Table 1
Variable
|
Group
|
n
|
X
|
Sd
|
t
|
p
|
Age (year)
|
Athletes
|
20
|
21.45
|
3.37
|
1.034
|
0.308
|
Non-athletes
|
20
|
20.40
|
3.03
|
Body Height (cm)
|
Athletes
|
20
|
171.00
|
6.84
|
-0.572
|
0.571
|
Non-athletes
|
20
|
172.40
|
8.53
|
Body Weight (kg)
|
Athletes
|
20
|
61.81
|
14.43
|
-0.836
|
0.408
|
Non-athletes
|
20
|
65.09
|
9.94
|
Body Mass Index (kg/m2)
|
Athletes
|
20
|
21.56
|
2.84
|
-0.279
|
0.782
|
Non-athletes
|
20
|
21.76
|
1.65
|
Body Fat Percentage
|
Athletes
Non-athletes
|
20
20
|
18.00
20.00
|
6.23
4.65
|
-1.150
|
0.257
|
Lean Body Mass
|
Athletes
Non-athletes
|
20
20
|
51.85
52.26
|
9.45
9.54
|
-0.137
|
0.892
|
Soft Lean Mass
|
Athletes
|
20
|
48.18
|
8.86
|
-0.120
|
0.905
|
Non-athletes
|
20
|
48.52
|
8.98
|
Skeletal Muscle Mass
|
Athletes
Non-athletes
|
20
20
|
24.97
23.47
|
7.42
5.92
|
0.706
|
0.484
|
Total Body Water
|
Athletes
Non-athletes
|
20
20
|
37.33
37.65
|
6.80
6.87
|
-0.146
|
0.885
|
Protein
|
Athletes
|
20
|
10.84
|
2.06
|
-0.038
|
0.970
|
Non-athletes
|
20
|
10.87
|
2.11
|
There was no significant difference in body height, body weight, age, Body Mass Index, body fat percentage, lean body mass, soft lean mass, skeletal muscle mass, total body water, and protein levels between non-athletes and athletes (p > 0.05). This result indicated that the two groups were homogenous.
Table 2
Pre- and Post-Exercise Dynamic Balance Scores
Variable
|
Group
|
n
|
X
|
Sd
|
t
|
p
|
ATE
|
Pretest
|
40
|
42.80
|
13.22
|
-1.278
|
0.209
|
Posttest
|
44.85
|
12.51
|
*p < 0.05 |
There was no significant difference between pretest and posttest ATE scores (p > 0.05).
Table 3
Pre- and Post-Exercise Static Balance Scores
Variable
|
Group
|
n
|
X
|
Sd
|
t
|
p
|
EO
|
Pre-test
|
40
|
7.97
|
3.04
|
2.075
|
0.045*
|
Post-test
|
7.07
|
1.71
|
EC
|
Pre-test
|
40
|
9.92
|
2.36
|
1.041
|
0.304
|
Post-test
|
9.50
|
2.01
|
Dominant EO
|
Pre-test
|
40
|
10.15
|
2.24
|
-0.373
|
0.711
|
Post-test
|
10.40
|
4.12
|
Non-dominant EO
|
Pre-test
|
40
|
15.70
|
6.58
|
1.699
|
0.097
|
Post-test
|
13.70
|
4.14
|
*p < 0.05 |
There was a significant difference between pretest and posttest static balance EO scores (p < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference between pretest and posttest Static EC, dominant single leg, and non-dominant single leg static balance scores (p > 0.05). These results showed differences only in the static EO balance scores after exercise, indicating improvements in static EO balance values after exercise.
Table 4
Comparison of Pre- and Post-Exercise Dynamic Balance Scores in Athletes and Non-athletes
Test
|
Variable
|
Group
|
n
|
X
|
Sd
|
t
|
p
|
Pre-test
|
ATE
|
Athletes
|
20
|
45.55
|
14.75
|
1.328
|
0.192
|
Non-athletes
|
20
|
40.05
|
11.18
|
Post-test
|
ATE
|
Athletes
|
20
|
49.05
|
9.26
|
2.228
|
0.032*
|
Non-athletes
|
20
|
40.65
|
14.08
|
*p < 0.05 |
There was a significant difference in the posttest ATE scores between athletes and non-athletes (p<0.05). Non-athletes had a higher posttest ATE score than pretest ATE score, indicating poorer dynamic balance after exercise. Athletes had a significantly higher posttest ATE score than pretest ATE score, indicating poorer dynamic balance after exercise. There was no significant difference in pretest balance components between athletes and non-athletes (p>0.05).
Table 5
Comparison of Pre- and Post-Exercise Static Balance Scores in Male and Female Participants
Test
|
Variable
|
Group
|
n
|
X
|
Sd
|
t
|
p
|
Pre-test
|
EO
|
Athletes
|
20
|
8.65
|
2.97
|
1.421
|
0.163
|
Non-athletes
|
20
|
7.30
|
3.02
|
EC
|
Athletes
|
20
|
10.55
|
2.37
|
1.710
|
0.095
|
Non-athletes
|
20
|
9.30
|
2.25
|
Dominant EO
|
Athletes
|
20
|
10.60
|
2.16
|
1.276
|
0.210
|
Non-athletes
|
20
|
9.70
|
2.29
|
Non-dominant EO
|
Athletes
Non-athletes
|
20
20
|
18.00
13.40
|
8.20
3.23
|
2.332
|
0.025*
|
Post-test
|
EO
|
Athletes
|
20
|
7.35
|
2.08
|
1.014
|
0.317
|
Non-athletes
|
20
|
6.80
|
1.23
|
EC
|
Athletes
Non-athletes
|
20
20
|
9.80
9.20
|
2.04
1.98
|
0.941
|
0.353
|
Dominant EO
|
Athletes
|
20
|
12.00
|
4.95
|
2.633
|
0.012*
|
Non-athletes
|
20
|
8.80
|
2.23
|
Non-dominant EO
|
Athletes
|
20
|
15.20
|
4.57
|
2.427
|
0.020*
|
Non-athletes
|
20
|
12.20
|
3.10
|
*p < 0.05 |
There was a significant difference in the pretest non-dominant leg EO scores between athletes and non-athletes (p < 0.05). Athletes had a significantly higher pretest non-dominant leg EO score than non-athletes. Athletes had significantly higher posttest dominant leg EO and non-dominant EO static balance scores than non-athletes (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the other static balance components between athletes and non-athletes (p > 0.05).
Table 6
Comparison of Pre- and Post-Exercise Dynamic Balance Scores in Male and Female Participants
Test
|
Variable
|
Group
|
n
|
X
|
Sd
|
t
|
p
|
Pre-test
|
ATE
|
Female
|
20
|
13.05
|
2.91
|
4.877
|
0.000**
|
Male
|
20
|
7.08
|
1.58
|
Post-test
|
ATE
|
Female
|
20
|
13.63
|
3.04
|
2.109
|
0.042*
|
Male
|
20
|
10.09
|
2.25
|
*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01 |
Male participants had significantly lower pretest and posttest ATE scores than female participants (p < 0.05). The difference in the pretest dynamic balance components was significantly high (p < 0.01). The posttest dynamic balance scores showed that male participants had poorer dynamic balance after exercise but that their scores were better compared to female participants’ scores.
Table 7
Comparison of Pre- and Post-Exercise Static Balance Scores in Male and Female Participants
Test
|
Variable
|
Group
|
n
|
X
|
Sd
|
t
|
p
|
Pre-test
|
EO
|
Female
|
20
|
7.50
|
2.32
|
-0.987
|
0.330
|
Male
|
20
|
8.45
|
3.61
|
EC
|
Female
|
20
|
9.30
|
2.12
|
-1.710
|
0.095
|
Male
|
20
|
10.55
|
2.48
|
Dominant EO
|
Female
|
20
|
10.05
|
2.18
|
-0.278
|
0.783
|
Male
|
20
|
10.25
|
2.35
|
Non-dominant EO
|
Female Male
|
20
20
|
12.80
18.60
|
3.48
7.68
|
-3.073
|
0.004*
|
Post-test
|
EO
|
Female
|
20
|
7.25
|
2.14
|
0.640
|
0.526
|
Male
|
20
|
6.90
|
1.16
|
EC
|
Female Male
|
20
20
|
9.25
9.75
|
1.86
2.17
|
-0.782
|
0.439
|
Dominant EO
|
Female
|
20
|
9.10
|
2.84
|
-2.076
|
0.045*
|
Male
|
20
|
11.70
|
4.82
|
Non-dominant EO
|
Female
|
20
|
14.30
|
4.57
|
0.913
|
0.367
|
Male
|
20
|
13.10
|
3.68
|
*p < 0.05 |
Female participants had a significantly lower mean pretest non-dominant leg EO score than male participants (p < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference in the posttest non-dominant leg EO scores between male and female participants. Female participants also had a significantly lower mean posttest dominant leg EO score than their male counterparts (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in the other static balance scores between male and female participants (p > 0.05).
Table 8
Comparison of the MF (Hz) scores of the dominant leg agonist and antagonist muscles in Athletes and Non-athletes during isometric squat press (average of five repetitions)
Muscle Group
|
Group
|
n
|
X
|
Sd
|
t
|
p
|
Agonist
|
Vastus Lateralis Obliquus
|
Athletes
|
20
|
62.03
|
10.25
|
-0.661
|
0.513
|
Non-athletes
|
20
|
66.93
|
31.53
|
Rectus Femoris
|
Athletes
|
20
|
76.82
|
10.76
|
2.765
|
0.009*
|
Non-athletes
|
20
|
67.95
|
9.48
|
Tibialis Anterior
|
Athletes
|
20
|
90.26
|
20.09
|
-1.322
|
0.194
|
Non-athletes
|
20
|
101.14
|
30.81
|
Antagonist
|
Biceps Femoris
|
Athletes
|
20
|
64.78
|
11.20
|
1.804
|
0.079
|
Non-athletes
|
20
|
57.11
|
15.35
|
Semi Tendineus
|
Athletes
|
20
|
49.66
|
8.23
|
2.785
|
0.008*
|
Non-athletes
|
20
|
42.40
|
8.24
|
Lateral Gastrocnemius
|
Athletes
|
20
|
80.22
|
15.06
|
1.265
|
0.214
|
Non-athletes
|
20
|
73.88
|
16.63
|
*p < 0.05 |
This study compared the MF (Hz) scores of the dominant leg agonist and antagonist muscles in athletes and non-athletes during isometric squat press (average of five repetitions). When we focused on the muscles involved in the exercise, we saw a significant difference in the rectus femoris, an agonist muscle (p < 0.05). Non-athletes had a significantly lower agonist rectus femoris MF score than athletes. This result showed that non-athletes experienced more fatigue than athletes during exercise. Of the antagonist muscles, we observed a significant difference only in semi tendineus (p < 0.05). Non-athletes had a significantly lower agonist semi tendineus MF score than athletes. This result also showed that non-athletes experienced more fatigue than athletes during exercise. There were no significant differences in the MF scores of the other dominant leg agonist and antagonist muscles (p > 0.05).
Table 9
Comparison of the MF (Hz) scores of non-dominant leg agonist and antagonist muscles in athletes and non-athletes during isometric squat press (average of five repetitions)
Muscle Group
|
Group
|
n
|
X
|
Sd
|
t
|
p
|
Agonist
|
Vastus Lateralis Obliquus
|
Athletes
|
20
|
59.89
|
8.09
|
1.194
|
0.240
|
Non-athletes
|
20
|
57.37
|
4.87
|
Rectus Femoris
|
Athletes
|
20
|
79.24
|
9.26
|
4.011
|
0.000**
|
Non-athletes
|
20
|
67.78
|
8.80
|
Tibialis Anterior
|
Athletes
|
20
|
85.64
|
18.97
|
-0.295
|
0.769
|
Non-athletes
|
20
|
87.65
|
23.77
|
Antagonist
|
Biceps Femoris
|
Athletes
|
20
|
61.55
|
12.47
|
-0.187
|
0.852
|
Non-athletes
|
20
|
62.29
|
12.54
|
Semi Tendineus
|
Athletes
|
20
|
48.87
|
7.26
|
0.995
|
0.326
|
Non-athletes
|
20
|
46.56
|
7.46
|
Lateral Gastrocnemius
|
Athletes
|
20
|
84.42
|
19.26
|
0.387
|
0.701
|
Non-athletes
|
20
|
82.16
|
17.50
|
**p < 0.01 |
This study compared the MF (Hz) scores of the non-dominant leg agonist and antagonist muscles in athletes and non-athletes during isometric squat press (average of five repetitions). When we focused on the muscles involved in the exercise, we saw a significant difference in the rectus femoris, an agonist muscle (p < 0.01). Non-athletes had a significantly lower agonist rectus femoris MF score than athletes. This result showed that non-athletes experienced more fatigue than athletes during exercise. There were no significant differences in the MF scores of the other non-dominant leg agonist and antagonist muscles (p > 0.05).
Table 10
Comparison of the mean MF (Hz) scores of dominant leg agonist and antagonist muscles in athletes and non-athletes during isometric squat press exercise
Muscle Group
|
Group
|
n
|
X
|
Sd
|
t
|
p
|
Agonist
|
Athletes
|
20
|
76.37
|
10.83
|
-0.517
|
0.608
|
Non-athletes
|
20
|
78.67
|
16.69
|
Antagonist
|
Athletes
|
20
|
64.89
|
8.95
|
2.591
|
0.014*
|
Non-athletes
|
20
|
57.80
|
8.34
|
*p < 0.05 |
Table 10 compares the mean MF (Hz) scores of the dominant leg agonist and antagonist muscles in athletes and non-athletes during isometric squat press exercise. Non-athletes had significantly lower mean antagonist muscle MF (Hz) scores than athletes (p < 0.05). This result showed that non-athletes experienced more fatigue than athletes during exercise. There was no significant difference in the mean MF scores of the muscle groups between athletes and non-athletes (p > 0.05).
Table 11
Comparison of the mean MF (Hz) scores of non-dominant leg agonist and antagonist muscles in athletes and non-athletes during isometric squat press exercise
Muscle Group
|
Group
|
n
|
X
|
Sd
|
t
|
P
|
Agonist
|
Athletes
|
20
|
74.92
|
8.71
|
1.440
|
0.158
|
Non-athletes
|
20
|
70.93
|
8.81
|
Antagonist
|
Athletes
|
20
|
64.95
|
10.37
|
0.457
|
0.650
|
Non-athletes
|
20
|
63.67
|
6.97
|
*p < 0.05 |
There was no significant difference in the mean MF (Hz) scores of the non-dominant leg agonist and antagonist muscles during isometric squat press between athletes and non-athletes (p > 0.05).
Table 12
Comparison of the mean co-fatigue (agonist/antagonist) scores of dominant leg agonist and antagonist muscle groups in athletes and non-athletes during isometric squat press exercise
Muscle Group
|
Group
|
n
|
X
|
Sd
|
t
|
P
|
Co-fatigue
|
Athletes
|
20
|
1.19
|
0.19
|
-2.379
|
0.022*
|
Non-athletes
|
20
|
1.37
|
0.28
|
*p < 0.05 |
Athletes had a significantly lower mean dominant leg agonist and antagonist muscle group co-fatigue score than non-athletes (p < 0.05). This result showed that the agonist and antagonist muscles of the athletes were fatigued at a similar rate during exercise compared to non-athletes.
Table 13
Comparison of the mean Co-fatigue (agonist/antagonist) scores of non-dominant leg agonist and antagonist muscle groups in athletes and non-athletes during isometric squat press exercise
Muscle Group
|
Group
|
n
|
X
|
Sd
|
t
|
P
|
Co-fatigue
|
Athletes
|
20
|
1.16
|
0.14
|
0.917
|
0.365
|
Non-athletes
|
20
|
1.12
|
0.16
|
There was no significant difference in the mean co-fatigue scores of the non-dominant leg agonist and antagonist muscle groups during isometric squat press between athletes and non-athletes (p > 0.05).
Table 14
Comparison of the mean MF (Hz) scores of dominant leg agonist and antagonist muscle groups in male and female participants during isometric squat press exercise
Muscle Group
|
Group
|
n
|
X
|
Sd
|
t
|
p
|
Agonist
|
Female
|
20
|
72.81
|
8.94
|
-2.247
|
0.031*
|
Male
|
20
|
82.24
|
16.49
|
Antagonist
|
Female
|
20
|
58.78
|
7.67
|
-1.800
|
0.080
|
Male
|
20
|
63.91
|
10.17
|
*p < 0.05 |
Table 14 compares the mean dominant leg agonist and antagonist muscle MF (Hz) scores in male and female participants during isometric squat press exercise. Female participants had significantly lower mean dominant leg agonist muscle MF (Hz) scores than male participants (p < 0.05). This result showed that female participants experienced more fatigue in their agonist muscle groups than their male counterparts during isometric squat press exercise. Female participants also had lower mean dominant leg antagonist muscle MF (Hz) scores than male participants (p = 0.080), but the difference was statistically insignificant (p > 0.05).
Table 15
Comparison of the mean MF (Hz) scores of non-dominant leg agonist and antagonist muscle groups in male and female participants during isometric squat press exercise
Muscle Group
|
Group
|
n
|
X
|
Sd
|
t
|
P
|
Agonist
|
Female
|
20
|
71.31
|
9.40
|
-1.157
|
0.255
|
Male
|
20
|
74.54
|
8.25
|
Antagonist
|
Female
|
20
|
61.69
|
9.22
|
-1.960
|
0.057
|
Male
|
20
|
66.93
|
7.58
|
Table 15 compares the mean non-dominant leg agonist and antagonist muscle MF (Hz) scores in male and female participants during isometric squat press exercise. There was no significant difference in agonist muscle MF (Hz) scores between male and female participants during isometric squat press exercise (p > 0.05). Although female participants had lower mean non-dominant leg antagonist muscle MF (Hz) scores than male participants (p = 0.057), the difference was statistically insignificant (p > 0.05).
Table 16
Comparison of the mean co-fatigue (agonist/antagonist) scores of dominant leg agonist and antagonist muscle groups in male and female participants during isometric squat press exercise
Muscle Group
|
Group
|
n
|
X
|
Sd
|
t
|
P
|
Co-fatigue
|
Female
|
20
|
1.25
|
0.22
|
-0.623
|
0.537
|
Male
|
20
|
1.30
|
0.28
|
There was no significant difference in the mean dominant leg agonist and antagonist muscle co-fatigue scores between male and female participants during isometric squat press (p > 0.05).
Table 17
Comparison of the mean co-fatigue (agonist/antagonist) scores of non-dominant leg agonist and antagonist muscle groups in male and female participants during isometric squat press exercise
Muscle Group
|
Group
|
n
|
X
|
Sd
|
t
|
P
|
Co-fatigue
|
Athletes
|
20
|
1.16
|
0.15
|
0.911
|
0.368
|
Non-athletes
|
20
|
1.12
|
0.15
|
There was no significant difference in the mean non-dominant leg agonist and antagonist muscle co-fatigue scores between male and female participants during isometric squat press (p > 0.05).