## 3 Results
### Association between Anthropometric Parameters and Physical Fitness
However, in the multilinear regression analysis, humeral diameter, femoral diameter, and the sum of diameters were only associated with fat-free mass values and BMC, with models explaining 81% to 87% of fat-free mass values and 73% to 79% of BMC. Humeral diameter and the sum of diameters also explained 63% to 67% of BMD variance, but there were no significant associations between the bone diameters and handgrip strength values (Tables 3 and 4). The results of simple linear regression also indicate that calf skinfold values could explain 16% of the distance values obtained in the stand broad jump test, with increases in calf skinfold values associated with a decrease in the distance values. This association was also observed in the multilinear regression analysis, in which the model could explain 50% of the distance value obtained in the standing broad jump test (Tables 3 and 4). Additionally, in the results of the simple linear regression, the sum of four skinfolds and the subscapular skinfold value explained 17% to 19% of the number of modified push-ups, with increases in the anthropometric parameters associated with a decrease in the number of modified push-ups. However, in the multilinear regression analysis, a significant association was only observed between subscapular skinfold value and the number of modified push-ups (Tables 3 and 4). No significant associations were observed between anthropometric parameters and flexibility (Tables 3 and 4). All models were adjusted initially by group (study I and II), sex, age, pubertal stage and physical activity level. However, the pubertal stage was highly correlated with the variable sex (rho > 0.75), and the physical activity level did not present significance in any of the models. Thus, those variables were not included in the adjusted models in order to avoid overfitted models, as well as non-significant models. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **FM\%** & **FFM** & **BMC** & **BMD** & **VO\({}_{\text{preda}}\)** & **HGS** & **ABE** & **SBJ** & **MPU** & **Hexibility** \\ \hline MUAC (cm) & 0.791 *** & 0.796 *** & 0.794 *** & 0.747 ** & -0.517 * & 0.557 * & -0.171 & -0.022 & -0.284 & -0.292 \\ Waist circumference (cm) & 0.746 * & 0.816 *** & 0.769 ** & 0.720 ** & -0.583 * & 0.491 * & -0.312 & 0.007 & -0.368 & -0.195 \\ Hip circumference (cm) & 0.690 * & 0.880 *** & 0.837 *** & 0.799 ** & -0.459 & 0.664 ** & -0.053 & 0.048 & -0.147 & -0.271 \\ Waist-to-hip ratio & 0.134 * & -0.298 & -0.262 & -0.246 & -0.337 & -0.411 & -0.691 ** & -0.109 & -0.470 * & -0.049 \\ Waist-to-height ratio & 0.848 *** & 0.180 & 0.242 & 0.187 & -0.515 * & 0.038 & -0.600 ** & -0.335 & -0.657 ** & -0.214 \\ Tripc skinfold (mm) & 0.855 *** & 0.315 & 0.366 & 0.272 & -0.344 & 0.133 & -0.392 & -0.325 & -0.467 & -0.418 \\ Subsequently skinfold (mm) & 0.926 * & 0.558 * & 0.628 * & 0.547 * & -0.685 * & 0.268 * & 0.524 * & -0.391 & -0.628 * & -0.332 \\ Abdominal skinfold (mm) & 0.860 * & 0.581 & 0.620 & 0.553 * & -0.651 & 0.215 & -0.488 & -0.344 & -0.586 * & -0.295 \\ Cal skinfold (mm) & 0.775 * & 0.247 & 0.178 & 0.093 & -0.300 & -0.023 & -0.041 & -0.420 & -0.437 & -0.376 \\ Sum of four skinfolds (mm) * & 0.930 * & 0.531 * & 0.581 * & 0.493 * & -0.587 & 0.213 & -0.482 * & -0.389 & -0.601 ** & -0.379 \\ Humeral diameter (cm) & 0.483 * & 0.815 *** & 0.691 * & 0.651 * & -0.448 & 0.573 * & -0.063 & 0.070 & 0.012 & -0.320 \\ Femoral diameter (cm) & 0.413 & 0.800 *** & 0.708 * & 0.666 ** & -0.477 * & 0.572 ** & -0.061 & 0.108 & 0.065 & -0.295 \\ Sum of diameters (cm) \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.478 * & 0.810 *** & 0.701 ** & 0.653 ** & -0.466 & 0.567 * & -0.066 & 0.046 & 0.015 & -0.336 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Spearman rank correlation between anthropometric parameters and physical fitness components. _Appl.