## 3 Results  
The age, training background and duration, anthropometry, countermovement jump, general biomechanical variables, and swimming performance for both performance groups are presented in Table 1. The elite swimmers were older than the non-elite, but only elite female swimmers had a greater training background. The elite swimmers also presented higher swimming and dryland training durations, but the training ratio of 90 to 10% (for swimming and dryland, respectively) was similar between the two groups. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variables** & **Elite Male** & **Non-Elite** & **\(p\)-Value** & **Effect Size** & **Elite Female** & **Non-Elite** & **\(p\)-Value** & **Effect Size** \\  & **(n = 9)** & **(n = 11)** & **(95\% CD)** & **(n = 12)** & **(n = 19)** & **(n = 19)** & **(95\% CD)** \\ \hline Age (years) & 17.6 \(\pm\) 0.6 & 16.1 \(\pm\) 1.1 & 0.015 & 1.5 (0.3–2.7) & 16.2 \(\pm\) 0.7 & 14.5 \(\pm\) 1.9 & 0.003 & 1.0 (0.3–1.8) \\ Training background (years) & 8 \(\pm\) 0.7 & 6.2 \(\pm\) 2.4 & 0.119 & 1.4 (0.3–2.5) & 7.5 \(\pm\) 1.0 & 5.5 \(\pm\) 2.3 & 0.002 & 1.1 (0.3–1.8) \\ Swimming training (h- week-1) & 19.2 \(\pm\) 1.1 & 10.9 \(\pm\) 1.1 & \textless{}0.001 & 7.4 (4.5–10.3) & 18.5 \(\pm\) 1.2 & 10.5 \(\pm\) 1.0 & \textless{}0.001 & 7.4 (5.4–9.4) \\ Dryland training (h- week-1) & 1.8 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 0.9 \(\pm\) 0.2 & \textless{}0.001 & 3.0 (1.5–4.5) & 1.8 \(\pm\) 0.9 & 0.7 \(\pm\) 0.2 & \textless{}0.001 & 1.9 (1.0–2.7) \\ Swimming performance (WA points) & 706 \(\pm\) 31 & 445 \(\pm\) 108 & \textless{}0.001 & 2.8 (1.3–4.3) & 723 \(\pm\) 44 & 409 \(\pm\) 66 & \textless{}0.001 & 5.3 (3.8–6.9) \\ Height (cm) & 176.9 \(\pm\) 3.5 & 177.8 \(\pm\) 4.5 & 0.717 & \textless{}0.2 & & & & \\ Body mass (kg) & 66.6 \(\pm\) 5.2 & 66.2 \(\pm\) 8.9 & 0.924 & 0.1 (–1.0–1.1) & 57.9 \(\pm\) 4.0 & 55.4 \(\pm\) 6.3 & 0.216 & 0.5 (–0.3–1.2) \\ Body mass index & 21.3 \(\pm\) 1.1 & 20.9 \(\pm\)3 & 0.743 & 0.2 (–0.9–1.2) & 20.7 \(\pm\) 1.2 & 21.1 \(\pm\) 2.1 & 0.528 & (–1.0–0.5) \\ (kg- m\({}^{2-1}\)) & 18.7 \(\pm\) 0.5 & 18.7 \(\pm\) 0.8 & 0.789 & 0.1 (–1.0–1.1) & 18.2 \(\pm\) 0.5 & 17.2 \(\pm\) 1.3 & 0.012 & 1.0 (0.2–1.8) \\ Arm span (cm) & 179.5 \(\pm\) 3.0 & 178.1 \(\pm\) 4.5 & 0.686 & 0.2 (–0.8–1.3) & 172.1 \(\pm\) 5.2 & 161.7 \(\pm\) 6.9 & \textless{}0.001 & 1.7 (0.8–2.5) \\ Waist/hip ratio & 0.85 \(\pm\) 0.01 & 0.80 \(\pm\) 0.03 & 0.001 & 1.6 (0.4–2.8) & 0.78 \(\pm\) 0.03 & 0.75 \(\pm\) 0.03 & 0.026 & 0.9 (0.1–1.6) \\ Fat mass (\%) & 7.1 \(\pm\) 1.6 & 12.9 \(\pm\) 2.8 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}(3.6–0.9) & 15.6 \(\pm\) 3.2 & 22.8 \(\pm\) 5.3 & \textless{}0.001 & (–2.4–0.7) \\ Flight time (s) & 0.55 \(\pm\) 0.04 & 0.48 \(\pm\) 0.04 & 0.005 & 1.8 (0.5–3.0) & 0.48 \(\pm\) 0.03 & 0.40 \(\pm\) 0.04 & \textless{}0.001 & 2.2 (1.3–3.1) \\ Impulse (N*) & 177.3 \(\pm\) 20.6 & 148.6 \(\pm\) 22.8 & 0.032 & 1.3 (–0.1–2.4) & 133.0 \(\pm\) 13.7 & 108.6 \(\pm\) 16.7 & \textless{}0.001 & 1.6 (0.7–2.4) \\ Stroke rate & 54.4 \(\pm\) 12.0 & 54.0 \(\pm\) 5.6 & 0.875 & 0.1 (–1.0–1.1) & 52.9 \(\pm\) 4.6 & 47.5 \(\pm\) 4.2 & 0.002 & 1.2 (0.4–2.0) \\ Stroke length & 2.20 \(\pm\) 0.14 & 2.00 \(\pm\) 0.19 & 0.055 & 1.1 (0.0–2.2) & 2.04 \(\pm\) 0.17 & 1.91 \(\pm\) 0.15 & 0.026 & 0.9 (0.1–1.6) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Comparison of elite and non-elite swimmers’ age, training background and duration, anthropometry, swimming performance, countermovement jump, and swimming biomechanics. Figure 4: Linear regressions and corresponding coefficients of determination between targets (real World Aquatics points) and output (estimated World Aquatics points) values in training, testing, and total sample sets (panels **A**, **B**, and **C**, respectively). Correlational analysis showed that all the assessed variables had moderate to high direct relationships with swimming performance (r > 0.4), except the inverse relationship for fat mass (negative r), and the trivial correlations for body mass and body mass index (r < 0.3; see Table 2).