## 3 Results  
The results regarding the anthropometric data of the participants are given in Table 2. When Table 2 was examined, there was a main effect of time on the weight, BMI, and fat results (\(p<0.001\)). According to the effect size results for the time factor, it was seen that the smallest effect was in the fat (%) value (\(\eta_{\mathrm{p}}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.42), and the largest effect was in the BMI values (\(\eta_{\mathrm{p}}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.89). The protocols did not affect the weight, BMI, and fat results (\(p>0.05\)). Furthermore, the protocol\({}^{\ast}\)time interaction effect was significant for the fat outcomes (\(p<0.001\)), and the fat outcomes were lowest in the post-test with the MIMV protocol but not significant for the weight and BMI outcomes (\(p>0.05\)) (Table 2). Table 3 shows the participants' 50 m, 100 m, 200 m, and 800 m swimming results. According to Table 3, the time main effect was significant for the 50 m, 100 m, and 800 m swimming results (\(p<0.001\)), and swimming times improved in the post-test. However, the main effect of time and the interaction effect of protocol\({}^{\ast}\)time were not significant for 200 m swimming results (\(p>0.05\)). The effect of the protocols was significant for the 50 m (\(\eta_{\mathrm{p}}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.86), 100 m (\(\eta_{\mathrm{p}}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.79), 200 m (\(\eta_{\mathrm{p}}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.60), and 800 m (\(\eta_{\mathrm{p}}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.62) swimming results, and the results improved with the HILV protocol. The protocol\({}^{\ast}\)time interaction effect was \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Group** & **HILV** & **MIMV** & **LIHV** \\ \hline Warm-up & 400 m & 400 m & 400 m \\ Sets (Repetitions) & 10 \(\times\) (4 \(\times\) 50 m) & 10 \(\times\) (3 \(\times\) 50 m) & 10 \(\times\) (2 \(\times\) 50 m) \\ Recovery & 200 m & 200 m & 200 m \\ Rest Between Intervals & 60 s & 60 s & 60 s \\ Rest Between Sets & 3 min & 3 min & 3 min \\ Intensity & 85–95\% & 75–85\% & 65–75\% \\ Frequency (Days) & 2 & 3 & 5 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Load has set as % based on the best 100 m score. Only freestyle swimming was used in the training. HILV = High Intensity Low Volume; MIMV = Moderate Intensity Moderate Volume; LIHV = Low Intensity High Volume.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Training protocol. statistically significant (\(p<0.001\)) for the 50 m, 100 m, and 800 m results, and the results showed improved swimming results post-test with the HILV protocol. When the results of stroke, SR, SPL, and SL were examined, the interaction effect of protocols, time, and protocol*time was significant in all stroke results (\(p<0.05\)) (Table 4). The interaction results in stroke, SR, and SL showed the best improvement in the pre-test with the LIHV protocol, but the SPL results showed better improvement in the post-test with the HILV protocol. The effect size results for the interaction were found to have the greatest effect on the stroke results (\(\eta_{\mathrm{p}}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.58), and the smallest effect on the SPL results (\(\eta_{\mathrm{p}}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.19). When the effect size results in the time factor were examined, it was determined that the weakest effect was on the SL results (\(\eta_{\mathrm{p}}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.66), and the largest effect was on the stroke results (\(\eta_{\mathrm{p}}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.90). While the weakest effect in the protocols was seen in the stroke results (\(\eta_{\mathrm{p}}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.41), the greatest effect was seen in the SL results (\(\eta_{\mathrm{p}}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.81) (Table 4). When the resting HR, HR50 m, HR100 m, HR200 m, and HR800 m results were examined, the main effect of time was significant (\(p<0.001\)), and heart rate results were lower in the post-test compared to the pre-test. The greatest effect on the time factor was observed in the HR50 m results (\(\eta_{\mathrm{p}}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.89). The effect of the protocols was statistically significant for HR100 m and HR200 m (\(p<0.05\)) but not for HR, HR50 m, and HR800 m (\(p>0.05\)).