lean mass percentage was 38.32 \(\pm\) 1.6. Regarding somatotype, the players showed an endomedesomorphic body structure (3.43-3.53-2.13), which means that there is a balance between fat percentage and muscle percentage. Similar values were presented in a study carried out on 115 female players in Brazil (4.5-4.1-2.0), with higher values than those obtained in our \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Test** & **Variable** & **Variable** & **Pearson’s Correlation** & _p-Value_ \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\(t\)-test} & \multirow{4}{*}{Agility} & Biceps skinfold & 0.610 & 0.035 \({}^{*}\) \\  & & abd. skinfold & 0.744 & 0.006 \({}^{*}\) \\  & & Sum. 4 skinfolds & 0.575 & 0.050 \({}^{*}\) \\  & & Sum. 6 skinfolds & 0.593 & 0.042 \({}^{*}\) \\  & & Sum. 8 skinfolds & 0.576 & 0.050 \({}^{*}\) \\  & & Endomorphy & 0.616 & 0.033 \({}^{*}\) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} Flight time ABK \\ Height ABK \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{Explosive power} & Stretch stature & 0.605 & 0.037 \({}^{*}\) \\  & & Stretch stature & 0.598 & 0.040 \({}^{*}\) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} Mean 5 m. \\ Best 5 m. \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{4}{*}{Speed} & Mesomorphy & 0.430 & 0.163 \\  & & Mesomorphy & 0.512 & 0.089 \\  & & Size & 0.472 & 0.122 \\  & & Sum. 4 folds & 0.419 & 0.175 \\ Mean 25 m. & & Mesomorphy & 0.612 & 0.034 \({}^{*}\) \\  & & Ecomorphy & 0.478 & 0.116 \\  & & \% fat & 0.435 & 0.158 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} Best 25 m. \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{4}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} Mesomorphy \\ abd. skinfold \\ abd. girth \\ Biceps skinfold \\ Dirac rest fold \\ Dirac sum. \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{4}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} 0.624 \\ 0.0458 \\ 0.015 \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{4}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} 0.030 \({}^{*}\) \\ 0.042 \\ 0.136 \\ Dirac rest fold \\ Dirac sum. \\ \end{tabular} } \\ \cline{1-1}  & & Suprasp. skinfold & \(-\)0.516 & 0.155 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & Sum. 8 skinfolds & \(-\)0.541 & 0.133 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & BMI & \(-\)0.557 & 0.119 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* \(p\)-value: Significant \(p\) value (\(p<0.05\)). abd: abdominal; Suprasp: supraspinal, sum: summation.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Correlations between test and anthropometric variables.