## 4 Discussion
One of the plausible differences in the findings may be associated with the rest between the conditioning activity and the performance of the SJFT. [PERSON], [PERSON], and [PERSON] [7] used a recovery period of 3 min, whereas in the current study, a recovery period of 8 min was used. It is important to note that the PAPE effect is an interplay between fatigue and potentiation [5]. Indeed, to achieve a PAPE effect, an optimal recovery duration between the conditioning activity and performance is suggested. The balance between these two effects determines overall performance, and when fatigue outweighs potentiation, performance declines [28; 29]. Of note, recent studies have consistently advocated the use of a longer recovery duration after a heavy resistance exercise compared to a ballistic exercise as a conditioning activity [5]. Of note, our findings reported a significant difference between conditioning activities and control conditions during throws in set 2 but not in sets 1 and 3, which is in contrast to previous findings [6; 7]. For example, [PERSON], [PERSON], and [PERSON] [7] reported a significant difference during throws in set 1 but not in sets 2 and 3 after glyometric conditioning activity compared to a control condition. Similarly, [PERSON] [6] reported significant differences after conditioning activities (i.e., lower-body exercises and upper-body combined with lower-body exercises) compared to control conditions during throws in sets 1 but not in sets 2 and 3. Although speculative, a plausible explanation may be the longer duration of recovery (compared to previous studies that used 3 min and 5 min [6; 7]) between the conditioning activities and the SJFT assessment. It may be plausible that although 8 min of recovery between the conditioning activities and the SJFT seems optimal, the first set of throws lasting 15 s may have acted as a re-warm-up strategy for the athletes, thus increasing the number of throws in set 2. [PERSON], [PERSON], and [PERSON] [7] used a shorter recovery duration of 3 min and thus showed improved the performance in set 1 of the SJFT after pyometric conditioning activity (possibly not requiring a re-warm-up activity). However, in the same study [7], the authors did not report improvement in throws (during sets 1, 2, 3, and total) after maximal strength and contrast pair of exercises, underlying the importance of consideration of recovery duration based on the type of conditioning activities used. In addition, [PERSON] [6] included a 3 RM high-pull test (to measure power output) as a performance measure after 5 min of conditioning activities that was followed by the SJFT after 2 min. It may be plausible that the 3 RM high-pull test acted as a re-warm-up strategy before the SJFT was performed at approximately 7 min after the main conditioning activity was performed [6]. Indeed, these aforementioned reasons may also explain the non-significant difference during throws in set 2 in previous studies [6; 7], i.e., potentiation effects during throws in set 1 but fatigue during throws in sets 2 and 3. Whereas, in our study, the throws during set 1 acted as a re-warm-up strategy, whilst potentiation effects were observed in set 2 and fatigue effects in set 3. However, this remains speculative, and the readers are suggested to be cautious until further research confirms our hypothesis. The physiological responses measured using the HR immediately and one minute after the SJFT showed no significant difference between the experimental conditions. This finding aligns with previous studies [6; 7], where both the immediate HR and HR after one minute did not show significant differences between the experimental condition and control. This suggests that the conditioning activities, in general, do not have any acute effect on cardiovascular recovery. Another finding was a decrease in the handgrip strength after the squat-based conditioning activity, compared to the ballistic jump or control condition.