## 3 Results
For the variable of fastest correct responses, no significant differences were found in either the covariance analysis or the interaction analysis for both groups (HIFT: t(1.353), \(p\) = 0.188; MIFT: t(\(-\)0.648), \(p\) = 0.522). Similarly, no significant differences were found in the mean time per correct response in any of the analyses (HIFT: t(1.682), \(p\) = 0.105; MIFT: t(\(-\)0.236), \(p\) = 0.815). In the attention test, significant differences were observed in concentration after the intervention (\(p\) < 0.01), with a large effect size in both groups (HIFT: d = 2.19; MIFT: d = 1.03). The interaction analysis showed significant differences in the HIFT group (t(\(-\)11.629) \(p\) < 0.001) and in the MIFT group (t(\(-\)25.387) \(p\) < 0.001). In attention measured by the d2 Test, the interaction analysis indicated significant differences in the HIFT group (t(\(-\)9.057) \(p\) < 0.001). For variability, no significant differences were found in any of the analyses. (All of this information is presented in Table 2). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l} \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{l}{**HIFT**} & \multicolumn{4}{l}{**MIFT**} \\  & \multicolumn{1}{l}{**PRE**} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{**POST**} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{\(\boldsymbol{p}\)} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{**PRE**} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{**POST**} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{\(\boldsymbol{p}\)} \\ \hline Executive Function & & & & & & \\ STROOP-FR & 14.67 & 9.26 & 0.188 & 9.46 & 10.11 & 0.522 \\ STROOP-MTQ & 25.72 & 18.68 & 0.035 \({}^{*}\) & 19.66 & 15.25 & 0.035 \({}^{*}\) \\ STROOP-MTA & 20.08 & 12.92 & 0.105 & 15.30 & 15.04 & 0.815 \\ STROOP-CR & 6.10 & 9.75 & 0.026 \({}^{*}\) & 8.86 & 10.37 & 0.298 \\ Attention & & & & & & \\ D2-TOT & 117.25 & 199.03 & \textless{}0.001 \({}^{**}\) & 176.51 & 187.82 & 0.776 \\ D2-CON & 156.28 & 223.75 & \textless{}0.001 \({}^{**}\) & 170.58 & 210.79 & \textless{}0.001 \({}^{**}\) \\ D2-VAR & 8.14 & 6.67 & 0.076 & 7.17 & 7.27 & 0.837 \\ Memory & & & & & & \\ WR & 6.10 & 6.60 & 0.032 \({}^{*}\) & 6.48 & 6.41 & 0.810 \\ Anxiety & & & & & & \\ STAI- State & 31.42 & 30.00 & 0.066 & 33.37 & 30.07 & 0.003 \({}^{*}\) \\ STAI- Trait & 15.42 & 15.70 & 0.770 & 15.82 & 15.82 & 1.000 \\ Stress & & & & & & \\ PSS & 19.75 & 18.25 & 0.264 & 19.65 & 18.58 & 0.341 \\ \hline \end{tabular} Abbreviations: HIFT (high-intensity functional training); MIFT (moderate-intensity functional training); STROOP-FC (fastest correct response); STROOP-MTQ (mean time per question); STROOP-MTA (mean time per correct response); STROOP-CR (correct responses); D2-TOT effectiveness (total); D2-CON (concentration index); D2-VAR (variability index); WR (word recall/memory); STAI-State (state anxiety); STAI-Trait (trait anxiety); PSS (stress); \({}^{*}p\) < 0.05; \({}^{**}p\) < 0.001.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Comparison of means of the studied variables, pre- and post-intervention, based on the type of training performed. In regards to verbal learning and delayed declarative memory, no significant differences were found between groups in the post-intervention phase or in the interaction analysis (Table 2). Regarding state anxiety, no significant differences were found between groups in the post-intervention phase, but the interaction analysis revealed significant differences in the MIFT group (t(3.330), \(p\) = 0.003). In regards to trait anxiety, no significant differences were found in any of the analyses (Table 2). In regards to perceived stress, no significant differences were found between groups in the post-intervention phase or in the interaction analysis (Table 2).