## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \multicolumn{8}{c}{**EFBP**} \\ \hline  & **T1 (n = 12)** & **T2 (n = 12)** & **t** & **\%A** & \(p\)** & **\(\eta\)2p** & **Change Magnitude** & **Probabilistic Inference** \\ \hline Body mass (kg) & 77.808 \(\pm\) 12.40 & 75.75 \(\pm\) 11.45 & & \(-\)2.645 \(\pm\) 3.2 & 0.6768 & 0.172 & Trivial & Probably beneficial \\ \hline BMI (kg/m\({}^{2}\)) & 24.253 \(\pm\) 3.02 & 23.605 \(\pm\) 2.65 & & \(-\)2.672 \(\pm\) 3.3 & 0.157931 & 0.597 & Medium & Probably beneficial \\ \hline Body fat (\%) & 20.46 \(\pm\) 3.48 & 20.04 \(\pm\) 2.95 & 2.201 & \(-\)2.053 \(\pm\) 9.2 & 0.750297 & 0.1315 & Trivial & Possibly beneficial \\ \hline \(\Sigma\)SSF (mm) & 132.43 \(\pm\) 35.62 & 126.61 \(\pm\) 27.33 & & \(-\)4.395 \(\pm\) 13.5 & 0.65973.3 & 0.1832 & Trivial & Possibly beneficial \\ \hline Muscle mass (\%) & 33.94 \(\pm\) 3.17 & 34.67 \(\pm\) 2.69 & & 2.151 \(\pm\) 3.9 & 0.550339 & \(-\)0.248 & Medium & Possibly beneficial \\ \hline Endomorphy & 5.29 \(\pm\) 0.99 & 5.16 \(\pm\) 0.80 & & \(-\)2.457 \(\pm\) 17.6 & 0.71217 & 0.1526 & Trivial & Probably beneficial \\ \hline Mesomorphy & 3.56 \(\pm\) 1.50 & 3.56 \(\pm\) 1.36 & & 0.0 \(\pm\) 57.9 & 0.991 & 0.979 & Large & Almost certain beneficial \\ \hline Etomorphy & 1.91 \(\pm\) 0.58 & 1.91 \(\pm\) 0.58 & & 0.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 1 & 0.0 & Trivial & Trivial \\ \hline \multicolumn{8}{c}{**EFVP**} \\ \hline  & **T1 (n = 11)** & **T2 (n = 11)** & **t** & **\%A** & \(p\)** & **\(\eta\)2p** & **Change Magnitude** & **Probabilistic Inference** \\ \hline Body mass (kg) & 69.882 \(\pm\) 9.28 & 70.07 \(\pm\) 8.97 & & 0.269 \(\pm\) 2.5 & 0.000721  \({}^{*}\) & \(-\)0.02093 & Trivial & Possibly trivial \\ \hline BMI (kg/m\({}^{2}\)) & 22.315 \(\pm\) 3.07 & 22.36 \(\pm\) 2.79 & & 0.202 \(\pm\) 2.5 & 0.975031 & \(-\)0.0135 & Trivial & Possibly trivial \\ \hline Body fat (\%) & 19.03 \(\pm\) 3.19 & 19.55 \(\pm\) 4.02 & 2.228 & 2.73 \(\pm\) 16.4 & 0.741617 & \(-\)0.143 & Trivial & Probably harmful \\ \hline \(\Sigma\)SSF (mm) & 109.75 \(\pm\) 25.89 & 113.98 \(\pm\) 32.58 & & 3.009 \(\pm\) 23.5 & 0.801417 & \(-\)0.1087 & Trivial & Probably harmful \\ \hline Muscle mass (\%) & 34.20 \(\pm\) 3.75 & 35.68 \(\pm\) 3.86 & & 4.327 \(\pm\) 13.4 & 0.373621 & \(-\)0.388 & Medium & Probably beneficial \\ \hline Endomorphy & 4.809 \(\pm\) 0.8 & 5.08 \(\pm\) 1.19 & & 4.098 \(\pm\) 10.3 & 0.681101 & \(-\)0.1779 & Trivial & Probably harmful \\ \hline Mesomorphy & 2.32 \(\pm\) 1.25 & 2.66 \(\pm\) 1.39 & & 15.152 \(\pm\) 11.2 & 0.532658 & \(-\)0.271 & Small & Possibly beneficial \\ \hline Etomorphy & 1.86 \(\pm\) 0.49 & 1.86 \(\pm\) 0.49 & & 0.0 & Trivial & Trivial & \\ \hline \end{tabular} (*) highly significant change \(<\) 0.01. Note Data are expressed as mean \(\pm\) SD. Significance between T1 and T2 in EFVP/EFBPF was set at \(p\)\(\leq\) 0.05. \(\Sigma\)SSF, sum of eight skindinds (tricipital, bicipital, abdominal, supraspinal, subsepular, subscapular, iliac crest, anterior thigh, and calf). The \(\%\Delta\) was calculated as [(T2 \(-\) T1)/T1] \(\times\) 100.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Changes in body parameters between times. Figure 2: Intragroup somatotype status. Somatotype variation in both disciplines. Comparison of somatatype variation in both disciplines between time points.