Randomized controlled trial shows improved fitness in sedentary male students, suggesting HIIT's effectiveness.
Sedentary behavior and poor sleep quality are prevalent among university students and are associated with reduced cardiorespiratory fitness. This randomized controlled trial evaluated the effects of a six-week, campus-based running high-intensity interval training (HIIT) program on physical fitness, sleep quality, and body composition in sedentary male university students. Fifty-six participants (age 21.6 ± 2.4 years) completed the study and were analyzed (HIIT group, n = 28; control group, n = 28). The unsupervised six-week intervention consisted of three weekly sessions of repeated 1-min high-intensity running bouts with recovery periods. Physical fitness, sleep quality, and body composition were assessed. Within- and between-group comparisons were conducted using t-tests, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, or the Mann–Whitney U test, depending on data normality. Group-by-time interactions were examined using generalized estimating equations. Significant group-by-time interactions were observed for VO2max (β = − 6.63, 95% CI − 8.77 to − 4.49, p < 0.001, d = 1.019) and balance (β = − 23.11, 95% CI − 41.16 to − 5.06, p = 0.012, d = 0.544), with the HIIT group showing significant improvements (19.24% and 49.64%, respectively), whereas controls did not. While the group-by-time interaction for sleep quality was not significant, a favorable trend toward within-group improvement was observed in the HIIT group (− 0.57 points, − 12.15%, p = 0.082, d = 0.270), whereas no such trend occurred in the control group (0.07 points, 1.28%, p = 0.892, d = 0.029). No significant changes were observed for the remaining physical fitness indicators or body composition. A six-week, unsupervised campus-based HIIT running program improved cardiorespiratory fitness and balance while showing good adherence and safety in sedentary male university students, confirming its feasibility in a real-world setting. Potential benefits for sleep quality warrant validation in larger randomized trials. ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT07256847).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: