## 3 Results
### Changes in Myokines  
Figure 2 shows the results for the differences in myokine changes. IL-6 showed an interaction effect (Wald \(\chi^{2}\) = 9.96, \(p\) = 0.007) and a main effect by time (Wald \(\chi^{2}\) = 4.72, \(p\) = 0.030). Post hoc analysis showed that IL-6 in LI-HR and HI-LR were significantly reduced in post compared to pre (\(p\) = 0.033, \(p\) = 0.015). IGF-1 showed an interaction effect \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Group** & **Pre** & **Post** & **Wald \(\chi^{2}\)** & **ES** & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{RGS (\%)} & CON & 33.6 \(\pm\) 6.2 & 33.6 \(\pm\) 5.6 & \multirow{4}{*}{1.03} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.18} & T: 0.310 \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{6-6}  & LI-HR & 32.3 \(\pm\) 4.5 & 32.9 \(\pm\) 4.0 & & 0.70 & 0.11 & G: 0.705 \\ \cline{2-6}  & HI-LR & 33.6 \(\pm\) 6.1 & 34.2 \(\pm\) 6.9 & & 0.39 & 0.13 & T \(\times\) G: 0.823 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{STS (s)} & CON & 14.2 \(\pm\) 3.9 & 13.8 \(\pm\) 3.8 & \multirow{4}{*}{9.99} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.75} & T: 0.002 \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{6-6}  & LI-HR & 15.7 \(\pm\) 4.3 & 13.1 \(\pm\) 4.0 & & 0.89 & 0.05 & G: 0.957 \\ \cline{2-6}  & HI-LR & 15.0 \(\pm\) 3.8 & 12.9 \(\pm\) 3.0 & & 3.41 & 0.39 & T \(\times\) G: 0.182 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{4 m walk (s)} & CON & 5.9 \(\pm\) 1.1 & 5.8 \(\pm\) 0.9 & \multirow{4}{*}{11.54} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.62} & T: 0.001 \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{6-6}  & LI-HR & 6.4 \(\pm\) 1.9 & 6.0 \(\pm\) 1.8 & & 0.90 & 0.18 & G: 0.637 \\ \cline{2-6}  & HI-LR & 6.1 \(\pm\) 1.0 & 5.3 \(\pm\) 1.0 *** & & 10.31 & 0.45 & T \(\times\) G: 0.006 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{TUG (s)} & CON & 9.9 \(\pm\) 2.7 & 10.0 \(\pm\) 2.6 & \multirow{4}{*}{11.92} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.63} & T: 0.001 \\ \cline{2-6}  & LI-HR & 9.6 \(\pm\) 1.7 & 8.8 \(\pm\) 1.6 * & & 0.92 & 0.15 & G: 0.631 \\ \cline{2-6}  & HI-LR & 10.2 \(\pm\) 2.5 & 9.1 \(\pm\) 2.0 ** & & 7.98 & 0.50 & T \(\times\) G: 0.019 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} mean \(\pm\) SD. ES, effect size. * \(p\) < 0.05, ** \(p\) < 0.01, *** \(p\) < 0.001, * versus Pre. RGS, relative grip strength; STS, sit-to-stand; TUG, timed up-and-go.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Results of generalized estimating equation (GEE) model for functional physical fitness. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Group** & **Pre** & **Post** & **Wald \(\chi^{2}\)** & **ES** & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{PF (kg)} & CON & 11.9 \(\pm\) 2.8 & 12.1 \(\pm\) 1.3 & \multirow{4}{*}{2.27} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.27} & T: 0.132 \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{6-6}  & LI-HR & 11.2 \(\pm\) 2.7 & 11.8 \(\pm\) 2.5 & & 0.82 & 0.12 & G: 0.665 \\ \cline{2-6}  & HI-LR & 11.1 \(\pm\) 3.0 & 9.4 \(\pm\) 1.6 & & 0.79 & 0.11 & T \(\times\) G: 0.674 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{DF (kg)} & CON & 9.4 \(\pm\) 1.8 & 9.6 \(\pm\) 1.2 & \multirow{4}{*}{18.00} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.77} & T: 0.001 \\ \cline{2-6}  & LI-HR & 9.0 \(\pm\) 1.5 & 9.8 \(\pm\) 1.8 & & 0.59 & 0.14 & G: 0.744 \\ \cline{2-6}  & HI-LR & 9.4 \(\pm\) 1.6 & 10.4 \(\pm\) 1.6 & & 3.79 & 0.39 & T \(\times\) G: 0.151 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{STSpower (W/kg)} & CON & 1.9 \(\pm\) 0.8 & 1.9 \(\pm\) 0.9 & \multirow{4}{*}{9.87} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.57} & T: 0.002 \\ \cline{2-6}  & LI-HR & 1.7 \(\pm\) 0.6 & 2.0 \(\pm\) 0.6 & & 0.15 & 0.03 & G: 0.929 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-6}  & HI-LR & 1.8 \(\pm\) 0.6 & 2.0 \(\pm\) 0.5 & & 2.47 & 0.14 & T \(\times\) G: 0.291 \\ \hline \end{tabular} mean \(\pm\) SD. ES, effect size. PF, plantar flexion; DF, dorsiflexion; STSpower, sit-to-stand power.  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Results of generalized estimating equation (GEE) model for muscle strength and power. (Wald \(\chi^{2}=8.38\), \(p=0.015\)), a main effect by time (Wald \(\chi^{2}=13.55\), \(p<0.001\)) and a group effect (Wald \(\chi^{2}=10.67\), \(p=0.005\)). Post hoc analyses showed that IGF-1 in the LI-HR and HI-LR groups each increased significantly post compared to pre (\(p=0.003\), \(p<0.001\)). These two groups also showed a significant difference in post compared to CON (\(p=0.012\), \(p<0.001\)) (Figure 2b).