CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter presents the analysis and interpretation of the data gathered based on the
research questions as stated in Chapter 1. Tabular forms were used to present the data analysis
and interpretation of the findings for clearer understanding.

Table 1.1 Demographic Profile of the HIIT Respondents

Before After
HIIT
Height Weight Level Height Weight Level
Respondents Age Sex Age Sex
meters kg VO2max meters kg VO2max
1 30 M 5’11 85 8 30 M 5’11 82 11
2 22 M 5’7 70 10 22 M 5’7 69 14
3 18 M 5’7 50 13 18 M 5’7 52.5 15
4 18 M 5’7 50 15 18 M 5’7 51.5 19
5 18 M 5’7 48 12 18 M 5’7 48.5 14

Table 1.1 shows the demographic profile of five male participants in the HIIT program

with uniform height, and the initial weights lie between 48 and 85 kg. The weights changed

modestly after training. While respondent 3 at age 18 years gained 2.5kg in the train, mostly

muscles, for respondent 1 at age 30, gained up to 3. That is two in one wham to HIIT regarding

weight and muscle gain a person could have needed to have engaged in the training for (Wewege

et al., 2020). This concurs with other researches that have established HIIT alters body

composition by eliciting more loss in fat mass compared to the muscle (Schwingshackl et al.,

2019).

All the participants indicated a positive increase in VO2max after training, and this

proves that HIIT is beneficial for the enhancement of cardiovascular fitness. Variations in
VO2max values ranged between 3 and 4 levels among participants, which was consistent with

the latest findings that reported a marked increase in aerobic capacity even from brief intense

sessions of HIIT (Dun et al., 2019). For example, while the VO2max level increased for

Respondent 1 from 8 to 11, it improved for Respondent 4 from 15 to 19, as there were increases

in oxygen utilization and endurance (Mclaren et al., 2021). These findings outline the

progression of HIIT over cardiovascular health. The findings support current studies wherein

investigators have explored the metabolic as well as aerobic fitness effects generated through

HIIT.

Table 1.2 Demographic Profile of the HIIT Respondents

Before After
LISS
Height Weight Level Height Weight Level
Respondents Age Sex Age Sex
meters kg VO2max meters kg VO2max
1 25 M 5’9 78 12 25 M 5’9 76.5 16
2 23 M 5’6 90 13 23 M 5’6 87.5 16
3 24 M 6’0 82 12 24 M 6’0 81 17
4 19 M 6’0 100 11 19 M 6’0 98 13
5 20 M 5’5 52 11 20 M 5’5 51 14

Table 1.2. shows the demographic profile of respondents receiving LISS training

interventions. A comparison of participants before the intervention and during or at the end of

the training. The profile of this group of men consists of five males of 19 to 25 years, 5 feet 5

inches to 6 feet, and weights on the different extremes of scales of minimum at 52 kilogram,

maximum at 100 kilograms. All respondents showed slight weight loss after taking the LISS

training course, and Respondent 4, who was 19 years old and weighed 100 kg, reduced her
weight by 2 kg. This is supported by studies that have suggested LISS training can indeed bring

about slow weight loss and fat loss, especially for overweight individuals (Wewege et al., 2020).

Beside the change in weight, all the responses revealed an increase in levels of VO2max

after the program, indicating improved cardiovascular endurance. For example, Respondent 1

was 25 years old. He was able to elevate his VO2max from level 12 to level 16. Respondent 3

was 24 years old. His results were level 12 up to level 17. Such results are in line with research

that LISS indeed enhances aerobic capacity in the long run, although frequently more slowly

than high intensity methods (Mclaren et al., 2021). This, therefore suggests that LISS training is

of benefit to steady cardiovascular improvement and moderate weight management especially

among those who may want a low-intensity routine.

Table 2. Test of Significant Difference in Health-Related Fitness of the Gym-Goers who
Undergo HIIT Aerobic Exercise
Anthropometric t- p-
Mean Decision Conclusion
Measurement value value
Body Composition
 Before 20.33 No significant
-0.190 0.859 Failed to reject Ho
 After 20.39 difference

Cardiovascular
Fitness
 Before 11.60 With significant
-6.708 0.003 Reject Ho
 After 14.60 difference

Flexibility
 Before 36.40 With significant
-7.483 0.002 Reject Ho
 After 39.20 difference

Muscular
Endurance
 Before 57.80 With significant
-6.516 0.003 Reject Ho difference
 After 72.80
Muscular Strength
 Before 20.00 With significant
-8.744 0.001 Reject Ho difference
 After 25.80
Note: Significant if p<0.05

The dependent samples t-test was run to test if there is a significant difference in Health-

Related Fitness of the gym-goers before and after implementing the HIIT Aerobic Exercise.

Dependent samples t-test revealed that a significant difference was found in the cardiovascular

fitness (t=-6.708, p=0.003), flexibility (t=-7.483, p=0.002), muscular endurance (t=-6.516 , p=

0.003), and muscular strength (t=-8.744, p=0.001) of the Gym-Goers before and after

implementing the HIIT Aerobic Exercise, while there was no significant difference in the body

composition (p>0.05).

The dependent samples t-test results showed some aspects of health-related fitness improved

significantly for the gym-goers post-HIIT aerobic exercise intervention. Notably, improvements were

established on cardiovascular fitness, flexibility, muscular endurance, and muscular strength, p < 0.01,

which means that HIIT enhances various aspects of physical fitness. In consonance with recent literature

indicating improvements in cardiovascular health with a very high magnitude, since its very basis is

interval-based with multiple bouts of high exertion that challenge the cardiovascular system at these

instances (Mclaren et al., 2021). Improvements in flexibility also represent an area in which HIIT stands

out since flexibility is less typically associated with high-intensity exercise but indeed may result from

increased muscle elasticity and the range of motion associated with dynamic exercises (Kilen et al.,

2021).

Recent studies have shown that HIIT training supports muscular endurance and strength gains.

This is because the high-intensity, short-rest nature of HIIT may stimulate muscle adaptations to improve

endurance and strength capacity (Gillen et al., 2020). HIIT can efficiently activate both aerobic and

anaerobic pathways to explain the improvement in muscular strength, since short recovery periods push

muscles to adapt to repeated high-output demands (Wewege et al., 2020). However, lack of significant

body composition changes with the p-value not being significant accords with research findings

indicating that body composition changes like loss in fat mass or gain in muscular mass would take longer

durations or special nutritional supports aside from the training to come into play (MacInnis & Gibala,

2019). Consequently, this means that though HIIT is a good way of exercising to enhance fitness, it

cannot have most effects on body composition aside from other measures.
Table 3. Test of Significant Difference in Health-Related Fitness of the Gym-Goers who
Undergo LISS Training Program
Anthropometric t- p-
Mean Decision Conclusion
Measurement value value
Body Composition
 Before 26.16 With significant
5.117 0.007 Reject Ho
 After 25.63 difference

Cardiovascular
Fitness
 Before 11.80 With significant
-6.668 0.003 Reject Ho
 After 15.20 difference

Flexibility
 Before 39.80 No significant
-2.622 0.059 Failed to reject Ho
 After 45.40 difference

Muscular
Endurance
 Before 65.50 -7.397 0.002 With significant
Reject Ho
 After 83.30 difference

Muscular Strength
 Before 16.80 - With significant
<0.001 Reject Ho difference
 After 21.80 11.180

Note: Significant if p<0.05

The dependent samples t-test was run to test if there is a significant difference in Health-

Related Fitness of the gym-goers before and after implementing the LISS Training Program.

Dependent samples t-test revealed that there was a significant difference in the body composition

(t=5.117, p=0.007), cardiovascular fitness (t=-6.668, p=0.003), muscular endurance(t=-7.397,

p=0.002), and muscular strength (t=-11.180, p<0.001) of the Gym-Goers before and after
implementing the LISS Training Program, while there was no significant difference the

respondents’ flexibility (p>0.05).

This in turn showed that LISS exercise improved body composition, cardiovascular fitness,

muscular endurance, and muscular strength for those gym-exercising individuals. A few of the newer

research had succeeded in demonstrating that, despite being quite low as an intensity compared with

HIIT, LISS does indeed enhance varied parameters of health-related fitness. This period is a long time

duration of moderate exercise, which favorably contributed towards LISS body composition basis the

outcome in fat oxidation even this had persisted for quite some time. It was nearly identical in the results

now coming out showing substantial differences as far as the effects of the LISS exercise to the total

composition of the body following training (t=5.117, p=0.007), and a small change due to the

maintenance of moderate intensity exercise will indeed bring positive impacts as far as the burning of

excess body fat besides other impacts related to weight loss at issue (Murtagh et al., 2019).

The improvements on cardiovascular fitness are in line with earlier studies, where LISS has been

found as an activity that can be useful for enhancing cardiovascular fitness. In general, improvement in

cardiovascular endurance is achieved in the sense that LISS training allows for improvements on oxygen

uptake and blood flow distribution over time, therefore having a general effect on increased aerobic

capacity (Mclaren et al., 2021). Similarly, marked improvements in muscular endurance and strength at p

< 0.01 after LISS might be caused by extended periods of muscle activity that characterize steady-state

exercise leading to increased muscle endurance, with repetition probably improving the strength by low-

intensity activities (Hwang et al., 2020). LISS is less taxing than interval training but, through repetition,

can create endurance adaptations and a gradual basis for strength gain (Harber et al., 2020).

Curiously, no effect was observed on flexibility: p > 0.05. This is similar to the scientific

literature findings where flexibility usually depends on the stretching protocols than on the aerobic

exercise, such as LISS (Behm et al., 2021). The movements did not improve flexibility like that seen with
exercises like HIIT or stretching, which could be an explanation for the failure of respondents' flexibility

levels to change. In general, the findings affirm the usability of LISS in terms of improvements in body

composition, cardiovascular health, and muscular fitness, while a separate specific intervention would

seem necessary to affect flexibility.

Table 4. Test of Significant Difference in Anthropometric Measurement of the Gym-Goers

who undergo HIIT Aerobic Exercise
Anthropometric t- p-
Mean Decision Conclusion
Measurement value value
Arm Girth
 Before 11.24 No significant
-1.177 0.305 Failed to reject Ho
 After 11.54 difference

Thigh Girth
 Before 19.60 No significant
-0.703 0.521 Failed to reject Ho
 After 19./84 difference

Waistline
 Before 29.52 With significant
4.350 0.012 Reject Ho
 After 28.80 difference

Note: Significant if p<0.05

The dependent samples t-test was run to test if there is a significant difference in

Anthropometric Measurement of the gym-goers before and after implementing the HIIT Aerobic

Exercise. Dependent samples t-test revealed that no significant difference was found in the Arm

girth and thigh girt of the Gym-Goers before and after implementing the HIIT Aerobic Exercise

(p>0.05). However, there was a significant difference in the waistline of the Gym-Goers before

and after implementing the HIIT Aerobic Exercise (t=4.350, p=0.012).

Findings from the dependent samples t-test indicated that following High-Intensity

Interval Training intervention, subjects had reduced values with regards to waistline size in terms
of gym visitors while an inconsequential difference was found for arm and thigh girth (p > 0.05).

This can be related with some latest studies that propose HIIT may offer superior efficacy in the

reduction of central or abdominal fat and the minimization of waist perimeter for marker

indicators of cardiovascular and metabolic conditions, respectively (Wewege et al., 2020). Many

gyms tend to focus more or emphasize waistline reduction during physical exercise since this

type has more exposure to health risks over the other kind, referred to as subcutaneous fat in the

other regions of the body (Keating et al., 2020).

The reasons HIIT is more likely effective on the reduction of a waistline as proven from a

highly significant t-value are: t=4.350, p=0.012, is because, though short in time frame, it raises

metabolic activity and enhances oxidation of the fats. Studies indicate that the acute peaks of

HIIT trigger EPOC that increases the burn-up of extra calories even after the exercising is done

(Tucker et al., 2020). This metabolic response promotes the loss of additional fat reserves around

the abdominal region, which may explain why the waist diameter decreases but not so at the arm

or thigh diameter. Because fat cells in the abdominal fat have more beta-adrenergic receptors that

promote degradation of fat, this has a greater tendency to answer metabolic needs. (Alkahtani et

al. 2019)

With the arm and thigh girth increases, the type of the HIIT, as one cannot generalize this

particular session results on others with this design, the increase might actually be related to the

less tendency for this area muscle hypertrophy and is dominated by cardiovascular and core

effect rather than being localized specific to a single group muscle at the extremities. HIIT's short

and intense intervals hardly ever provoke the stimulus needed for building muscle in places like

arms and thighs, as adaptations such as hypertrophy require focused resistance training for
meaningful hypertrophy (Garcia-Pinillos et al., 2021). Furthermore, there is a major decrease in

the waistline measurement with no corresponding increases in the measurements on the arm and

thighs-a common feature of studies for HIIT, given the fact that most benefits tend to be through

aerobic fitness and fat loss rather than muscle mass increase (Mclaren et al., 2021).

Table 5. Test of Significant Difference in Anthropometric Measurement of the Gym-Goers

who undergo LISS Training Program
Anthropometric t- p-
Mean Decision Conclusion
Measurement value value
Arm Girth
 Before 13.62 No significant
1.975 0.119 Failed to reject Ho
 After 13.40 difference

Thigh Girth
 Before 22.16 With significant
4.694 0.009 Reject Ho
 After 21.70 difference

Waistline
 Before 34.52 <0.00 With significant
9.487 Reject Ho
 After 33.32 1 difference

Note: Significant if p<0.05

The dependent samples t-test was run to test if there is a significant difference in

Anthropometric Measurement of the gym-goers before and after implementing the LISS

Training Program. Dependent samples t-test revealed that no significant difference was found in

the Arm girth of the Gym-Goers before and after implementing the HIIT Aerobic Exercise

(p>0.05). However, there was a significant difference in the thigh girt (t=4.694, p=0.009) and

waistline (t=9.487, p<0.001) of the Gym-Goers before and after implementing the LISS Training

Program.
 The dependent samples t-test results indicated that LISS training significantly reduced the

thigh girth and waistline measurements of gym-goers, but there were no significant changes in

arm girth (p > 0.05). This is very well supported by a recent publication that demonstrates that

LISS, described by prolonged moderate exercise, contributes to lowering of body fat, mainly in

fatty areas, for example thighs and abdominal areas (Keating et al., 2020). LISS exercise

typically relies on aerobic metabolism systems, which could help to improve fat burning even for

prolonged exercise sessions; consequently, fat loss and circumferential reduction is usually

expected in larger muscles like thighs and core, typically recruited for such exercises (Watanabe

et al., 2020).

A waistline reduction by significant proportions (t=9.487, p<0.001) post LISS exercise is

well noticed; in fact, a multitude of studies reported the advantage of moderate intensity

continuous training in abdominal fat loss. This is because LISS maintains fat oxidation even after

long exercise sessions, and the loss in waist measurements is sometimes more evident, especially

if the diet is also correct (Kim et al., 2021). The abdominal fat is very sensitive to aerobic

exercises because such exercises often cause a caloric deficit and activate the degradation of the

stored fats in the abdominal region (Schoenfeld et al., 2021).

Conversely, no significant change in arm girth is consistent with existing literature,

suggesting that LISS does not give the muscles enough resistance or specific targeting to cause

hypertrophy or noticeable size in the arms (Willis et al., 2021). Unlike high-intensity interval

training or resistance training, LISS does not stress the arm muscles enough to result in

significant girth changes, which is better suited for increasing muscle size in specific areas.

Hence, the result of this research is in relation with the knowledge that LISS is more potential for

general fat loss rather than for growing muscle size in specific body parts such as arms.
Table 6. Test of Significant Difference in the Health-Related Fitness of Gym-Goers who
Participated in a HIIT (High-Intensity Interval Training) Aerobic Exercise Program
Compared to those who underwent a LISS (Low-Intensity Steady State) Aerobic Exercise
Program
Anthropometric t- p-
Mean Decision Conclusion
Measurement value value
Body Composition
 HIIT 20.39 No significant
-1.894 0.095 Failed to reject Ho
 LISS 25.63 difference

Cardiovascular
Fitness
 HIIT 14.60 No significant
-0.405 0.670 Failed to reject Ho
 LISS 15.20 difference

Flexibility
 HIIT 39.20 No significant
-0.960 0.381 Failed to reject Ho
 LISS 45.40 difference

Muscular
Endurance
 HIIT 72.80 No significant
-0.756 0.471 Failed to reject Ho
 LISS 83.30 difference

Muscular Strength
 HIIT 25.80 No significant
1.811 0.113 Failed to reject Ho
 LISS 21.80 difference

Note: Significant if p<0.05

The independent samples t-test was run to test if there is a significant difference in the

health-related fitness of gym-goers who participated in a HIIT (High-Intensity Interval Training)

aerobic exercise program compared to those who underwent a LISS (Low-Intensity Steady State)

aerobic exercise program. The results revealed that the body composition, cardiovascular fitness,

flexibility, muscular endurance, and muscular strength between those who participated in the
HIIT and LISS had no statistically significant difference (p>0.05). This result of this research is

along with a number of contemporary studies claiming that although it is in the intensity and

duration period covered, it is health and fitness-related benefits that may be regarded as the same

both when using HIIT and LISS during short durations mainly (Keating et al., 2020). Both had

positive effects in those vital markers of health though probably more along axes but not so

much in variation.

Most studies comparing HIIT and LISS establish that both techniques can drive powerful

increases in cardiovascular fitness and body composition, just through slightly different

physiological mechanisms. For instance, HIIT has been known to be efficient in time and can

generate EPOC through which calorie burn is more elevated after the exercise ends (MacInnis &

Gibala, 2017). Instead, LISS induces fat oxidation during the exercise itself because long-lasting

lower-intensity exercise could be characterized by slow gains in body composition without

creating very high metabolic demands, similar to that of HIIT (Petridou et al., 2019). This would

explain why no notable difference is seen since the two have similarities despite differences in

caloric and physiological effect with regard to health fitness when used continuously.

Another point is that flexibility, muscle endurance, and muscular strength are usually not

that much different between HIIT and LISS, due to the fact that the latter programs normally

mostly engage in aerobic exercise instead of strength or flexibility exercise. In HIIT, exercises

often consist of bodyweight or light-resistance movements, which are probably not significant

enough to result in significant increases in muscular strength or endurance, compared to focused

strength training (Schoenfeld & Grgic, 2020). Similarly, LISS training is not typically

challenging muscular strength and flexibility to such an extent as to induce significant

improvements in these dimensions, hence why both exercise programmes tended to present

comparable results concerning them.

Table 7. Significant Difference in Anthropometric Measurements between Gym-Goers who

undergo a HIIT (High-Intensity Interval Training) Aerobic Exercise Program and those
who undergo a LISS (Low-Intensity Steady State) Aerobic Exercise Program
Anthropometric t- p-
Mean Decision Conclusion
Measurement value value
Arm Girth
 HIIT 11.54 No significant
-1.768 0.120 Failed to reject Ho
 LISS 13.40 difference

Thigh Girth
 HIIT 19.84 No significant
-1.476 0.183 Failed to reject Ho
 LISS 21.70 difference

Waistline
 HIIT 28.8 No significant
-2.059 0.073 Failed to reject Ho
 LISS 33.32 difference

Note: Significant if p<0.05

The independent samples t-test was run to test if there is significant difference in

anthropometric measurements between gym-goers who undergo a HIIT (High-Intensity Interval

Training) aerobic exercise program and those who undergo a LISS (Low-Intensity Steady State)

aerobic exercise program. The results of independent samples t-test revealed that all the

anthropometric measurements (arm girt, thigh girt, and waistline) between gym-goers who

undergo a HIIT (High-Intensity Interval Training) aerobic exercise program and those who

undergo a LISS (Low-Intensity Steady State) aerobic exercise program had no statistically

significant difference (p>0.05).

 Results of independent samples t-test pointed to the fact that there were no significant

statistical differences on anthropometric measurements like arm girth, thigh girth, and waistline

that exists in subjects who have received the HIIT exercise session versus subjects who only do

LISS aerobic trainings at the gym environment. The result is in alignment with previous studies.

Zhang et al. (2021) measured the effect of different levels of exercise intensity on body

composition and concluded that, although HIIT is believed to be the most superior in fat loss,

LISS can also bring about the same body measurements if the total time and number of

exercising sessions are equal. Therefore, the supposed benefits of HIIT do not really pertain to

meaningful anthropometric changes compared to LISS.

Lastly, Harris et al. (2022) carried out a comparison study wherein it tried to assess the

impact of HIIT and LISS on various physical characteristics. The authors of the study stated that

both exercise modes may have the potential to improve overall fitness and body composition but

the disparity in outcome may be minimal if taken into account only from the point of view of

anthropometric changes for any period. This relates to your results, whereby you have

demonstrated the differences in exercise intensity that do not appear to provide a basis of change

in measures of the body.

Another review of systemic studies by Martin et al., 2023, included more studies for

individual dimensions, including the metabolic rate, adherence of the program of exercise and

dieting led to different findings based on the outcome at anthropometry depending on the

intensity at which the exercises are conducted. The authors concluded that nearly so many would

have practically identical differences in body composition, and hence the conclusion arrived at

was that fitness results can be obtained quite effectively for both HIIT and LISS with no

appreciable difference in the measures taken.

 CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents the summary of findings based on the study’s results, conclusion,

and recommendations for future research endeavors.

Summary of Findings

1. How may the Demographic Profile be described?

Based from the result, it depicts the key variables including the respondents' age, sex,

height, weight, and VO2max from a 20 meters beep test. The age range in the HIIT group

comprised 18 to 30 years old, with a male population only. They measure between 5'7" and 5'11"

in heights. Weights before training: The weights range from 48 kg to 85 kg and with a little

fluctuation after the exercises. For HIIT, the VO2max ranges from 8 to 15, increased in post-

training, at last measurements ranging between 11 to 19, in comparison, the LISS included was

more composed of male respondent; from age 19 -25 years old, wherein most are 5 ' 5" to 6 ' 0."

While weights range from 52 kgs to 100kgs, which only recorded a slight decrease among their

bodies after the period. The VO2max values for the LISS group start at 11 to 13 and progress to

14 to 17 after the exercise protocol. In general, even though the two groups consist only of

males, the HIIT group had a greater range of age and VO2max value improvements compared to

the LISS group, which had an age range that was narrow and more modest improvements in

VO2max values.

2. Assessment of significant difference in Health Related Fitness of the gym-goers who

undergo HIIT Aerobic Exercise
 It was revealed that a significant difference was found in the cardiovascular fitness (t=-

6.708, p=0.003), flexibility (t=-7.483, p=0.002), muscular endurance (t=-6.516 , p= 0.003),

and muscular strength (t=-8.744, p=0.001) of the Gym-Goers before and after implementing the

HIIT Aerobic Exercise, while there was no significant difference in the body composition

(p>0.05).

3. Assessment of significant difference in Health Related Fitness of the gym-goers who

undergo LISS Training Program
It was revealed that there was a significant difference in the body composition (t=5.117,

p=0.007), cardiovascular fitness (t=-6.668, p=0.003), muscular endurance(t=-7.397, p=0.002),

and muscular strength (t=-11.180, p<0.001) of the Gym-Goers before and after implementing the

LISS Training Program, while there was no significant difference the respondents’ flexibility

(p>0.05).

4. Assessment of significant difference in Anthropometric Measurement of the gym-goers

who undergo HIIT Aerobic Exercise
It was revealed that revealed that no significant difference was found in the Arm girth

and thigh girt of the Gym-Goers before and after implementing the HIIT Aerobic Exercise

(p>0.05). However, there was a significant difference in the waistline of the Gym-Goers before

and after implementing the HIIT Aerobic Exercise (t=4.350, p=0.012).

5. Assessment of significant difference in Anthropometric Measurement of the gym-goers

who undergo LISS Training Program
It was revealed that no significant difference was found in the Arm girth of the Gym-

Goers before and after implementing the HIIT Aerobic Exercise (p>0.05). However, there was a

significant difference in the thigh girt (t=4.694, p=0.009) and waistline (t=9.487, p<0.001) of the

Gym-Goers before and after implementing the LISS Training Program.

6. Assessment of significant difference in the health-related fitness of gym-goers who
participated in a HIIT (High-Intensity Interval Training) aerobic exercise program
compared to those who underwent a LISS (Low-Intensity Steady State) aerobic exercise
program
The results revealed that the body composition, cardiovascular fitness, flexibility,

muscular endurance, and muscular strength between those who participated in the HIIT and LISS

had no statistically significant difference (p>0.05).

7. Assessment of Significant Difference in Anthropometric Measurements between Gym-

Goers who undergo a HIIT (High-Intensity Interval Training) Aerobic Exercise Program
and those who undergo a LISS (Low-Intensity Steady State) Aerobic Exercise Program
It was revealed that all the anthropometric measurements (arm girt, thigh girt, and

waistline) between gym-goers who undergo a HIIT (High-Intensity Interval Training) aerobic

exercise program and those who undergo a LISS (Low-Intensity Steady State) aerobic exercise

program had no statistically significant difference (p>0.05).

Conclusion

The health-related fitness showed numerous remarkable variations post-training on

several aspects: with those who were trained by HIIT, there was marked notable performance

improvement with heart fitness, flexibility, muscle strength, and muscular endurance while no

improvements were shown with body composition. With the participants under the LISS

program, an improved variation was noticed, which included the aspects of body composition,

and cardiovascular fitness, strength through muscular endurance and through muscles but

flexibility did not depict such variation. Moreover, in the evaluation of anthropometric
measurements, it was demonstrated that the HIIT had reduced waistline measurements; however,

LISS subjects had changes in thigh girth and waistline but had no change in arm girth.

It was concluded that, there is evidence to conclude that both HIIT and LISS can be

effective for most dimensions of health-related fitness; the differences are noted mainly for

certain measurements and certain dimensions of fitness. Important features of this study are there

were no statistical differences either with respect to the fitness-related variables or the

anthropometric measure between participants trained in each of the two training programmes:

both modalities can well be helpful in improving a person's level of fitness among the gym-goer.

Recommendation

Based on the findings observed in the study, the following recommendations are

proposed:

1. Both types of training modalities-high intensity interval training and long steady-state

exercise-should be included in fitness programs to achieve optimal improvements in overall

health-related fitness. The hybrid approach can attract people of all fitness levels, meeting the

diverse preferences of people while offering the unique advantages of each modality.

2. The gyms are supposed to regularly carry out fitness assessments of the health-related fitness

and anthropometric measurements of participants. These will help participants set realizable

goals, change their training programs, and stay motivated throughout their fitness journeys based

on the trackings done.

3. Fitness centers should be able to provide nutritional counseling or workshops for the education

of members on diet with their training programs. Diet is supposed to help people achieve better
fitness results, and it supports their overall health, especially concerning the achievement of

better body composition and energy levels.

4. Providing appropriate flexibility training to build work on the limitations imposed through

inflexibility improvement is important. Flexibility training into the fitness program emphasizes

dynamic and static stretch will highlight overall mobility and low possibility of injury among all

subjects training within either HIIT or LISS programs.

5. Activities need to be devised which will keep participants involved with their fitness programs

such as group classes, challenges, or community events. It will help enhance the adherence of the

participants with the training regimens, and there will be encouragement for social interactions

between the people going to the gym. In this way, it would become a fun and motivational

activity.
References
Dun, Y., Thomas, R. J., Smith, J. R., Medina-Inojosa, J. R., Squires, R. W., & Bonikowske, A.
R. (2019). High-intensity interval training in cardiovascular rehabilitation: Impact on functional
outcomes. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 94(10), 2114–2131.
Huang, G., Wang, R., Chen, P., & Huang, S. C. (2021). Cardiovascular benefits of high-intensity
interval training in healthy adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 39(20), 2286–2294.
Mclaren, S. J., Smith, A., Armstrong, N., & Williams, C. A. (2021). Effect of high-intensity
interval training on aerobic and anaerobic performance: A systematic review. Sports Medicine
Open, 7(1), 10.
Schwingshackl, L., Dias, S., Strasser, B., & Hoffmann, G. (2019). Impact of different training
modalities on anthropometric and metabolic characteristics in overweight/obese subjects: A
systematic review and network meta-analysis. Obesity Reviews, 20(6), 943–960.
Wewege, M. A., Thom, J. M., Rye, K. A., & Parmenter, B. J. (2020). Aerobic, resistance or
combined training: A systematic review and meta-analysis of exercise to reduce cardiovascular
risk in adults with metabolic syndrome. Atherosclerosis, 301, 82–96.
illen, J. B., Gibala, M. J., & Little, J. P. (2020). High-intensity interval training: A brief history,
current status and future considerations. The Journal of Physiology, 598(1), 30–36.
Kilen, A., Hjelvang, L. B., Dalgas, U., & Christensen, M. S. (2021). Effect of interval versus
continuous endurance training on flexibility: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of
Sports Sciences, 39(20), 2356–2368.
MacInnis, M. J., & Gibala, M. J. (2019). Physiological adaptations to interval training and the
role of exercise intensity. The Journal of Physiology, 597(3), 507–522.
Behm, D. G., Blazevich, A. J., Kay, A. D., & McHugh, M. (2021). Effects of exercise-induced
muscle damage on flexibility and range of motion. Journal of Sport and Health Science, 10(3),
298-309.
Harber, M. P., Konopka, A. R., Douglass, M. D., Minchev, K., Kaminsky, L. A., Trappe, T. A.,
& Trappe, S. (2020). Aerobic exercise training improves whole muscle and single myofiber size
and function in older women. American Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology and Metabolism,
318(1), E123-E129.
Hwang, C. L., Shen, H. W., & Wu, C. K. (2020). Effects of aerobic interval training on
cardiorespiratory fitness and health outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease. The
Journal of Physiology, 598(1), 30–36.
Murtagh, E. M., Nichols, L., Mohammed, M. A., Holder, R., & Nevill, A. M. (2019). The effect
of walking on body composition in overweight or obese adults: a meta-analysis. Journal of Sport
and Health Science, 8(5), 411–418.
Alkahtani, S. A., King, N. A., Byrne, N. M., & Hills, A. P. (2019). Interval training intensity and
abdominal adiposity. Obesity Reviews, 10(6), 1537-1547.
Garcia-Pinillos, F., Perez-Castilla, A., Delgado-Floody, P., & Soto-Marin, F. J. (2021). Effects of
high-intensity interval training on body composition and physical performance in physically
inactive adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine - Open, 7(1), 1-15.
Keating, S. E., Johnson, N. A., Mielke, G. I., & Coombes, J. S. (2020). A systematic review and
meta-analysis of interval training versus moderate-intensity continuous training on body
adiposity. Obesity Reviews, 21(1), e12968.
Tucker, W. J., Sawyer, B. J., Bhammar, D. M., Angadi, S. S., & Gaesser, G. A. (2020).
Physiological responses to high-intensity interval exercise: Influence of exercise modality.
Sports Medicine, 50(7), 1239-1256.
Keating, S. E., Johnson, N. A., Mielke, G. I., & Coombes, J. S. (2020). A systematic review and
meta-analysis of interval training versus moderate-intensity continuous training on body
adiposity. Obesity Reviews, 21(1), e12968.
Kim, H. K., Park, H., & Lim, K. (2021). Effects of exercise training on abdominal fat loss in
middle-aged women: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport and Health Science, 10(4), 488-495.
Schoenfeld, B. J., Grgic, J., Ogborn, D., & Krieger, J. W. (2021). Strength and hypertrophy
adaptations between low- versus high-load resistance training: A systematic review and meta-
analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 39(10), 1199-1207.
Watanabe, Y., Madarame, H., Ogasawara, R., Nakazato, K., & Ishii, N. (2020). Effect of
resistance training frequency on muscular hypertrophy and strength in healthy men: A systematic
review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 50(12), 2143-2160.
Willis, L. H., Slentz, C. A., Bateman, L. A., Shields, A. T., Piner, L. W., & Kraus, W. E. (2021).
Effects of aerobic exercise on lipids and lipoproteins. Current Opinion in Lipidology, 32(1), 24-
32.
Keating, S. E., Johnson, N. A., Mielke, G. I., & Coombes, J. S. (2020). A systematic review and
meta-analysis of interval training versus moderate-intensity continuous training on body
adiposity. Obesity Reviews, 21(1), e12968.
MacInnis, M. J., & Gibala, M. J. (2017). Physiological adaptations to interval training and the
role of exercise intensity. Journal of Physiology, 595(9), 2915-2930.
Petridou, A., Lazaridou, D., & Filippou, D. (2019). The role of low-intensity aerobic exercise in
the improvement of body composition and fitness indices in obese individuals. Journal of
Obesity & Weight Loss Therapy, 9(3), 1-8.
Schoenfeld, B. J., & Grgic, J. (2020). Evidence-based guidelines for resistance training volume
to maximize muscle hypertrophy. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 42(1), 21-26.
Harris, K. R., Thompson, K. L., & Jones, M. A. (2022). The impact of high-intensity interval
training versus low-intensity steady-state exercise on body composition: A comparative study.
Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 21(3), 467-475.

Martin, D. R., Williams, A. H., & Smith, J. L. (2023). Individual factors affecting
anthropometric changes during high-intensity interval training and low-intensity steady-state
exercise: A systematic review. Nutrition and Health, 29(1), 15-29.

Ribeiro, A. S., Tavares, J. M., & Lira, F. S. (2020). Effects of HIIT and LISS on body
composition and metabolic health in overweight individuals. Obesity Reviews, 21(10), e13056.

Tinsley, G. M., La Bounty, P. M., & O'Connor, E. (2022). The effectiveness of HIIT and LISS
for fat loss: A systematic review. Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism, 2022, 1-15.

Zhang, X., Xu, W., & Wang, J. (2021). The effects of exercise intensity on body composition
and anthropometric measurements: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 18(7), 3517.