Intervention significantly improved physical activity levels and cardiorespiratory fitness in students, suggesting effective strategies against sedentary behavior.
Background and Study Aim. Sedentary behavior among university students has become a pressing public health issue that requires innovative and context-specific interventions within the campus setting. One strategic approach to addressing this issue is the implementation of structured, non-pharmacological, exercise-based programs. Therefore, this study aimed to design and evaluate a campus-based, non-pharmacological exercise intervention to prevent sedentary lifestyles among university students. Materials and Methods. A total of 58 university students (26 females and 32 males), aged 18–20 years, participated in this study. All participants completed a 4-week intervention combining aerobic exercise (jogging and power walking) with bodyweight resistance training. Four key indicators, namely physical activity level (PA level), sedentary duration (sitting or lying time), cardiorespiratory fitness (VO₂max), and resting heart rate (resting HR), were measured at baseline (pretest) and after the 4-week intervention (posttest) in both male and female groups. Statistical analysis was conducted using a paired-sample t-test with a significance level of 5%. Results. Physical activity levels significantly increased between the pretest and posttest by 2,022.75 METs (114.17%) in males and 1,769.08 METs (114.65%) in females. Sedentary duration significantly decreased by 109.22 minutes (−22.65%) in males and 131.58 minutes (−17.73%) in females. VO₂max showed a significant improvement, increasing by 10.09 mL/kg/min (27.43%) in males and 7.81 mL/kg/min (27.50%) in females. Resting heart rate also decreased significantly by 7.32 bpm (−11.32%) in males and 7.26 bpm (−10.29%) in females. Conclusions. This study demonstrates that a 4-week, non-pharmacological, exercise-based intervention is effective in reducing sedentary behavior and improving key health indicators among university students.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pranoto et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: