## 4 Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Intensity Interval**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Comparative**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**\(p\)-Value**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Hedge\({}^{\prime}\)s \(g\) (95\% CI)**} \\ \cline{3-3} \cline{5-6}  & & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{P\({}_{\text{MAX}}\) (w)} & Int 1: 60.342 \(\pm\) 39.709 & 1 vs. 2 & **\textless0.001 \({}^{\star}\)** & \(-\)0.7 (0.17; 1.23) \\ \cline{2-6}  & Int 2: 37.611 \(\pm\) 21.576 & 1 vs. 3 & **\textless0.001 \({}^{\star}\)** & 1.23 (0.66; 1.79) \\ \cline{2-6}  & Int 3: 22.880 \(\pm\) 15.532 & 2 vs. 3 & **\textless0.001 \({}^{\star}\)** & 0.77 (0.24; 1.31) \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{P\({}_{\text{MEAN}}\) (w)} & Int 1: 33.821 \(\pm\) 23.200 & 1 vs. 2 & **0.002 \({}^{\star}\)** & 0.66 (0.13; 1.19) \\ \cline{2-6}  & Int 2: 21.272 \(\pm\) 13.141 & 1 vs. 3 & **\textless0.001 \({}^{\star}\)** & 1.24 (0.68; 1.80) \\ \cline{2-6}  & Int 3: 11.193 \(\pm\) 10.487 & 2 vs. 3 & **\textless0.001 \({}^{\star}\)** & 0.84 (0.3; 1.37) \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{W (J)} & Int 1: 373.612 \(\pm\) 224.358 & 1 vs. 2 & **0.006 \({}^{\star}\)** & 0.54 (0.02; 1.07) \\ \cline{2-6}  & Int 2: 269.709 \(\pm\) 144.900 & 1 vs. 3 & **\textless0.001 \({}^{\star}\)** & 1.33 (0.77; 1.90) \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-6}  & Int 3: 143.105 \(\pm\) 87.998 & 2 vs. 3 & **\textless0.001 \({}^{\star}\)** & 1.04 (0.49; 1.59) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* SD: standard deviation; P\({}_{\text{MAX}}\): maximum mechanical power in watts; P\({}_{\text{MEAN}}\): mean mechanical power in watts; W: mechanical work in joules.
* Significant differences for \(p\)-value \(\leq\) 0.05 are highlighted in bold.  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Pairwise comparisons between the different load conditions for P\({}_{\text{MAX}}\), P\({}_{\text{MEAN}}\) and W during the concentric phase of the bench press exercise. velocity in weightlifting exercises [49; 50; 51]. However, the results show a unique case: Mechanical work decreases at each interval, despite the increase in load, which should increase the mechanical work performed. This phenomenon may be due to the methodology used to determine the phases or to the phases themselves being evaluated, as more mechanical work could be performed in phase 4 at higher load intervals. This singularity should be addressed in another more specific study. Another noteworthy aspect is that no significant differences were detected in the mechanical work performed during the eccentric phase between the adjacent intervals (1-2 and 2-3), which may be due to the variability that occurs during the performance of eccentric exercise, as it is generally characterised by less control over the precision of muscle contraction [52]. Finally, the third objective, which evaluated the differences in kinematic and mechanical parameters between different intensity intervals, has also been achieved. The findings show significant differences in key variables across the three load intervals, except for mechanical work in intervals 2 and 3 during the eccentric phase. Regarding the comparisons between load intensities, in phase 2, the highest values across all variables were detected in interval 1, while interval 3 showed the lowest levels. The present findings are consistent with those of other studies, specifically regarding the variables VMEAN, VMAX, PMEAN and PMAX [53; 54; 55]. In contrast, the study by [PERSON] et al. [56] did not analyse the eccentric phase during lifts. This omission could be a limitation, as they compared two types of lifts but only included the eccentric phase in only one. As a result, muscular strength variables during the eccentric phase were not calculated. The present study fills this gap by examining the eccentric phase, thereby enabling a more comprehensive quantification of muscular strength variables. Similarly, [PERSON] et al. [57] examined the influence of cadence during the eccentric phase on barbell mechanical power and velocity in the bench press exercise.