## 3 Results
### CG vs. EG Post-Intervention Results  
The results after the intervention between the CG and the EG (Table 6) indicated that there were statistically significant differences in EA [F (1, 66) = 4.579, \(p=0.036\), \(\eta^{2}=0.065\), 95% CI \(-\)134.268, \(-\)4.652 ], lower body strength [F (1, 66) = 4.845, \(p=0.031\), \(\eta^{2}=0.068\), 95% CI: \(-\)4.970, \(-\)0.242], and lower body flexibility [F (1, 66) = 6.043, \(p=0.017\), \(\eta^{2}=0.084\), 95% CI: \(-\)17.713, \(-\)1.836]. However, there were no statistically significant differences in upper body strength (\(p=0.068\)), upper body flexibility (\(p=0.094\)), dynamic balance (\(p=0.158\)), hand pressure strength right (\(p=0.237\)), nor hand pressure strength left (\(p=0.779\)). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variable** & & **CG Pre (n = 35)** & **CG Post (n = 35)** & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Aerobic endurance (m)**} & women & \(395.78\pm 84.97\) & \(395.15\pm 82.60\) & 0.906 \\  & men & \(468.50\pm 65.76\) & \(457.50\pm 53.03\) & 0.614 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Lower body strength (Number of repetitions)**} & women & \(11.87\pm 3.27\) & \(11.78\pm 3.00\) & 0.671 \\  & men & \(13.50\pm 0.70\) & \(13.00\pm 0.00\) & 0.565 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Upper body strength (Number of repetitions)**} & women & \(15.06\pm 4.04\) & \(14.27\pm 3.48\) & 0.090 \\  & men & \(17.50\pm 4.94\) & \(17.00\pm 4.24\) & 0.789 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Lower body flexibility (cm)**} & women & \(-4.03\pm 10.20\) & \(-5.72\pm 12.26\) & 0.037 * \\  & men & \(-11.00\pm 7.07\) & \(-14.00\pm 5.65\) & 0.357 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Upper body flexibility (cm)**} & women & \(-9.78\pm 9.18\) & \(-11.09\pm 9.55\) & 0.024 * \\  & men & \(-21.50\pm 2.12\) & \(-26.50\pm 4.94\) & 0.009 * \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Dynamic balance (seconds)**} & women & \(7.06\pm 2.04\) & \(7.36\pm 2.16\) & 0.019 * \\  & men & \(6.50\pm 2.12\) & \(7.00\pm 1.41\) & 0.332 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Hand pressure strength right (kg)**} & women & \(53.45\pm 11.46\) & \(52.72\pm 11.18\) & 0.308 \\  & men & \(92.00\pm 1.41\) & \(90.00\pm 0.00\) & 0.489 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Hand pressure strength left (kg)**} & women & \(51.30\pm 11.99\) & \(50.15\pm 11.69\) & 0.159 \\  & men & \(77.50\pm 3.53\) & \(77.50\pm 3.53\) & 1.00 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: * \(p<0.05\).  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Pre-post-intervention comparison on the Senior Fitness Test battery variables of the CG according to sex. Depending on sex (Table 7), in the comparison after the intervention between the CG and the EG, the results indicated that there were statistically significant differences between women in aerobic endurance [F (1, 66) = 14.602, \(p\) < 0.001, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.181, 95% CI \(-\)115,261, \(-\)36,151], but not between men (\(p\) = 0.310); lower body strength [F (1, 66) = 14.837, \(p\) < 0.001, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.184, 95% CI \(-\)4.226, \(-\)1.341], but not between men (\(p\) = 0.285); upper body strength [F (1, 66) = 18.577, \(p\) < 0.001, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.220, 95% CI \(-\)6.656, \(-\)2.442], but not between men (\(p\) = 0.575); lower body flexibility [F (1, 66) = 11.998, \(p\) = 0.001, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.154, 95% CI \(-\)3.251, \(-\)3.561], but not between men (\(p\) = 0.146). No statistically significant differences were found between women or men in upper body flexibility (women (\(p\) = 0.235); men (\(p\) = 0.171)), dynamic balance (women (\(p\) = 0.176); men (\(p\) = 0.292)); hand pressure strength right (women (\(p\) = 0.285); men (\(p\) = 0.367)), and hand pressure strength left (women (\(p\) = 0.569); men (\(p\) = 0.911)).