PMID 42124875

Research
All papers

Effect of Different Modes of High Intensity Interval Training on Appetite-Related Hormones, Appetite Perception, and Anthropometric Measures in Overweight and Obese Men: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Fekri-Kourabbaslou V, Amirsasan R, Dabbagh-Nikoukheslat S

Question

Do running-based HIIT and bodyweight high-intensity functional training differ in effects on appetite hormones, appetite perception, anthropometrics, and performance in overweight/obese young men?

Summary

In sedentary overweight or obese young men, 8 weeks of supervised running HIIT or bodyweight high-intensity functional training improved several appetite hormones, waist/hip measures, body fat percentage, and aerobic performance compared with control. Body weight and ghrelin did not change significantly. The trial was small, male-only, supervised, and had limited safety reporting.

Methodology

  • Sedentary overweight or obese young men.
  • 30 participants.
  • Running HIIT and bodyweight functional HIIT.
  • Work intervals: 30, 25, 20, then 15 s by progression phase.
  • Recovery: 60, 50, 40, then 30 s; 150 s between sets.
  • Intensity: HIIT 130-170% MAS; HIFT 70-90% participant records; RPE 7-9/10.
  • 45-50 min including warm-up/cool-down; main work 23.5-29 min.
  • 3 sessions/week.
  • 8 weeks.
  • Three-arm randomized controlled trial with blinded assessor/laboratory staff.
  • Appetite hormones, Appetite perception, Anthropometry and body composition, and Aerobic performance were tracked.

Outcomes

PYY and GLP-1

Both HIIT and HIFT increased PYY and GLP-1 compared with control.

Significant time-by-group effects, p < .05.

Improved

Ghrelin and several appetite ratings

Ghrelin, fullness, satiety, and desire to eat did not change significantly.

Ghrelin p = .53; fullness p = .48; satiety p = .72; desire p = .20.

No clear change

Anthropometrics

Waist, hip, and body fat percentage improved in both training groups; HIFT also reduced BMI and fat mass versus control, but body weight did not significantly change.

Weight p = .14; FFM p = .11; other anthropometric time-by-group effects p < .05 except weight and FFM.

Mixed

Performance

VO2max and vVO2max improved in both training groups versus control.

p < .05 for performance time-by-group effects.

Improved

Insights

  • Bodyweight HIFT is more directly translatable than MAS-based running intervals.
  • Short 15-30 s intervals with 1:2 recovery can be progressed by intensity and set count.
  • Do not claim significant weight loss from this intervention.

Limitations

  • Small n=10 per group.
  • Young men only.
  • Short 8-week intervention.
  • Supervised setting.
  • Preparatory MICT phase before the intervention.
  • Sparse adverse-event reporting.
  • Surrogate appetite hormone outcomes.

Safety

  • No specific adverse events were reported.
  • Participants were screened by physician and PAR-Q.
  • Missing more than two sessions or injury/discomfort was exclusionary.