## 3 Results
### Effects of Maturity Status  
The existence of at least strong evidence in favor of the alternative hypothesis (H\({}_{1}\)) with at least a moderate effect size was found between MAT and all trunk muscle endurance values (BF\({}_{10}\) > 10, an error percentage < 1, \(\delta\) = 0.6-0.79), except for the SB-L test, where the evidence was moderate, and the effect size was small (Table 3). Post hoc analyses indicated that trunk muscle performances increased with at least a moderate effect size from pre- to post-PHV in the Ito (BF\({}_{10}\) = 9.177 \(\times\) 10\({}^{+10}\); \(\delta\) = 0.79), BS (BF\({}_{10}\) = 5.339 \(\times\) 10\({}^{+5}\); \(\delta\) = 0.6), and BTC (BF\({}_{10}\) = 7.961 \(\times\) 10\({}^{+6}\); \(\delta\) = 0.77) tests, with strong evidence and a small effect size in the SB-R (BF\({}_{10}\) = 173.2; \(\delta\) = 0.38), SB-L (BF\({}_{10}\) = 11.51; \(\delta\) = 0.22), and DEE (BF\({}_{10}\) = 14.47; \(\delta\) = 0.3) tests. Similarly, an increase was also shown from pre- to circa-PHV in the Ito (BF\({}_{10}\) = 36,456.22; \(\delta\) = 0.51), BS (BF\({}_{10}\) = 60.58; \(\delta\) = 0.36), and DEE (BF\({}_{10}\) = 128.7; \(\delta\) = 0.44) tests, but the effect size was small. Finally, from circa- to post-PHV, greater performance was also shown in the SB-R (BF\({}_{10}\) = 14.11; \(\delta\) = 0.3), SB-L (BF\({}_{10}\) = 11.56; \(\delta\) = 0.25), and BTC (BF\({}_{10}\) = 12.88; \(\delta\) = 0.43) tests, but evidence was moderate, and the effect size was small. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline  & **N** & **Age (y)** & **Maturity Offset** & **Body Mass (kg)** & **Body Height (cm)** & **Leg Length (cm)** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\(<\)10} & & & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**CA groups**} \\  & M & 150 & 10.1 \(\pm\) 0.5 & \(-\)2.6 \(\pm\) 0.3 & 40.1 \(\pm\) 9.1 & 141.7 \(\pm\) 6.7 & 69.2 \(\pm\) 5 \\  & F & 153 & 10 \(\pm\) 0.5 & \(-\)1.6 \(\pm\) 0.6 & 39.7 \(\pm\) 10.4 & 140.1 \(\pm\) 7.3 & 67.9 \(\pm\) 5.2 \\  & M & 70 & 11.5 \(\pm\) 0.2 & \(-\)2.1 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 45 \(\pm\) 10.3 & 148.5 \(\pm\) 6.8 & 72.6 \(\pm\) 4.8 \\  & F & 77 & 11.5 \(\pm\) 0.2 & \(-\)0.1 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 48.4 \(\pm\) 10.4 & 150.9 \(\pm\) 6.8 & 72.5 \(\pm\) 4.3 \\  & M & 61 & 12.4 \(\pm\) 0.2 & \(-\)1.4 \(\pm\) 0.7 & 51.1 \(\pm\) 12.3 & 154.9 \(\pm\) 8.3 & 75.9 \(\pm\) 5.5 \\  & F & 57 & 12.4 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 0.3 \(\pm\) 0.5 & 50.6 \(\pm\) 13.1 & 153.5 \(\pm\) 5.9 & 74.3 \(\pm\) 3.4 \\  & M & 51 & 13.4 \(\pm\) 0.2 & \(-\)0.4 \(\pm\) 0.8 & 57.3 \(\pm\) 13.5 & 162.2 \(\pm\) 8.8 & 80 \(\pm\) 5.1 \\  & F & 34 & 13.4 \(\pm\) 0.3 & 1.3 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 57.4 \(\pm\) 11.7 & 158.1 \(\pm\) 6.5 & 75.6 \(\pm\) 4.2 \\  & M & 62 & 14.5 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 0.4 \(\pm\) 0.8 & 63.8 \(\pm\) 13.1 & 167.5 \(\pm\) 6.7 & 82.4 \(\pm\) 4.4 \\  & F & 47 & 14.5 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 1.9 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 58.9 \(\pm\) 11.9 & 161.3 \(\pm\) 5.5 & 77.8 \(\pm\) 5.1 \\  & M & 45 & 15.8 \(\pm\) 0.6 & 1.5 \(\pm\) 0.7 & 67.2 \(\pm\) 15.8 & 172.9 \(\pm\) 8 & 84.9 \(\pm\) 5.2 \\  & F & 55 & 15.8 \(\pm\) 0.5 & 2.4 \(\pm\) 0.3 & 60.3 \(\pm\) 10.7 & 160 \(\pm\) 5.7 & 76.8 \(\pm\) 4.5 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Pre-PHV} & & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**MAT groups**} \\  & M & 167 & 11.4 \(\pm\) 1.1 & \(-\)2.1 \(\pm\) 0.6 & 45.2 \(\pm\) 8.9 & 148.8 \(\pm\) 6.2 & 72.6 \(\pm\) 5.1 \\  & F & 115 & 9.9 \(\pm\) 0.5 & \(-\)1.8 \(\pm\) 0.5 & 37 \(\pm\) 7.8 & 138.5 \(\pm\) 5.7 & 67.2 \(\pm\) 5.2 \\  & M & 73 & 13.9 \(\pm\) 0.9 & 0.01 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 60.1 \(\pm\) 10.7 & 165.2 \(\pm\) 5.6 & 81.1 \(\pm\) 4.8 \\  & F & 105 & 11.8 \(\pm\) 0.7 & 0.01 \(\pm\) 0.3 & 50 \(\pm\) 8.9 & 152.2 \(\pm\) 5 & 73.3 \(\pm\) 3.7 \\  & M & 46 & 15.4 \(\pm\) 0.8 & 1.6 \(\pm\) 0.5 & 73.2 \(\pm\) 14.7 & 175.4 \(\pm\) 5.9 & 85.5 \(\pm\) 4.7 \\  & F & 130 & 14.7 \(\pm\) 1 & 1.9 \(\pm\) 0.5 & 60.3 \(\pm\) 11.6 & 160.2 \(\pm\) 5.2 & 76.9 \(\pm\) 4.5 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Descriptive anthropometric values (mean and SD scores) for subjects per chronological age group and maturity status.