ASLR analysis
The analysis of ASLR data revealed there were no significant differences
in the main effect of time (F(2, 36) = 2.02, p = 0.146); type of
intervention (F(2, 36) = 1.58, p = 0.238); or interaction between the
type of intervention and time (F(4, 72) = 1.31, p = 0.272). There were small to medium benefits associated with the LOW condition
compared to CON and small benefits associated with the HIGH
condition compared to CON. There were unclear benefits associated
with the LOW condition compared to HIGH.
MVC analysis
The analysis of extMVC data revealed statistically significant
differences in the main effect of time (F(2, 36) = 5.05, p = 0.012);
however, there were no significant differences in the main effect of
type of intervention (F(2, 36) = 1.16, p = 0.324); or interaction
between the type of intervention and time (F(4, 72) = 1.92, p = 0.116).
Post-hoc tests revealed significant statistical differences for the LOW
condition between PRE and POST measurements (t(107) = 2.50, p = 0.001)
and between PRE and POST30 measurements (t(107) = 2.08, p = 0.011).
There were small to medium benefits associated with the
LOW condition compared to CON and small benefits associated with
the HIGH condition compared to CON. There were medium benefits
associated with the LOW condition compared to HIGH.
The analysis of flexMVC data revealed no statistically significant
differences in the main effect of time (F(2, 36) = 1.32, p = 0.278);
type of intervention (F(2, 36) = 1.70, p = 0.196); or interaction
between the type of intervention and time (F(4, 72) = 0.80, p = 0.530).
There were unclear to small benefits associated with the
LOW condition compared to CON and unclear benefits associated
with the HIGH condition compared to CON. There were unclear to small benefits associated with the HIGH condition compared to
LOW.
TMG analysis
The analysis of Tc_RF data revealed statistically significant
differences in the main effect of time (F(2, 36) = 4.62, p = 0.016);
however, there were no significant differences in the main effect of
type of intervention (F(2, 36) = 0.04, p = 0.957); or interaction
between the type of intervention and time (F(4, 72) = 1.69, p = 0.160).
Post-hoc tests revealed significant statistical differences for the LOW
condition between PRE and POST measurements (t(104) = 2.85, p = 0.014).
There were small benefits associated with the LOW condition
compared to CON and small to medium benefits associated with the
CON condition compared to HIGH. There were medium benefits
associated with the LOW condition compared to HIGH.
The analysis of Tc_BF data revealed no statistically significant
differences in the main effect of time (F(2, 36) = 1.82, p = 0.176);
type of intervention (F(2, 36) = 0.64, p = 0.532); or interaction
between the type of intervention and time (F(4, 72) = 1.60, p = 0.184).
There were unclear to small benefits associated with the
LOW condition compared to CON and unclear to small benefits associated with the HIGH condition compared to CON. There were small benefits associated with the HIGH condition compared to
LOW.
The analysis of Tc_VM data revealed statistically significant
differences in the main effect of time (F(2, 36) = 3.28, p = 0.049);
however, there were no significant differences in the main effect of
type of intervention (F(2, 36) = 3.88, p = 0.681); or interaction
between the type of intervention and time (F(4, 72) = 1.62, p = 0.176).
Post-hoc tests revealed significant statistical differences for CON
pressures between PRE and POST30 measurements (t(107) = 2.31, p =
0.046). There were small benefits associated with the LOW
condition compared to CON and small benefits associated with the
CON condition compared to HIGH. There were unclear to small benefits associated with the HIGH condition compared to
LOW.
The analysis of Dm_RF data revealed no statistically significant
differences in the main effect of time (F(2, 36) = 1.48, p = 0.241);
type of intervention (F(2, 36) = 0.04, p = 0.956); and a tendency
towards statistical significant differences in the interaction between
the type of intervention and time (F(4, 72) = 1.49, p = 0.213). There
were medium benefits associated with the LOW condition compared
to CON and small benefits associated with the HIGH condition
compared to CON. There were small benefits associated with the
LOW condition compared to HIGH.
The analysis of Dm_BF data revealed no statistically significant
differences in the main effect of time (F(2, 36) = 0.12, p = 0.886);
type of intervention (F(2, 36) = 1.58, p = 0.220); and a tendency
towards statistical significant differences in the interaction between
the type of intervention and time (F(4, 72) = 2.47, p = 0.052). There
were small benefits associated with the LOW condition compared to
CON and medium benefits associated with the HIGH condition
compared to CON. There were unclear to medium benefits
associated with the HIGH condition compared to LOW.
The analysis of Dm_VM data revealed no statistically significant
differences in the main effect of time (F(2, 36) = 0.76, p = 0.473);
type of intervention (F(2, 36) = 0.95, p = 0.393); and a tendency
towards statistical significant differences in the interaction between
the type of intervention and time (F(4, 72) = 1.84, p = 0.131). There
were small benefits associated with the LOW condition compared to
CON and unclear to small benefits associated with the HIGH
condition compared to CON. There were trivial to small benefits associated with the LOW condition compared to HIGH.