# The effects and post-exercise energy metabolism characteristics of different high-intensity interval training in obese adults

PMID: 40259013
Journal: Scientific Reports
Published: 2025-04-21
Authors: BaiQuan Y, Meng C, Congqing Z, XiaoDong W

## Question

Do whole-body HIIT and jump-rope HIIT differ in effects on body composition, muscular fitness, and post-exercise energy metabolism in young adults with obesity?

## Summary

In young adults with obesity, 8 weeks of supervised whole-body HIIT or jump-rope HIIT improved body weight and fat measures compared with a non-training control. Whole-body HIIT produced higher immediate post-exercise oxygen consumption and better strength gains than jump rope, but the study was small and diet was only self-monitored.

## Population

- Young adults with BMI >24 kg/m2 and no regular exercise in the past 6 months.
- Sample size: 29
- Age: 18-30 years; mean about 22 years
- Sex: Men and women
- Fitness level: Inactive
- Health status: Overweight/obesity without exercise-limiting conditions

## Methodology

- Three-arm stratified randomized controlled training trial
- 8 weeks
- University exercise setting with supervised sessions and laboratory testing
- Randomized and controlled study design.

## Protocol

- Whole-body HIIT and jump-rope HIIT.
- Modality: Bodyweight calisthenics or jump rope.
- Work intervals: 30 s.
- Recovery: 30 s; 1 min between sets.
- Sets or repetitions: 4 sets x 4 intervals.
- Intensity: All-out or cadence-prescribed, with HR monitoring.
- Session duration: About 25 min including warm-up/cool-down.
- Frequency: 3 sessions/week.
- Program length: 8 weeks.
- Progression: Exercise variants or jump-rope cadence increased over 8 weeks.
- Non-training control.
- Modality: Usual habits without added exercise.
- Program length: 8 weeks.

## Outcomes

### Body mass
Status: improved
WB-HIIT reduced body mass by 1.9 kg and JR-HIIT by 2.8 kg, while control was stable.

Between-group time and interaction p<0.001 for body mass.

### Fat mass
Status: improved
Fat mass and percent body fat decreased in both HIIT groups versus control.

Fat mass interaction p=0.001; percent body fat interaction p=0.032.

### Muscle mass
Status: mixed
WB-HIIT increased muscle mass, while JR-HIIT showed a small reported decrease.

Muscle mass time p=0.028; interaction p<0.001.

### EPOC
Status: improved
WB-HIIT produced higher total EPOC and EPOC per body mass than JR-HIIT.

Total EPOC 6.61 +/- 2.12 L vs 4.73 +/- 0.92 L, p<0.05.

### Safety
Status: no clear change
No adverse events were reported during the intervention.

## Practical Insights

- Bodyweight HIIT is especially relevant when the desired outcome includes strength as well as fat loss.
- Jump-rope HIIT is equipment-light but may need enjoyment and impact-management supports.
- A 30/30 format can be implemented in short sessions with clear progression.

## Limitations

- Small sample with 29 completers
- Diet was not strictly controlled
- Calorie consumption was not equalized between HIIT modes
- BIA was used rather than DXA
- Short intervention

## Safety And Adherence

- No adverse events were reported during the 8-week intervention.

## Original Sources

- [PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40259013/) (pubmed)
- [DOI](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-98590-z) (doi)
- [PMC full text](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12012042/) (full text)

## Agent Guidance

Preserve the paper-level scope of this note. Do not generalize beyond the population, protocol, measured outcomes, and limitations above.