## 3 Results
### Changes in Functional Physical Fitness  
Table 4 presents the results of the difference in change in functional fitness. No interaction was observed between RGS and STS. However, there was an interaction for the 4 m walk (Wald \(\chi^{2}\) = 10.31, \(p\) = 0.006) and a main effect of time (Wald \(\chi^{2}\) = 11.54, \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Characteristics** & **CON (n = 10)** & **LI-HR (n = 10)** & **HI-LR (n = 10)** & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline Age (yrs.) & 77.5 \(\pm\) 4.3 & 76.4 \(\pm\) 5.4 & 75.8 \(\pm\) 6.2 & 0.776 \\ \hline Height (cm) & 154.5 \(\pm\) 10.3 & 155.6 \(\pm\) 7.3 & 156.4 \(\pm\) 9.7 & 0.894 \\ \hline BW (kg) & 60.9 \(\pm\) 8.4 & 62.2 \(\pm\) 5.5 & 59.0 \(\pm\) 6.2 & 0.568 \\ \hline BMI (kg/m\({}^{2}\)) & 25.5 \(\pm\) 2.5 & 25.8 \(\pm\) 2.2 & 24.2 \(\pm\) 2.3 & 0.572 \\ \hline BF (\%) & 34.3 \(\pm\) 6.0 & 34.2 \(\pm\) 5.9 & 31.8 \(\pm\) 4.1 & 0.517 \\ \hline SMM (kg) & 21.8 \(\pm\) 4.3 & 22.2 \(\pm\) 2.6 & 20.4 \(\pm\) 3.0 & 0.475 \\ \hline ASM (kg/m\({}^{2}\)) & 7.3 \(\pm\) 1.1 & 7.1 \(\pm\) 1.1 & 6.7 \(\pm\) 2.1 & 0.730 \\ \hline SBP (mmHg) & 135.6 \(\pm\) 24.7 & 134.2 \(\pm\) 16.3 & 130.5 \(\pm\) 16.2 & 0.837 \\ \hline DBP (mmHg) & 75.2 \(\pm\) 13.6 & 75.0 \(\pm\) 7.9 & 72.8 \(\pm\) 13.9 & 0.887 \\ \hline CC (cm) & 33.3 \(\pm\) 2.3 & 35.6 \(\pm\) 1.3 & 34.7 \(\pm\) 4.4 & 0.230 \\ \hline GS\_M (kg) & 22.2 \(\pm\) 5.0 & 21.8 \(\pm\) 4.7 & 20.5 \(\pm\) 4.7 & 0.725 \\ \hline HbA1C (\%) & 6.2 \(\pm\) 1.1 & 6.4 \(\pm\) 1.1 & 5.8 \(\pm\) 0.6 & 0.362 \\ \hline AGEs (AU) & 3.6 \(\pm\) 1.4 & 3.0 \(\pm\) 0.7 & 3.2 \(\pm\) 0.7 & 0.387 \\ \hline \end{tabular} mean \(\pm\) SD. BW, body weight; BMI, body mass index; BF, body fat; SMM, skeletal muscle mass; ASM, appendicular skeletal muscle mass; SBP, systolic blood pressure; DBP, diastolic blood pressure; CC, calf circumference; GS\_M, grip strength max; HbA1C, hemoglobin \(\Delta\)1C; AGEs, advanced glycation end-products.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Demographic characteristics. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Group** & **Pre** & **Post** & **Wald \(\chi^{2}\)** & **ES** & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{BW (kg)} & CON & 60.9 \(\pm\) 8.4 & 62.1 \(\pm\) 9.8 & \multirow{4}{*}{2.38} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.26} & T: 0.155 \\ \cline{2-5}  & LI-HR & 62.2 \(\pm\) 5.5 & 63.1 \(\pm\) 5.6 & & 4.97 & 0.22 & G: 0.083 \\ \cline{2-5}  & HI-LR & 59.0 \(\pm\) 6.2 & 59.1 \(\pm\) 6.3 & 1.18 & 0.18 & T \(\times\) G: 0.553 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{BMI (kg/m\({}^{2}\))} & CON & 25.5 \(\pm\) 2.5 & 26.0 \(\pm\) 3.5 & \multirow{4}{*}{2.38} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.42} & T: 0.123 \\ \cline{2-5}  & LI-HR & 25.8 \(\pm\) 2.2 & 26.1 \(\pm\) 2.5 & & 4.15 & 0.21 & G = 0.126 \\ \cline{2-5}  & HI-LR & 24.2 \(\pm\) 2.3 & 24.2 \(\pm\) 2.5 & & 1.23 & 0.14 & T \(\times\) G: 0.540 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{BF (\%)} & CON & 34.3 \(\pm\) 6.0 & 35.0 \(\pm\) 5.4 & \multirow{4}{*}{3.35} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.33} & \multirow{4}{*}{T: 0.067} \\ \cline{2-5}  & LI-HR & 34.2 \(\pm\) 5.9 & 33.3 \(\pm\) 5.6 ** & & 3.02 & 0.31 & G: 0.221 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-5}  & HI-LR & 31.8 \(\pm\) 4.1 & 30.0 \(\pm\) 5.6 * & & 8.95 & 0.52 & T \(\times\) G: 0.011 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{SMM (kg)} & CON & 21.8 \(\pm\) 4.3 & 22.0 \(\pm\) 4.3 & \multirow{4}{*}{3.87} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.36} & \multirow{4}{*}{T: 0.049} \\ \cline{2-5}  & LI-HR & 22.2 \(\pm\) 2.6 & 22.9 \(\pm\) 2.6 & & 7.83 & 0.23 & G: 0.020 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-5}  & HI-LR & 20.4 \(\pm\) 3.0 & 21.3 \(\pm\) 2.5 & & 0.67 & 0.16 & T \(\times\) G: 0.716 \\ \hline \end{tabular} mean \(\pm\) SD. ES, effect size. * \(p\) \(<\) 0.05, ** \(p\) \(<\) 0.01, * versus Pre. BW, body weight; BMI, body mass index; BF, body fat: SMM, skeletal muscle mass.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Results of generalized estimating equation (GEE) model for body composition. \(p\) < 0.001). Post hoc analyses showed a significant decrease in the HI-LR group from pre to post (\(p\) < 0.001).