## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Body Weight Relief**} \\ \cline{3-6} \multirow{3}{*}{**Muscle**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Speed**} & **100\%** & **75\%** & **50\%** & **25\%** \\ \cline{3-6}  & & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** \\  & & **(95\%) CI** & **(95\%) CI** & **(95\%) CI** & **(95\%) CI** & **(95\%) CI** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Gastrocenimus} & \multirow{2}{*}{6 km} & 11.3 \(\pm\) 1.50 & 10.0 \(\pm\) 1.36 & 9.34 \(\pm\) 1.14 & 8.98 \(\pm\) 1.53 \\  & & (10.6–12.0) & (9.41–10.7) & (8.80–9.87) & (8.27–9.70) \\ \cline{2-6}  & \multirow{2}{*}{10 km} & 16.7 \(\pm\) 2.73 & 14.8 \(\pm\) 1.62 & 13.4 \(\pm\) 1.02 & 12.7 \(\pm\) 1.80 \\  & & (15.5–18.0) & (14.0–15.5) & (13.0–13.9) & (11.9–13.6) \\ \cline{2-6}  & \multirow{2}{*}{14 km} & 22.6 \(\pm\) 3.41 & 19.1 \(\pm\) 2.82 & 17.6 \(\pm\) 2.09 & 16.0 \(\pm\) 1.85 \\  & & (20.95–24.15) & (17.79–20.43) & (16.60–18.56) & (15.13–16.86) \\ \cline{2-6}  & \multirow{2}{*}{18 km} & 28.5 \(\pm\) 3.37 & 24.9 \(\pm\) 3.40 & 22.0 \(\pm\) 3.32 & 19.9 \(\pm\) 2.67 \\  & & (26.9–30.1) & (23.3–26.5) & (20.5–23.6) & (18.7–21.2) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Descriptive statistics for the gastrocnemius muscle. Figure 1: Trend of muscle tension for the results of [PERSON]’s post-hoc tests (mean and 95%CI). no differences were found to be \(p>0.05\). At a running speed on a treadmill of 14 km/h, statistically significantly higher MVIC results [%] were found for 100% Body weight relief (m = 23.69 \(\pm\) 2.44) compared to 75% Body weight relief (m = 20.46 \(\pm\) 2.50; \(p<0.0001\); d = 1.31), 50% Body weight relief (m = 17.92 \(\pm\) 2.04; \(p<0.0001\); d = 2.57) and 25% Body weight relief (m = 16.09 \(\pm\) 1.81; \(p<0.0001\); d = 3.38). No significant differences were found between only 50% and 25% Body weight relief \(p>0.05\). At a running speed on a treadmill of 18 km/h, statistically significantly higher MVIC results [%] were found for 100% Body weight relief (m = 29.51 \(\pm\) 2.63) compared to 75% Body weight relief (m = 25.62 \(\pm\) 2.94; \(p<0.0001\); d = 1.39), 50% Body weight relief (m = 22.68 \(\pm\) 2.45; \(p<0.0001\); d = 2.69) and 25% Body weight relief (m = 20.17 \(\pm\) 2.27; \(p<0.0001\); d = 3.80). Significant differences were also found between the results of 75%, 50% and 25%, and between 50% and 25% Body weight relief \(p<0.05\)  
For the rectus muscle, descriptive statistics are presented in Table 3. At a treadmill running speed of 6 km/h, no significant differences in MVIC [%] were found due to Body weight relief (\(p>0.05\)). At a running speed on a treadmill of 10 km/h, statistically significantly higher MVIC results [%] were found for 100% Body weight relief (m = 21.03 \(\pm\) 5.21) compared to 75% Body weight relief (m = 16.53 \(\pm\) 3.09; \(p<0.0001\); d = 1.05), 50% Body weight relief (m = 13.70 \(\pm\) 2.42; \(p<0.0001\); d = 1.80) and 25% Body weight relief (m = 11.35 \(\pm\) 2.06; \(p<0.0001\); d = 2.44). Significant differences were also found between the results of 75%, 50% and 25% and between 50% and 25% Body weight relief (\(p<0.05\)). At a running speed on a treadmill of 18 km/h, statistically significantly higher MVIC results [%] were found for 100% Body weight relief (m = 28.39 \(\pm\) 6.48) compared to 75% Body weight relief (m = 20.07 \(\pm\) 3.28; \(p<0.0001\); d = 1.62), 50% Body weight relief (m = 17.33 \(\pm\) 2.34; \(p<0.0001\); d = 2.27) and 25% Body weight relief (m = 14.49 \(\pm\) 2.46; \(p<0.0001\); d = 2.84). Significant differences were also found between the results of 75%, 50% and 25% Body weight relief (\(p<0.05\)).