## 3 Results  
A total of 20 subjects participated in this study. Their main characteristics (anthropometric parameters and 1 h run distance) are shown in Table 1. No intergroup significant differences were observed (\(p\)\(>\) 0.05), neither in the anthropometry values nor in the run distance for 1 h.  
Furthermore, there were no intragroup performance differences among the three running days, independent of supplementation post-exercise (=NAB) or without supplementation (=CON). None of the variables has a significance value \(p\)\(<\) 0.05, a statistical power 1-SS \(>\) 0.45, or an effect size \(\eta^{2}\)\(>\) 0.25 for the repeated measures ANOVA test. Therefore, it could be concluded that there are no changes in the variables in relation to the three moments of evaluation or to the interaction between the moment of evaluation and the group of belonging. The effects analysis of non-alcoholic beer as a rehydrating beverage immediately post-exercise (NAB group), in comparison to water normal use (CON group), after 1 h submaximal intensity running for three days, is reflected in the following tables: first day results in Table 2; second day results in Table 3; third day results in Table 4. The study variables on each variable are as follows: plasma antioxidant enzyme activity (GPx, GR, Cat) (U), plasma LDH enzyme activity (U), lower limb thermographic register (quadriceps, gastrocnemius) (\({}^{\circ}\)C). As can be seen, no intragroup significant difference (60\({}^{\prime}\)Post-Pre interval vs. 60\({}^{\prime}\)Post-0\({}^{\prime}\)Post interval) was produced, neither in CON nor in NAB. There was also no intergroup significant difference (CON vs. NAB), neither in the 60\({}^{\prime}\)Post-Pre interval nor in the 60\({}^{\prime}\)Post-0\({}^{\prime}\)Post interval. This was observed in the three running days. Therefore, based on these results, to drink non-alcoholic beer did not imply statistically significant changes regarding the study variables. Considering this, clinical relevance by ES was then investigated, comparing the NAB group in relation to the CON group and establishing a 95% IC, with 0.20 being the minimum relevant value. This threshold value was set to negative for antioxidant enzymes (so that if there is a positive ES, the result = beneficial), and was set to positive for the muscle damage (LDH) and muscle injury risk (thermography) indicators (so that if there is a positive ES, the result = harmful). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline
**Variable** & **CON** & **NAB** \\ \hline Age (years old) & 23.40 \(\pm\) 4.79 & 21.30 \(\pm\) 3.27 \\ Body mass (kg) & 75.75 \(\pm\) 10.09 & 68.47 \(\pm\) 6.13 \\ Height (cm) & 179.50 \(\pm\) 7.68 & 178.20 \(\pm\) 7.60 \\ BMI (kg/m\({}^{2}\)) & 23.57 \(\pm\) 3.38 & 21.55 \(\pm\) 1.21 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Run distance (m)} & Day 1 & 10,035.61 \(\pm\) 2099.24 & 8620.70 \(\pm\) 1332.68 \\  & Day 2 & 10,218.70 \(\pm\) 1998.32 & 8968.80 \(\pm\) 1563.72 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Day 3 & 10,383.70 \(\pm\) 1855.97 & 9382.26 \(\pm\) 1535.27 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \(\overline{\text{CON}}\) = control group; NAB = non-alcoholic beer group; SD = standard deviation; BMI = body mass index.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Anthropometric characteristics and run distance. CON, n = 10; NAB, n = 10. Data are expressed as mean \(\pm\) SD. Paying attention to the ES in Table 2, there was only a single result more relevant than the rest: non-alcoholic beer intake turned out to be likely harmful in thermography (ThG) vs. CON, since d = 0.68 is a positive medium ES, closer to a large ES than a small ES. Regarding the rest of the data on the first day, except for GR in 60\({}^{\prime}\)Post-Pre (d = \(-\)0.54, which suggests possibly harmful), the others were clinically irrelevant.