## 3 Results
#### 3.1.1 Comparison of Proposed and Realized Training Volume through PASm-12 (Q1)  
In Table 5, the data show that athlete S3 achieved the highest training volume (2478 km) while athlete S1 achieved the lowest (2232 km). These data allow us to assert that PASm-12 was not fully applied, only at 90.2%. If the significance of the comparison test is greater than \(p=0.05\), we accept that the data do not provide sufficient evidence to conclude that the volume of effort performed by the athletes aligns with the planned volume of effort in the annual physical training plan. On the other hand, if \(p\leq 0.05\), we reject the null hypothesis, suggesting that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the volume of effort performed by the athletes is congruent with the planned volume, indicating the effectiveness of the scheduling. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Pair**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Volume Indicator Variable**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Mean S1–S6 (km)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Difference**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**t**} & \multirow{2}{*}{_p_} \\  & & **Compared/Mesocycle/Realized-Proposed** & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{1} & Realized training volume mesocycle I & 144.7 & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)15.33} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)3.052} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.028} \\  & Proposed training volume mesocycle I & 160.00 & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{2} & Realized training volume mesocycle II & 149.33 & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)18.67} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)4.495} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.006} \\  & Proposed training volume mesocycle II & 168.0 & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{3} & Realized training volume mesocycle III & 167.00 & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)63.00} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)20.40} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.001} \\  & Proposed training volume mesocycle III & 230.00 & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{4} & Realized training volume mesocycle IV & 173.67 & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)10.33} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)4.939} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.004} \\  & Proposed training volume mesocycle IV & 184.00 & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{5} & Realized training volume mesocycle V & 198.67 & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)32.33} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)5.247} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.003} \\  & Proposed training volume mesocycle V & 2231.00 & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{6} & Realized training volume mesocycle VI & 229.67 & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)16.93} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)4.290} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.008} \\  & Proposed training volume mesocycle VI & 246.60 & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{7} & Realized training volume mesocycle VII & 229.67 & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)14.13} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)12.041} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.001} \\  & Proposed training volume mesocycle VII & 243.08 & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{8} & Realized training volume mesocycle VIII & 102.17 & \multirow{2}{*}{\(7.57\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.787} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.467} \\  & Proposed training volume mesocycle VIII & 94.60 & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{9} & Realized training volume mesocycle IX & 308.67 & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)3.53} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)0.493} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.643} \\  & Proposed training volume mesocycle IX & 312.20 & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{10} & Realized training volume mesocycle X & 318.83 & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)26.97} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)3.302} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.021} \\  & Proposed training volume mesocycle X & 345.80 & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Differences between realized and proposed training volume through PASm-12.