You almost always have to repeat a little bit from the results to the discussion.
In a "real" research article, the "results" are ideally just a description of your data (results = 'facts'). The point of the discussion is to "think out loud" about what your results/facts might mean. Do your results provide evidence for a new idea? Do your results refute an old idea? Do your results support an old idea? Basically, you take your results and you try to see if they reveal something interesting.
The problem with "Lab reports" in high school and college is that you're just repeating things that other people have already done, so the discussion almost always feels fake/contrived.
The trick is to pretend you've discovered something new (even though you probably haven't) and write from that perspective.
For example, Imagine you did an experiment. You took 40 seeds. seeds were treated identically (water, temp, duration of incubation, etc.) except 20 seeds were exposed to constant sunlight and 20 seeds were kept in constant darkness. 95% of the dark seeds germinated after 2 days. 25% of the sunlight-exposed seeds germinated after 2 days. Those are results.
After some statistical analysis, you might be able to conclude that sunlight has a negative effect on seed germination. This conclusion probably belongs in the discussion (but in my opinion it might also be okay to have it in the results and then repeated in the discussion).
The discussion might then also extend the conclusion by saying something like:
This is speculation, but it's reasonable speculation and it belongs in the discussion.