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.