## 4 Cross-Validation Results (Second Collection)  
Flowchart 2 presents the results of the recruitment, entry, eligibility and exclusion of participants from the experimental collection. After analyzing statistical assumptions, the data distribution violated normality assumptions for the measurement variable vMART predicted by absolute and relative DL  
Figure 4: Representation of the linear regression equation of the sum of the DL and SQ workloads for vMART (**A**) and V\({}_{\text{Peak}}\) (**B**), respectively. R\({}^{2}\) = coefficient of determination; vMART = peak velocity obtained in the incremental MART; V\({}_{\text{Peak}}\) = peak velocity obtained in the maximum incremental test; SEE = standard error of the estimate. (\(p\) = 0.007; \(p\) = 0.009, respectively) or absolute and relative SQ (\(p\) = 0.017; \(p\) = 0.003, respectively), as well as for the measurement variable V\({}_{\rm Peak}\) predicted by relative DL (\(p\) = 0.092) and V\({}_{\rm Peak}\) predicted by absolute and relative SQ (\(p\) = 0.020; \(p\) = 0.004). The same occurred for the sum of the workloads for prediction of vMART (\(p\) = 0.050) and sum of the loads for prediction of V\({}_{\rm Peak}\) (\(p\) = 0.046). Therefore, non-parametric statistical tests were used. Table 5 presents the characterization of the new sample participating in the validation process of the prediction equations. Table 6 presents the strength and running performance data. Table 7 presents the results of the association between the real performance measures vMART and V\({}_{\rm Peak}\) vs. the different results predicted by absolute and relative values of DL and SQ, as well as the sum of the workloads. The Wilcoxon test for the measures of real vMART vs. vMART predicted by DL (\(p\) = 0.02) and SQ (\(p\) = 0.043) showed significant differences, but not for DL/BM (\(p\) = 0.051) and SQ/BM (\(p\) = 0.093). The same statistical treatment was used for the measures of real V\({}_{\rm Peak}\) vs. V\({}_{\rm Peak}\) predicted by DL/BM (\(p\) = 0.002), SQ (\(p\) = 0.019) and SQ/BM (\(p\) = 0.05), demonstrating significant differences between the real measure and that predicted by the equation. For the prediction of vMART performance from the sum of the DL and SQ workloads, the comparison by the Wilcoxon test did not demonstrate significant differences (\(p\) = 0.148), however, the same did not occur for the prediction of V\({}_{\rm Peak}\) performance from the sum of the DL and SQ workloads (\(p\) = 0.008), where significant differences were observed. Table 8 presents the typical measurement error for the real vs. predicted variables. Figures 5 and 6 present the comparisons between the real vs. predicted measurements by the equation, using DL, SQ and the sum of the workloads. The Bland-Altman agreement analysis can be seen in the supplementary material (Figures S1 and S2). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **DL** & **SQ** & **vMART** & **V\({}_{\rm Peak}\)** \\ \hline  & **(kg)** & **(kg)** & **(km\(\cdot\)h\({}^{-1}\))** & **(km\(\cdot\)h\({}^{-1}\))** \\ \hline Mean & 90.6 & 74.4 & 15.3 & 12.6 \\ SD & 29.5 & 17.1 & 1.9 & 1.5 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} SD = standard deviation; DL = deadlift; SQ = squat; V\({}_{\rm Peak}\) = peak of velocity in the maximum incremental test.  
\end{table} 
Table 6: Performance measures of the new sample with low strength score. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Eq. Prediction DL** & **Eq. Prediction SQ** & **Sum** \\ \cline{2-5}  & **(Abs)** & **(Rel)** & **(Abs)** & **(Rel)** & **(DL+SQ)** \\ \hline vMART Real & r = 0.766; & r = 0.757; & r = 0.545; & r = 0.125; & r = 0.683; \\  & \(p\) = 0.001 \({}^{*}\) & \(p\) = 0.001 \({}^{*}\) & \(p\) = 0.024 \({}^{*}\) & \(p\) = 0.634 & \(p\) = 0.003 \({}^{*}\) \\ V\({}_{\rm Peak}\) Real & r = 0.651; & r = 0.430 Figure 5: Box-and-whisker plot of real and predicted vMART performances, absolute and relative DL and SQ, as well as the sum of the workloads (DL+SQ).