## 3 Results
### CG and EG Pre-Intervention Comparison  
The results before the intervention between the CG and the EG (Table 2) indicated that there were no statistically significant differences in any of the variables studied.  
Depending on sex (Table 3), the results indicated that there were statistically significant differences in aerobic endurance between women in both the CG and EG [F (1, 66) = 4.187, \(p\) = 0.045, \(\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolMicro\text{n}}\)2 = 0.060, 95% CI -78.391, \(-\)0.962], but not among men (\(p\) = 0.831). Regarding lower body strength, there were previous differences in women between the CG and the EG [F (1, 66) = 4.124, \(p\) = 0.046, \(\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolMicro\text{n}}\)2 = 0.059, 95% CI -2.932, \(-\)0.025], but not among men (\(p\) = 0.731). Regarding upper body strength before the intervention, no statistically significant differences were detected between women (\(p\) = 0.688) or men (\(p\) = 0.679). In the analysis of the results of lower body flexibility, statistically significant differences were found in women between the CG and the EG [F (1, 66) = 4.136, \(p\) = 0.046, \(\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolMicro\text{n}}\)2 = 0.059, 95% CI -8.766, \(-\)0.081], but not among men (\(p\) = 0.403). Regarding upper body flexibility, no differences were found between women (\(p\) = 0.547) or between men of both groups (\(p\) = 0.789), nor in dynamic balance in women (\(p\) = 0.896), nor in men (\(p\) = 0.804), as occurred with hand pressure strength left in women (\(p\) = 0.067) and in men (\(p\) = 0.726). Regarding hand pressure strength right, statistically significant differences were found in women  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Control Group** & **Experimental Group** & **\(p\)-Value** \\ \hline
**Variables** & & & & \\ \hline
**Average age (years)** & & \(72.54\pm 5.55\) & \(73.77\pm 6.32\) & 0.391 \\ \hline
**Sex** & & & \\  & Man & 2 (72.2\%) & 7 (27.8\%) & 0.075 \\  & Woman & 33 (27.8\%) & 28 (72.2\%) & \\ \hline
**Average height (m)** & & \(1.538\pm 7.16\) & \(1.530\pm 9.16\) & 0.685 \\ \hline
**Average weight (kg)** & & \(72.51\pm 11.99\) & \(74.80\pm 12.75\) & 0.443 \\ \hline
**Average BMI (kg/m2)** & & \(30.71\pm 4.075\) & \(31.88\pm 3.73\) & 0.215 \\ \hline
**Degree of overweight-obesity** & & & \\  & Overweight & 17 (24.3\%) & 11 (15.7\%) & \\  & Type I Obesity & 13 (18.6\%) & 17 (24.3\%) & 0.528 \\  & Type II Obesity & 4 (5.7\%) & 6 (8.6\%) & \\  & Type III Obesity & 1 (1.4\%) & 1 (1.4\%) & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: Quantitative variables are expressed as the mean and standard deviation, and qualitative variables are expressed as frequencies and percentages.  
\end{table}
Table 1: Basic characteristics of the participants.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variable** & **CG Pre (n = 35)** & **EG Pre (n = 35)** & **\(p\)-Value** \\ \hline
**Aerobic endurance (m)** & 399.94 \(\pm\) 84.95 & 439.48 \(\pm\) 64.79 & 0.675 \\ \hline
**Lower body strength (Number of repetitions)** & 11.97 \(\pm\) 3.20 & 13.54 \(\pm\) 2.36 & 0.346 \\ \hline
**Upper body strength (Number of repetitions)** & 15.20 \(\pm\) 4.05 & 15.62 \(\pm\) 5.57 & 0.786 \\ \hline
**Lower body flexibility (cm)** & \(-4.42\pm 10.11\) & \(-0.74\pm\) 6.69 & 0.160 \\ \hline
**Upper body flexibility (cm)** & \(-10.45\pm 9.33\) & \(-12.91\pm 10.54\) & 0.944 \\ \hline
**Dynamic balance (seconds)** & 7.02 \(\pm\) 2.02 & 6.82 \(\pm\) 1.50 & 0.782 \\ \hline
**Hand pressure strength right (kg)** & 55.65 \(\pm\) 14.35 & 52.11 \(\pm\) 17.71 & 0.029 \({}^{*}\) \\ \hline
**Hand pressure strength left (kg)** & 52.80 \(\pm\) 13.18 & 51.31 \(\pm\) 16.54 & 0.370 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: \({}^{*}p<0.05\).  
\end{table}
Table 2: Pre-intervention results on the Senior Fitness Test battery variables of the control and experimental groups.  
between the CG and the EG [F (1, 66) = 4.136, \(p\) = 0.046, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.059, 95% CI 1.533, 13.733], in favor of the CG. These differences were not found in men (\(p\) = 0.128).