Key result
Trainer-led high-intensity exercise boosts VO2max by ~4.8 ml/kg/min more than app-based training.
RCT (n=27)
Open-label
Random assignment into three groups (1:1:1)
No
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Compares aerobic capacity and psychological outcomes in university students using mHealth apps versus trainers, implying effective alternatives exist.
OBJECTIVES This study aims to compare and analyze the effects of different exercise instruction methods, with high-intensity aerobic exercise using smartphone-based applications versus in-person trainers, on the aerobic capacity and exercise-related psychological indicators (achievement, satisfaction, and immersion) of university students, thereby verifying their actual effectiveness.METHODS This study randomly assigned 27 male college students to an application-based exercise group (AEG, n=9), a trainer-led face-to-face exercise group (HEG, n=9), and a control group (CG, n=9). Both exercise groups engaged in aerobic exercise three times per week for 30 minutes each session, at an intensity of 70–85% of maximum heart rate, for a period of 8 weeks. Measurement indicators included body composition, exercise stress testing, and the Cooper 1.5-mile run test to measure VO2max. Furthermore, a survey was conducted to assess exercise achievement, satisfaction, and exercise persistence. The statistical analysis employed a variety of methods, including paired t-tests, independent t-tests, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and 2×3 repeated measures ANOVA.RESULTS First, no significant differences in body composition were observed between groups. Second, a significant interaction effect between group and time was observed for VO2max in the HEG group (p = 0.022). Third, the survey results showed that the HEG group achieved significantly higher scores than the AEG group in the items “perceived improvement in physical ability,” “improved confidence and mental state,” and “adherence to exercise plans.” However, the AEG group also demonstrated high scores, with an average of above 3.68 in exercise achievement, satisfaction, and participation.CONCLUSIONS Application-based exercise yielded relatively high scores in exercise achievement, satisfaction, and immersion despite limited improvements in aerobic capacity, suggesting a partial disconnect between psychological indicators and aerobic fitness. In light of the persistent escalation in obesity rates, the utilization of exercise applications emerges as a prospective strategy to improve physical activity levels.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2026) conducted an RCT in Cardiorespiratory fitness in inactive university students (n=27). Smartphone application-based high-intensity aerobic exercise (AEG) vs. trainer-led face-to-face exercise (HEG) vs. Trainer-led face-to-face exercise group (HEG) and non-exercise control group (CG) was evaluated on VO2max via graded exercise stress testing (ml/kg/min) (p=0.022). Trainer-led high-intensity exercise increased VO2max by 5.64 ml/kg/min vs 0.85 ml/kg/min with smartphone app-based exercise over 8 weeks (interaction p=0.022).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: