### INTRODUCTION

### MATERIALS AND METHODS

### Design

### Subjects

### Body mass and height

### Maximal isometric handgrip strength

### Statistics

*η*

_{p}^{2}) was calculated to determine the effect size, using the 0.0099, 0.0588, and 0.1379 considered as small, medium, and large effect sizes (Richardson, 2011). Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated to determine the relationship between variables and classified according to Hopkins (2018). To develop a classificatory table for each maximal isometric handgrip strength variables, percentile values were adopted to establish the following categories, as used in previous publications with judo athletes (Agostinho et al., 2018; Sterkowicz-Przybycień and Fukuda, 2014): excellent, highest 5%; good, next 15%; regular, middle 60%; poor, next lowest 15%; very poor, lowest 5%.

### RESULTS

*F*[6, 399]=29.53,

*P*<0.001,

*η*

_{p}^{2}=0.308, large), with lower values for the 60 kg weight category compared to 66 kg (

*P*=0.016), 73, 81, 90, 100, and over 100 kg weight categories (

*P*<0.001 for these five comparisons), lower values for the 66 kg compared to 81, 90, 100, and over 100 kg weight categories (

*P*<0.001 for all comparisons), lower values for the 73 kg compared to the 90 kg (

*P*=0.011) and over 100 kg weight categories (

*P*<0.001), and lower values for the 81 kg weight category compared to the over 100 kg (

*P*<0.001). There was also an effect of weight category for the left absolute maximal isometric handgrip strength (

*F*[6, 399]=27.65,

*P*<0.001,

*η*

_{p}^{2}=0.294, large), with lower values for the 60 kg weight category compared to 66 kg (

*P*=0.001), 73, 81, 90, 100, and over 100 kg weight categories (

*P*<0.001 for these five comparisons), lower values for the 66 kg compared to 81 kg (

*P*=0.004), 90 kg (

*P*<0.001), 100 kg (

*P*=0.024), and over 100 kg weight categories (

*P*<0.001), lower values for the 73 kg compared to the 90 kg (

*P*=0.007) and over 100 kg weight categories (

*P*<0.001), lower values for the 81 kg weight category compared to the over 100 kg (

*P*=0.002), and lower values for the 100 kg weight category compared to the over 100 kg (

*P*=0.042). For the sum of both hands, a similar difference was found (

*F*[6, 399]=30.96,

*P*<0.001,

*η*

_{p}^{2}=0.312, large): lower values for the 60 kg weight category compared to 66 kg (

*P*= 0.003), 73, 81, 90, 100, and over 100 kg weight categories (

*P*< 0.001 for these five comparisons), lower values for the 66 kg compared to 81 kg (

*P*<0.001), 90 kg (

*P*<0.001), 100 kg (

*P*=0.002), and over 100 kg weight categories (

*P*<0.001), lower values for the 73 kg compared to the 90 kg (

*P*=0.005) and over 100 kg weight categories (

*P*<0.001), and lower values for the 81 kg weight category compared to the over 100 kg (

*P*=0.001).

*F*[6, 399]=29.53,

*P*<0.001,

*η*

_{p}^{2}=0.308, large), with higher values for the 60 kg compared to the 81 kg, 90 kg, 100 kg, and over 100 kg weight categories (

*P*< 0.001 for all comparisons), higher values for the 66 kg compared to the 81 kg (

*P*=0.018), 90 kg, 100 kg, and over 100 kg weight categories (

*P*<0.001 for these three comparisons), higher values for the 73 kg compared to the 90 kg (

*P*=0.018), 100 kg, and over 100 kg weight categories (

*P*<0.001 for both comparisons), higher values for the 81 kg compared to the 100 kg (

*P*=0.009) and over 100 kg weight categories (

*P*<0.001), and higher values for the 90 kg compared to the over 100 kg weight category (

*P*<0.001). There was also an effect of weight category for the left relative maximal isometric handgrip strength (

*F*[6, 399]=26.17,

*P*<0.001,

*η*

_{p}^{2}= 0.282, large), with higher values for the 60 kg compared to the 81 kg (

*P*=0.004), 90 kg, 100 kg, and over 100 kg weight categories (

*P*<0.001 for these three comparisons), higher values for the 66 kg compared to the 81 kg (

*P*=0.003), 90 kg, 100 kg, and over 100 kg weight categories (

*P*<0.001 for these three comparisons), higher values for the 73 kg compared to the 100 kg and over 100 kg weight categories (

*P*<0.001 for both comparisons), higher values for the 81 kg compared to the 100 kg (

*P*=0.005) and over 100 kg weight categories (

*P*<0.001), and higher values for the 90 kg compared to the over 100 kg weight category (

*P*< 0.001). For the sum of both hands, a similar difference was found (

*F*[6, 399]=30.29,

*P*<0.001,

*η*

_{p}^{2}=0.313, large): higher values for the 60 kg compared to the 81, 90, 100, and over 100 kg weight categories (

*P*<0.001 for all comparisons), higher values for the 66 kg compared to the 81 kg (

*P*=0.004), 90 kg, 100 kg, and over 100 kg weight categories (

*P*<0.001 for these three comparisons), higher values for the 73 kg compared to the 90 kg (

*P*=0.027), 100 kg and over 100 kg weight categories (

*P*<0.001 for both comparisons), higher values for the 81 kg compared to the 100 kg (

*P*=0.004) and over 100 kg weight categories (

*P*<0.001), and higher values for the 90 kg compared to the over 100 kg weight category (

*P*<0.001).

*r*=0.886,

*P*<0.001, very large); right and left relative handgrip values (

*r*=0.883,

*P*<0.001, very large).