PMID 41893593

Research
All papers

A 12-Week Pilot Study Comparing High-Intensity Interval Training and Peripheral Heart Action Training on ISAK-Based Anthropometric Outcomes and Perceived Psychophysical Well-Being in Young Adults

Domenico FD, Ceruso R, Raiola G, Aliberti S, Esposito G

Question

How do 12 weeks of HIIT and PHA training differ in ISAK anthropometric outcomes and perceived psychophysical well-being in moderately active young adults?

Summary

This small non-randomized pilot study compared 12 weeks of supervised HIIT with peripheral heart action circuit training in 24 moderately active adults. Both groups improved several anthropometric indicators over time, while HIIT showed larger reductions in selected skinfolds and higher perceived performance improvement, and PHA showed larger increases in arm circumferences and mesomorphy. Because allocation was non-randomized, there was no inactive control group, and adherence was not systematically quantified, findings are exploratory.

Methodology

  • Twenty-four adults recruited from a personal training studio; HIIT n=12 and PHA n=12.
  • 24 participants.
  • Mixed functional circuit.
  • Work intervals: 30 sec per exercise.
  • Recovery: 30 sec passive recovery; 1 min between rounds.
  • Intensity: 80-95% HRmax.
  • About 45-50 min including 10-min warm-up, 24-min circuit, and 10-min cool-down.
  • 3 sessions/week.
  • 12 weeks.
  • Non-randomized longitudinal pilot trial with repeated measures
  • ISAK anthropometry, and Psychophysical well-being were tracked.

Outcomes

Anthropometric/body composition indicators

Both groups improved several anthropometric indicators over time, including reductions in BMI, waist/hip circumference, skinfolds, and endomorphy.

LMM time effects for body mass, BMI, sum of skinfolds, waist circumference, hip circumference, endomorphy, and mesomorphy were significant; p values ranged from <0.05 to <0.001

Improved

Protocol-specific adaptation patterns

HIIT favored reductions in selected skinfolds; PHA favored arm circumference and mesomorphy increases. Overall superiority was not established.

Significant Time x Group interactions for body mass p<0.001, BMI p<0.01, sum of skinfolds p<0.01, waist circumference p<0.05, and endomorphy p<0.05

Mixed

Psychophysical well-being

Psychological and physical/functional well-being did not differ between groups, but HIIT reported higher perceived performance improvement.

Performance improvement: HIIT 4.63 +/- 0.43 vs PHA 3.04 +/- 0.54, p<0.001; psychological p=0.225; physical/functional p=0.415

Mixed

Insights

  • A supervised HR-monitored HIIT circuit is feasible in a personal training studio, but this study did not quantify attendance or compliance rates.
  • Claims about body composition effects should remain exploratory without randomization or a non-exercise control group.
  • The HIIT protocol requires multiple pieces of equipment and is not directly app-only translatable.

Limitations

  • Small pilot sample.
  • Non-randomized allocation by schedule and previous training routine.
  • No non-exercise control group.
  • Psychophysical questionnaire was non-validated and administered only after the intervention.
  • No objective performance or VO2max outcome.
  • No sex-stratified inferential analysis.
  • Attendance and lifestyle compliance were not systematically quantified.

Safety

  • No formal adverse event counts were reported. Exercise substitutions were required in 3 participants because of orthopedic or technical limitations.