# Effects of unsupervised campus HIIT on fitness and sleep in sedentary male students: a randomized controlled trial

PMID: 41957758
Journal: BMC Public Health
Published: 2026-04-09
Authors: Tang D, Gou P, Liu S, Zhang X, Li D, Liu J

## Question

Does a partially familiarized but mostly unsupervised campus-based HIIT program improve physical fitness and sleep quality in sedentary male university students compared with no exercise?

## Summary

In sedentary male university students, a 6-week campus HIIT running/walking program improved estimated aerobic fitness and balance versus a no-exercise control. Sleep quality, agility, flexibility, core endurance, and body composition did not show clear between-group improvement. Completion and intensity compliance were high among completers, and no adverse events were reported.

## Population

- Sedentary male university students.
- Sample size: 56
- Age: Mean 21.6 +/- 2.4 years.
- Sex: Male.
- Fitness level: Sedentary; fewer than 2 structured exercise sessions per week.
- Health status: Apparently healthy and cleared for exercise.

## Methodology

- Parallel randomized controlled trial with assessor blinding for instrumentation outcomes.
- 6 weeks.
- University campus track/open spaces, with treadmill allowed if target intensity was reached.
- Randomized and controlled study design.

## Protocol

- Campus HIIT.
- Modality: Running, jogging, brisk walking, or treadmill.
- Work intervals: 1 min at 80-90% HRmax.
- Recovery: 1 min at 40-50% HRmax.
- Sets or repetitions: 10 intervals.
- Intensity: HRmax estimated by 208 - 0.7 x age; RPE 15-18 hard and 11-13 recovery.
- Session duration: About 26 min including 3-min warm-up and 3-min cool-down.
- Frequency: 3 sessions/week.
- Program length: 6 weeks.
- Progression: No explicit progression reported.
- No-exercise control.
- Modality: Usual activity without structured exercise.
- Program length: 6 weeks.

## Outcomes

### Estimated VO2max
Status: improved
HIIT improved VO2max by 5.96 mL/kg/min (+19.24%) while control declined slightly.

Group-by-time beta = -6.63, 95% CI -8.77 to -4.49, p < .001, d = 1.019.

### Balance
Status: improved
Balance improved within the HIIT group and the interaction favored HIIT, although post-intervention between-group difference was not significant.

Group-by-time beta = -23.11, 95% CI -41.16 to -5.06, p = .012.

### Sleep quality
Status: no clear change
PSQI did not show a significant group-by-time effect.

Interaction p = .299.

### Other fitness and body composition
Status: no clear change
No significant group-by-time effects for agility, flexibility, core endurance, or body composition.

## Practical Insights

- A 26-min, 10-round 1:1 HIIT format can be run outdoors with HR/RPE guidance.
- Fitness claims are stronger than sleep or body-composition claims for a 6-week dose.
- Remote HR review can support unsupervised fidelity.

## Limitations

- Male-only university sample.
- Short 6-week intervention.
- Estimated field VO2max rather than laboratory gas analysis.
- Subjective sleep measurement and limited control for sleep confounders.
- No long-term follow-up.

## Safety And Adherence

- No adverse events were reported.
- Participants were screened with PAR-Q and monitored with heart-rate devices.

## Original Sources

- [PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41957758/) (pubmed)
- [DOI](https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-026-27310-7) (doi)
- [PMC full text](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13195952/) (full text)

## Agent Guidance

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