Randomized trial compares HIIT and Tabata effects on physical and cognitive health in sedentary college students, indicating protocol customization benefits.
Introduction This randomized controlled trial aimed to compare the effects of HIIT-30S protocols (30 s work/30 s rest) and Tabata protocols (20 s work/10 s rest) protocols on physical fitness and cognitive function in sedentary college students. Methods Eighty-four undergraduates (19.07 ± 0.76 years; 34 males and 60 females) were stratified into HIIT-30S, Tabata, or moderate-intensity training (MICT) groups and completed 24 supervised sessions over 8 weeks. Physical outcomes included an 800-m run (cardiorespiratory endurance), push-ups/sit-ups (muscular endurance), 50-m sprint (speed), the Sitting Reach Test (flexibility), and heart rate recovery (cardiovascular recovery ability). Cognitive assessments encompassed the WAIS-IV core cognition (general intelligence), letter-number sequencing test (working memory), time management questionnaire (TMQ), emotion regulation questionnaire (ERQ), reaction time testing, and a 12 weeks follow-up comprehensive cognition questionnaire. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. Results HIIT-30S and Tabata outperformed MICT in all domains ( P < 0.05). HIIT-30S elicited superior physical adaptations: 800-m run time decreased by −11.78 s, push-ups increased +9.29 reps, sit-ups increased +11.39 reps, 50-m sprint decreased −0.37 s, and HRR improved +12.66%. Tabata showed greater neurocognitive enhancements: WAIS-IV core cognition scores rose +10.47 points, letter-number sequencing scores rose +1.68 points, TMA scores rose +10.97 points, EMA scores rose +16.79 points, simple reaction time decreased −40.61 ms, choice reaction time decreased −65.15 ms, and Continuous Reaction time decreased −51.14 ms. At the 12-week follow-up, HIIT-30S maintained cognitive gains (+3.05%) with the greatest improvement compared to Tabata (+1.97%). Discussion These findings indicate that the work-to-rest ratio is a key determinant of training effects, enabling protocol customization for specific individual fitness and cognitive aims.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xue et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: