Table 2.
Post-hoc analysis of ECC power for the following inertial loads: 0.083, 0.132, 0.266, and 0.350 kg·m2 (n = 16).
| Inertial load (kg·m2) | Pecc (W) | Standardized difference (95%CL) | Qualitative assessment | p-level |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MALES | ||||
| 0.083 vs. 0.132 | 338 ± 96 vs. 344 ± 91 | -0.05 (-0.25, 0.14) | trivial | p > 0.05 |
| 0.083 vs. 0.182 | 338 ± 96 vs. 287 ± 85 | 0.47 (0.23, 0.71) | moderate | p < 0.05 |
| 0.083 vs. 0.266 | 338 ± 96 vs. 230 ± 58 | 1.00 (0.59, 1.42) | moderate | p < 0.01 |
| 0.083 vs. 0.350 | 338 ± 96 vs. 135 ± 47 | 1.89 (1.32, 2.46) | large | p < 0.01 |
| 0.132 vs. 0.182 | 344 ± 91 vs. 287 ± 85 | 0.53 (0.36, 0.69) | small | p < 0.01 |
| 0.132 vs. 0.266 | 344 ± 91 vs. 230 ± 58 | 1.06 (0.71, 1.40) | moderate | p < 0.01 |
| 0.132 vs. 0.350 | 344 ± 91 vs. 135 ± 47 | 1.94 (1.39, 2.50) | large | p < 0.01 |
| 0.182 vs. 0.266 | 287 ± 85 vs. 230 ± 58 | 0.53 (0.27, 0.80) | small | p < 0.01 |
| 0.182 vs. 0.350 | 287 ± 85 vs. 135 ± 47 | 1.42 (0.95, 1.88) | large | p < 0.01 |
| 0.266 vs. 0.350 | 230 ± 58 vs. 135 ± 47 | 0.89 (0.59, 1.18) | moderate | p < 0.01 |
| FEMALES | ||||
| 0.083 vs. 0.132 | 158 ± 54 vs. 152 ± 39 | 0.18 (-0.16, 0.52) | trivial | p > 0.05 |
| 0.083 vs. 0.182 | 158 ± 54 vs. 115 ± 36 | 0.72 (0.31, 1.13) | moderate | p < 0.01 |
| 0.083 vs. 0.266 | 158 ± 54 vs. 90 ± 34 | 1.14 (0.69, 1.59) | large | p < 0.01 |
| 0.083 vs. 0.350 | 158 ± 54 vs. 62 ± 22 | 1.69 (1.21, 2.17) | large | p < 0.01 |
| 0.132 vs. 0.182 | 152 ± 39 vs. 115 ± 36 | 0.48 (0.27, 0.69) | small | p < 0.01 |
| 0.132 vs. 0.266 | 152 ± 39 vs. 90 ± 34 | 0.94 (0.68, 1.20) | moderate | p < 0.01 |
| 0.132 vs. 0.350 | 152 ± 39 vs. 62 ± 22 | 1.51 (1.27, 1.75) | large | p < 0.01 |
| 0.182 vs. 0.266 | 115 ± 36 vs. 90 ± 34 | 0.42 (0.21, 0.63) | small | p < 0.01 |
| 0.182 vs. 0.350 | 115 ± 36 vs. 62 ± 22 | 1.03 (0.79, 1.27) | moderate | p < 0.01 |
| 0.266 vs. 0.350 | 90 ± 34 vs. 62 ± 22 | 0.57 (0.39, 0.75) | small | p < 0.01 |
ECC = Eccentric contraction; W = Watt; CL = Confidence limits.