Effects of high-intensity interval training and moderate-intensity continuous training on body composition and glucose and lipid metabolism in college students: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Why clinicians should know about it

• Picked for Biochemistry (medical) (top studies of the week, 2 August 2026).
• Picked for Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism (top studies of the week, 2 August 2026).

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study systematically evaluated high-intensity interval training (HIIT) versus moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) for body composition and glucose and lipid metabolism markers in college students. METHODS: This PRISMA 2020-based systematic review searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and VIP Database (VIP) from inception to March 10, 2026. Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) random-effects models pooled mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q and I2. Subgroup, meta-regression, sensitivity, publication bias, RoB 2.0, and GRADE analyses were conducted. RESULTS: A total of 20 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 745 college students were included, with 377 in HIIT and 368 in MICT. Compared with MICT, HIIT significantly reduced body weight (MD = -1.23 kg, 95% CI -1.94 to -0.52, P = 0.002), body fat percentage (MD = -1.21%, 95% CI -2.12 to -0.30, P = 0.013), waist-to-hip ratio (MD = -0.01, 95% CI -0.02 to -0.00, P = 0.014), waist circumference (MD = -1.33 cm, 95% CI -2.40 to -0.26, P = 0.023), and fat mass (MD = -0.99 kg, 95% CI -1.66 to -0.33, P = 0.010). No significant differences were found for body mass index (BMI), hip circumference, muscle mass, total cholesterol (TC), triglycerides (TG), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), fasting blood glucose (FBG), or fasting insulin (FINS). Subgroup analyses suggested sex might influence body weight and BMI effects, but most analyses showed no clear moderation. Meta-regression detected no significant moderation by duration or weekly HIIT volume. Evidence for body composition outcomes was mostly moderate, low, or very low; evidence for glucose and lipid metabolism outcomes was very low. CONCLUSION: Compared with MICT, HIIT may provide greater benefits for selected body composition measures in college students, particularly body weight, body fat percentage, waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, and fat mass. However, HIIT did not consistently improve routine glucose and lipid metabolism markers. Given the limited evidence quality, small number of studies, and uncertain moderator findings from subgroup and meta-regression analyses, larger randomized controlled trials with standardized protocols are needed. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD420261396573.

Abstract as published, via PubMed.