## 3 Results
### Relationships between Anthropometric and Physical Performance Parameters  
Before the two-step linear regression analysis, the collinearity of anthropometric data (body height, body weight, and body fat) was checked using by bivariate [PERSON]'s product-moment correlation (\(r\)) calculation:  
* Body weight/body height: \(r\) = 0.320;
* Body weight/body fat: \(r\) = 0.343;
* Body height/body fat: \(r\) = \(-\)0.317. Regarding the BMI, markedly higher relationships were found (body height: \(r\) = \(-\)0.521, body weight: \(r\) = 0.633, and \(\%\)BF: \(r\) = 0.578). The two-step linear regression analysis with the predictors body height and body weight (step 1) and \(\%\)BF (step 2) displayed an increase in the explained variance by adding \(\%\)BF in the second step (Table 3). The \(r^{2}\) changes between the first and second steps ranged from 0.04 (CMJ and SJ) and 0.53 (agility T-half test). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l} \hline \hline
**Parameters** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Normal Weight**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Overweight**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Total**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**ANOVA**} \\  & **(\(\bolds{n}\) = 11)** & **(\(\bolds{n}\) = 14)** & **(\(\bolds{n}\) = 25)** & **\(\bolds{p}\)** & \({\rm\eta_{p}}^{2}\)** \\ \hline Age (years) & 25.6 \(\pm\) 5.8 & 25.3 \(\pm\) 6.4 & 25.5 \(\pm\) 6.0 & 0.918 & 0.000 \\ \hline Anthropometric parameters & & & & & \\ Body height (m) & 1.91 \(\pm\) 0.06 & 1.84 \(\pm\) 0.13 & 1.87 \(\pm\) 0.11 & 0.098 & 0.114 \\ Body mass (kg) & 88.4 \(\pm\) 6.2 & 97.8 \(\pm\) 14.4 & 93.6 \(\pm\) 12.3 & 0.056 & 0.150 \\ BMI (kg/m\({}^{2}\)) & 24.1 \(\pm\) 0.8 & 29.0 \(\pm\) 4.6 & 26.8 \(\pm\) 4.2 & **0.002** & **0.339** \\ Body fat (\%) & 18.0 \(\pm\) 3.4 & 20.6 \(\pm\) 5.4 & 19.5 \(\pm\) 4.7 & 0.180 & 0.077 \\ Bicipital skinfold (mm) & 5.00 \(\pm\) 1.90 & 9.25 \(\pm\) 5.68 & 7.38 \(\pm\) 4.86 & **0.027** & **0.196** \\ Tricipital skinfold (mm) & 11.4 \(\pm\) 3.6 & 13.4 \(\pm\) 6.8 & 12.5 \(\pm\) 5.6 & 0.380 & 0.034 \\ Subscapular (mm) & 15.5 \(\pm\) 6.6 & 18.4 \(\pm\) 10.0 & 17.1 \(\pm\) 8.7 & 0.410 & 0.030 \\ Suprailiac (mm) & 13.0 \(\pm\) 6.3 & 18.2 \(\pm\) 8.1 & 15.9 \(\pm\) 7.7 & 0.096 & 0.116 \\ \hline Performance parameters & & & & & \\
15 m sprint (s) & 2.51 \(\pm\) 0.44 & 2.48 \(\pm\) 0.46 & 2.49 \(\pm\) 0.44 & 0.874 & 0.001 \\
30 m sprint (s) & 4.38 \(\pm\) 0.38 & 4.49 \(\pm\) 0.43 & 4.44 \(\pm\) 0.40 & 0.489 & 0.021 \\ Agility T-half (s) & 6.28 \(\pm\) 0.47 & 6.22 \(\pm\) 0.47 & 6.25 \(\pm\) 0.46 & 0.772 & 0.004 \\ CMJ (cm) & 48.8 \(\pm\) 4.7 & 43.3 \(\pm\) 5.6 & 45.7 \(\pm\) 5.9 & **0.016** & **0.227** \\ SJ (cm) & 40.8 \(\pm\) 6.9 & 38.2 \(\pm\) 6.6 & 39.3 \(\pm\) 6.7 & 0.361 & 0.036 \\ Yo-Yo IR1 distance (m) & 1284 \(\pm\) 210 & 1211 \(\pm\) 400 & 1243 \(\pm\) 326 & 0.594 & 0.013 \\ Medicine ball & 9.81 \(\pm\) 1.20 & 9.63 \(\pm\) 1.96 & 9.71 \(\pm\) 1.84 & 0.791 & 0.003 \\ over-head throw (m) & 29.8 \(\pm\) 4.3 & 26.4 \(\pm\) 4.8 & 27.9 \(\pm\) 4.8 & 0.083 & 0.125 \\ Running shot (m/s) & 33.0 \(\pm\) 2.1 & 30.1 \(\pm\) 5.3 & 31.4 \(\pm\) 4.4 & 0.101 & 0.113 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Participants’ physical characteristics by BMI category (normal weight vs. overweight) and a comparison of the parameters between both groups based on the first testing set. Data are presented as means \(\pm\) standard deviation. Significant differences (\(p\) < 0.05 and \({\rm\eta_{p}}^{2}\) > 0.15) are marked in bold. SJ: squat jump, CMJ: countermovement jump, Yo-Yo IR1: yo-yo intermittent recovery test 1. The largest additional explained variances were calculated for the agility T-half test (0.53), 15 m sprint (0.38), and jump shot (0.31). Regarding CMJ (step 1: \(r^{2}\) = 0.18, step 2 \(r^{2}\) = 0.22) and SJ (step 1: \(r^{2}\) = 0.05, step 2: \(r^{2}\) = 0.09), no relevant influence of any predictor was observed. With the exception of sprint performance (\(\beta\)-coefficient for 15 m sprint: \(-0.07\); \(\beta\)-coefficient for 30 m sprint: \(-0.06\)), a decreased \(\%\)BF led to higher performance.