## 3 Results
The protocol*time interaction effect was significant for HR50 m and HR100 m, and the results were lowest in the post-test with the LIHV protocol (\(p<0.05\)). However, no interaction effect was detected at resting HR, HR200 m, HR800 m (\(p>0.05\)) (Table 5). The main effects of time and the protocols were statistically significant on all Borg scale results (\(p<0.05\)). Moreover, the BS100 m, BS200 m, and BS800 m results had a protocol*time interaction effect, and the results improved post-test results with the HILV protocol. However, the interaction effect was not significant for BS50 m (\(p>0.05\)). When the effect size results in the time factor were examined, it was determined that the weakest effect was on the BS200 m results (\(\eta_{\mathrm{p}}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.51), and the highest effect was on the BS100 m swimming results (\(\eta_{\mathrm{p}}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.76). In the protocols, the smallest effect was seen in the BS200 m results (\(\eta_{\mathrm{p}}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.32), while the greatest effect was seen in the BS800 m results (\(\eta_{\mathrm{p}}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.75) (Table 6). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \(n\) = 50 & Pre & Post & \(\Delta\) & \% & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Two-Way Repeated ANOVA**} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Variable**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mathbf{M}\pm\mathbf{SD}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mathbf{M}\pm\mathbf{SD}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mathbf{T_{B}T_{end}}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mathbf{T_{B}-T_{end}}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\eta_{\mathrm{p}}\)\({}^{2}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Protocol**\({}^{\textbf{+Time}}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Time**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Protocol**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Pairwise Comparisons (p); (ES)**} \\ \cline{6-6}  & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{11}{c}{Weight (Kg)} \\ \hline HILV(16) & \(59.6\pm 2.5\) & \(58.7\pm 2.5\) & \(-0.9\pm 0.4\) & \(1.7\) & \(0.704\) & F = 1.9 & F = 387.8 & F = 2.6 & \\ MIMV(16) & \(53.3\pm 2.5\) & \(52.3\pm 2.5\) & \(-1.1\pm 0.3\) & \(1.8\) & \(0.774\) & \(p\) = 0.163 & \(p\) \(<0.001\)\({}^{*}\) & \(p\) = 0.08 \({}^{*}\) & - \\ LIHV(18) & \(52.2\pm 2.4\) & \(51.4\pm 2.4\) & \(-0.8\pm 0.3\) & \(1.5\) & \(0.714\) & \(\eta_{\mathrm{p}}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.07 & \(\eta_{\mathrm{p}}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.88 & \(\eta_{\mathrm{p}}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.09 & \\ \hline \multicolumn{11}{c}{BMI (Kg/m\({}^{2}\))} \\ \hline HILV(16) & \(22.7\pm 3.0\) & \(22.3\pm 2.9\) & \(0.33\pm 0.1\) & \(1.8\) & \(0.696\) & F = 1.1 & F = 390.7 & F = 1.5 & \\ MIMV(16) & \(20.7\pm 2.9\) & \(20.3\pm 2.9\) & \(0.40\pm 0.1\) & \(2.0\) & \(0.765\) & \(p\) = 0.339 & \(p\) \(<0.001\)\({}^{*}\) & \(p\) = 0.232 & - \\ LIHV(18) & \(21.8\pm 3.8\) & \(21.5\pm 3.8\) & \(0.35\pm 0.2\) & \(1.4\) & \(0.738\) & \(\eta_{\mathrm{p}}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.04 & \(\eta_{\mathrm{p}}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.89 & \(\eta_{\mathrm{p}}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.06 & \\ \hline \multicolumn{11}{c}{Fat (\%)} \\ \hline HILV(16) & \(22.9\pm 4.9\) & \(19.2\pm 3.5\) & \(3.75\pm 2.0\) & \(19.2\) & \(0.746\) & F = 16.7 & F = 157.7 & F = 0.35 & \\ MIMV(16) & \(20.7\pm 4.3\) & \(19.0\pm 4.0\) & \(1.71\pm 0.7\) & \(8.9\) & \(0.378\) & \(p\) \(<0.001\)\({}^{*}\) & \(p\) \(<0.001\)\({}^{*}\) & \(p\) = 0.707 & - \\ LIHV(18) & \(21.5\pm 4.9\) & \(20.2\pm 4.5\) & \(1.37\pm 0.7\) & \(6.4\) & \(0.304\) & \(\eta_{\mathrm{p}}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.42 & \(\eta_{\mathrm{p}}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.77 & \(\eta_{\mathrm{p}}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.01 & \\ \hline \end{tabular}  
* M: Mean; SD: Standard deviation; HILV = High Intensity Low Volume; MIMV = Moderate Intensity Moderate Volume; LIHV = Low Intensity High Volume; \(\Delta\) = Change; Pre = Preintervention; Post = Postintervention; \(\eta_{\mathrm{p}}\)\({}^{2}\). Partial eta squared; \({}^{*}\) denotes statistical significance at the \(p<0.05\) level; ES: Effect size.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Evaluation of change and percentage values of body composition measurements before and after swim training.