## 5 Discussion  
The primary objective of this study was to establish the relationship between the production of absolute maximum strength, represented by the maximum amount of external load lifted (kg), and relativized by BM\({}^{1.0}\) in the DL and SQ exercises in order to analyze whether the anaerobic performance of the MART and maximum aerobic performance V\({}_{\text{Peak}}\) could be satisfactorily estimated through strength. Our primary hypothesis was partially accepted, since the strength levels did not significantly impact the anaerobic performance in individuals with a large maximum strength base, suggesting the existence of a ceiling at which the maximum strength levels would continue to interfere in the improvement of performance. In contrast, we observed in individuals with lower strength scores that the increase in maximum strength would be appropriate as a strategy to influence running performance. In this sense, our study appears to be the first to present the perspective of a limit in which strength is really important, and that after such a limit, there is no longer a need to invest in new attempts at increments. The importance of strength training for the development of running performance is reasonably understood in the literature [8; 9; 10; 13]. When combined with running, it appears to reflect significant adaptations, which in turn would positively influence running economy and muscular power factors [11]. [PERSON], [PERSON] and [PERSON] [14] demonstrate that strength training in physically active young individuals can induce increases in both anaerobic and aerobic endurance. In untrained individuals, there is also a small influence on maximum oxygen consumption. Logically, our study was not a chronic intervention based on the exercises presented; however, such an argumentative reference of improvement reinforces the plausibility of the investigation, so the effects of the components related to maximum strength are in fact related to running performance [15; 16; 18; 21]. Furthermore, to the best of our knowledge, our study appears to be the first in demonstrating that the DL movement can be an important predictor of both anaerobic and aerobic performance. The DL movement is similar to the SQ regarding its mechanical description (planes and axes of movement). It is an extension of the hip, knee and ankle, however, with different initial positioning, main action required (concentric only) and amplitude. [PERSON] et al. [25] also demonstrate that DL presents a greater peak joint torque on the hip extensors compared to SQ (3.59 vs. 2.98 Nm\(\cdot\)kg\({}^{-1}\), d = 0.81, \(p\) < 0.001). In this sense, we know that, mainly, the requirement for large ranges of motion when running is reasonably small, which makes the SQ an apparently unspecific element. Additionally, the extension movements of the hip, knee and ankle joints are the main accelerators of BM when performing short-term movements, such as in the MART [15; 16]. Therefore, based mainly on the premise of specificity, there seems to be plausibility in using DL exercise in the context of running performance, and our study corroborates this argument, especially when the external load is relativized by BM (DL vs. MART \(-\) R\({}^{2}\) = 0.482; DL/BM vs. vMART \(-\) R\({}^{2}\) = 0.763; DL/BM vs. V\({}_{\text{Peak}}\)\(-\) R\({}^{2}\) = 0.343). Therefore, the DL movement relativized by BM presents itself as a great alternative, explaining 76% of the variations in anaerobic and aerobic performance in participants with lower strength score levels (<1.5 of BM). However, despite this approach, in our study we saw that SQ is also relevant to explaining running performance, even when faced with a kinematic pattern that is different from that used in running (deep squat).