Next Article in Journal
Luminescent Materials for Dye-Sensitized Solar Cells: Advances and Directions
Previous Article in Journal
Techniques for Detecting the Start and End Points of Sign Language Utterances to Enhance Recognition Performance in Mobile Environments
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 20
10.3390/app14209200
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effect of School-Based Endurance and Strength Exercise Interventions in Improving Body Composition, Physical Fitness and Cognitive Functions in Adolescents

by
José Antonio Pérez-Ramírez
,
Francisco Tomás González-Fernández
*,† and
Emilio Villa-González
†
Department of Physical Education and Sports, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Sport and Health University Research Institute (iMUDS), University of Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14(20), 9200; https://doi.org/10.3390/app14209200
Submission received: 28 August 2024 / Revised: 27 September 2024 / Accepted: 30 September 2024 / Published: 10 October 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Applied Biosciences and Bioengineering)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The aim of this study was to analyze the effects of different exercise interventions involving chronic exercise (endurance and strength groups) carried out in physical education on physical fitness and cognitive functions. A group of 72 adolescent students from the city of Melilla (Spain) aged between 13 and 17 years old (M = 15.38, SD = 0.78) participated in the current study. A D2 attention test was used in order to analyze selective attention and concentration. Physical fitness was measured through the ALPHA-Fitness battery. The analysis taken indicated a significant relationship between physical fitness level, attention and concentration. Moreover, the intervention resulted in significant reductions in body weight and waist circumference in the resistance and strength groups compared to the control group, indicating positive effects on body composition. All the groups demonstrated enhanced aerobic capacity, as evidenced by improvements in VO2 max after the intervention period. Furthermore, significant enhancements in most attentional measures (TR, TA, O, C, TOT, CON and TR−) were observed across all the groups, with an additional temporary improvement in TR+ for the strength group. Our findings suggest that an 8-week school-based exercise intervention, regardless of specific exercise type (resistance or strength), can positively impact body composition, aerobic capacity and attention in adolescents. These results emphasize the importance of integrating physical activity programs into school environments to promote holistic health and well-being in this population. Future research should focus on elucidating the underlying mechanisms of these effects and exploring the long-term benefits of such interventions.

1. Introduction

It is widely known that physical activity (PA) provides numerous benefits for the physical, psychological, social and cognitive health of children and adolescents. Moreover, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) is favorably associated with health indicators, such as cardiovascular health, body composition, mental well-being and metabolic function [1]. Despite this, more than 80% of adolescents aged 11 to 17 do not meet the current PA recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO), which suggest at least 60 min of moderate to vigorous physical activity per day; even worse, girls are more inactive than boys, compromising their current and future health [2]. According to these authors [2], changing adolescents’ behavior regarding PA is a challenge, particularly in light of the low overall rates of activity among this population. Similar results have recently been obtained from the Global Matrix 4.0 Report on PA for Children and Youth, which establishes that only between 27% and 33% of young people achieve the recommended amount of daily PA [3]. For this reason, in 2018, an action plan on PA was launched and the 194 Member States of the WHO agreed to reduce the global prevalence of physical inactivity in young people by 15% by 2030 [4]. In addition, new public health recommendations were established for children and adolescents aiming to accumulate at least 60 min of moderate to vigorous PA daily, as well as muscle-strengthening activities at least 3 days a week [5]. According to these guidelines, the amount and intensity of different types of PA such as aerobic and muscle and bone strengthening are associated with better health parameters.
Within this field, two predominant modalities of physical exercise (strength and endurance training) have attracted considerable scientific interest due to their distinct physiological mechanisms and cognitive outcomes. Although both exercise modalities contribute to overall physical fitness, they engage disparate biological pathways and elicit differential effects, thereby justifying a rigorous comparative analysis. Consequently, public health entities prioritize health improvement initiatives due to the widespread sedentary lifestyles observed globally among both adult and youth populations [4]. Physical fitness has been unequivocally identified as a critical determinant of overall health [6] playing a vital role in numerous everyday activities, many of which involve physical exercise and health maintenance. Among adolescents, physical fitness levels are notably below desired standards and have been declining significantly over recent decades, representing a global issue. Approximately 46% of female adolescents and 33% of male adolescents are affected by insufficient physical fitness levels [7]. In this respect, the reduction in PA among adolescents is particularly concerning, as high fitness levels during this developmental stage are closely linked to a better quality of life and mental health [8].
Endurance training, particularly through aerobic exercise, has been extensively documented for its positive effects on cognitive function. Aerobic exercise has consistently been shown to enhance executive functions, including working memory, cognitive flexibility and attentional control [9,10,11]. Of particular note, high-intensity interval training (HIIT), a specialized form of endurance exercise, has demonstrated superior efficacy in enhancing cognitive flexibility and processing speed compared to continuous aerobic exercise [12,13]. These cognitive enhancements are frequently attributed to mechanisms such as increased cerebral perfusion and the upregulation of neurotrophic factors, which are critical for synaptic plasticity and overall brain function [14,15]. Conversely, strength training, historically regarded primarily for its physical benefits, is increasingly recognized as a significant contributor to cognitive health. Recent studies suggest that resistance training, particularly when integrated with cognitive tasks, can lead to improvements in cognitive functions such as working memory, attention and on-task behavior [16]. These cognitive gains may be associated with the specific neuromuscular demands of strength training, which likely stimulate brain regions responsible for executive functions, through mechanisms involving enhanced motor coordination and muscular endurance [8,9].
Low levels of physical fitness, such as cardiorespiratory fitness, could be linked to mental health problems affecting different cognitive variables, such as concentration [17], which are crucial for academic success in children and adolescents. Also, Physical Education classes, specifically cooperative HIIT (C-HIIT), which involves students working together in teams to complete high-intensity exercises, could be helpful. This approach improves both physical fitness and cognitive outcomes by encouraging teamwork and engagement, key factors for success in adolescent physical education settings. C-HIIT improves cognitive functions (attention and concentration) are improved in adolescents aged 12–16 years, especially in inactive children [18].
This aligns with the findings demonstrated that exercise intervention leads to better performance in attention and concentration tests [19], measured with the D2 attention test [20]. Nevertheless, it is necessary to analyze the differences between age groups and types of exercise. There are studies that compare intense interval training with aerobic exercise in children, showing that a single session of intense interval training improves inhibitory control as a cognitive function [12]. Furthermore, it has been shown that an intervention in vigorous PA in PE classes is related to cognitive improvements [21]. Even more, improvements in physical-health related cognitive and mental functions have been observed in eight-week PE interventions with adolescents of a similar age to the present study (mean age = 15) in which they have worked with HIIT programs [22].
While resistance training has been studied extensively for its cognitive health benefits, recent research also suggests that aerobic training may improve cognitive functions [9]. Whereas endurance training is widely regarded as more effective for enhancing cognitive functions, largely due to its cardiovascular benefits, strength training may offer complementary advantages, particularly in the enhancement of muscular endurance and neurophysiological resilience. The potential for these complementary benefits underscores the critical need for a comparative investigation to determine which modality yields the most favorable cognitive and physical outcomes in pediatric and adolescent populations.
It is essential to maximize motor engagement and perform MVPA in physical education classes [23]. There is still limited evidence on intensity and duration in PE [24,25]. HIIT produces significant improvements in cardiorespiratory fitness and other areas of physical fitness [8]. Additionally, Costigan et al. [23] conducted a meta-analysis that demonstrated the benefits of high-intensity interval training in improving cardiovascular fitness and mental health in adolescents. The findings indicate HIIT is the most efficacious intervention for reducing BMI and enhancing VO2 max as well as 20 m sprint performance. In contrast, strength training was identified as the most effective exercise modality for improving standing long jump performances.
Improving adolescents’ physical fitness and health presents a significant challenge within the physical education curriculum. In addition, there are deficiencies in planning for fitness improvement, largely due to a lack of sufficient sessions and appropriate methodologies [26]. The organization of circuit training is an effective approach to maximize motor engagement time in physical education classes [27] and to improve both muscular and cardiovascular endurance [28] since the transitions between activities are made without the need to explain each of the activities again, which avoids stopping the class to explain each of the activities again, maximizing motor engagement in PE classes. Furthermore, at each station there are 2 or 3 intensity levels depending on the physical condition of the students performing it. For example, with the jumping exercise, there are different levels and lifting an object or using different weights can achieve adherence to the exercise and it is not too easy or too demanding. Additionally, in PE classes’ focus on improving physical fitness, only students with poorer physical fitness and higher motivation show significant improvement, underscoring the necessity of individualizing fitness improvement programs with different levels [29].
As educators, it is crucial to apply diverse teaching styles, methods and content to improve the physical, social and mental health of students, fostering their autonomy [30]. Promoting meaningful learning that students can apply in their daily lives and providing tools for the healthy use of their leisure time will encourage greater physical activity during their free time [31]. This study has included gamification factors in the PE sessions, such as an escape room, the game of the goose, or martial arts movements involved in circuit training (“kick-side”, “front-side”, “combo”, etc.), in addition to teaching students to use their environment with the least amount of auxiliary materials possible when carrying out physical activity. While we recognize the importance of active methodologies in education, incorporating a specific teaching methodology could have introduced bias by potentially enhancing student motivation and confounding the results. The PE sessions have included music to motivate students [32].
Positive results have been documented in different populations regarding the relationships between study variables, highlighted in our study with a sample of students aged 13–17 years. However, this was considered to analyze different populations, such as pre-adolescent or adolescent school students, since there are not enough studies comparing any interventions, such us strength, endurance or physical education classes. The present study aims to systematically compare the effects of a structured strength training program with those of an endurance training regimen on both cognitive and physical performance. By conducting a parallel evaluation of these exercise modalities, this research seeks to identify which type of training exerts a greater impact on critical cognitive functions, including memory, attention and executive control. The findings are intended to provide evidence-based insights that will inform the development of more effective physical education programs within school settings. We hypothesized that the intervention groups (strength and endurance) would increase their performance in physical fitness and the D2 test more than the control group. Thus, the aim of this study was to analyze the effects of different exercise interventions (endurance and strength) on body composition, physical fitness and cognitive functions in physical education class.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

The present study was conducted between October and November 2023, encompassing the school year and during physical education classes (2 h per week). The students were acquainted with both the instructional methodologies employed by the teaching staff and vice versa. Moreover, students were exposed to training protocols and subjective perceptions of exertion prior to the intervention program to learn their own perception of effort (rate of perceived exertion or RPE). The RPE scale is a subjective measure used to quantify the intensity of physical exertion during exercise. It is a simple and reliable tool that allows individuals to estimate their own level of effort based on how hard they feel they are working (effort scale from 0 to 10).
The study adopted a pre–post quasi-experimental design with a control group (CG) and two experimental groups: one focusing on strength enhancement (SG) and the other on endurance improvement (EG). Intervention students were assigned according to the class group to which they belonged. Both the experimental groups and the control group belonged to the same school, with experimental group assignments matched accordingly. The CG underwent standard physical education classes under a different instructor at the same secondary school who did not know details of the intervention (i.e., EG or SG). To examine the effects of two 8-week physical exercise interventions targeting strength and endurance enhancement on fitness and executive functions compared to conventional PE classes, students of CG, SG and EG were instructed to maintain their usual training routines and practices, as applicable. Furthermore, the students in the control group did not do anything specific related to improving physical fitness, strength or resistance in PE classes. It is important to note that the aim of this study was to analyze the effects of 16 sessions of physical exercise on body composition, physical fitness and cognitive functions. This distinction is crucial, as it sets the focus on chronic effects.

2.2. Participants

A total of 72 secondary school students were voluntarily recruited (n = 24 of the control group age = 15.19 ± 0.07 years; n = 24 of the endurance group age = 15.03 ± 0.18; n = 24 of the strength group = 15.00 ± 0.0). Longitudinal studies of this nature must account for participant attrition due to personal issues, absenteeism and injuries. Furthermore, not all the participants completed an equal number of training sessions (further elaborated in the procedure).
Exclusion criteria included: (i) existing diseases or physical conditions that might influence experiment outcomes, (ii) injuries precluding intervention participation, (iii) the absence of legal guardian consent and (iv) non-participation in PE classes during the intervention period. Additionally, all the participants completed the YAP Healthy Lifestyle Questionnaire beforehand. The students were briefed on the study’s protocol and objectives, with their legal guardians providing informed consent prior to commencement. Families were notified that participation was voluntary and withdrawal was permissible at any juncture, with assurance that data concerning the student would not be utilized. The study adhered to the ethical standards outlined in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki for research involving human subjects and obtained approval from the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Granada (case nº 2496/CEIH/2021).

2.3. Procedure

2.3.1. Pre-Intervention

Initially, the school’s administrative team was apprised of the study’s convenience, necessity and objectives, ensuring that the families and legal guardians of the students provided informed consent detailing that the intervention would occur during scheduled PE classes within regular school hours and entail no risks beyond those associated with standard PE classes. Subsequently, the intervention protocols for each experimental group were formulated. To ensure consistency, all the PE teachers received uniform training (5 h) covering the same information, content, risk explanations and feedback strategies to maintain student adherence to the program.
Each group, including both the control and experimental cohorts, consisted of two class groups, totaling six class groups. In the sessions preceding the intervention with each group class, the D2 test was introduced and comprehensively explained and participant queries were addressed. Subsequently, anthropometric assessments and a warm-up were conducted to facilitate the subsequent administration of the tests from the ALPHA-Fitness battery [33] in the following sequence: standing broad jump, 4 × 10 m speed-agility. Participants were afforded ample recovery time due to the neuromuscular demands of the various tests employed in this session. Moreover, the sequence of test administration remained consistent for all the participants throughout the study, ensuring standardized recovery measures. In the second pre-intervention session, participants completed the Course Navette in two segments to minimize interference with the test performance, preceded by individualized warm-up activities.
Measurements were conducted within the PE class time slots, spanning from 08:30 to 14:30 h, corresponding to regular school hours. Each task or test was supervised by a researcher who also served as a PE instructor, meticulously trained in data collection techniques, particularly regarding physical fitness assessment.

2.3.2. Intervention

The control group (CG) students underwent 8 weeks of standard PE classes, whereas the experimental groups, emphasizing either endurance (EG) (see Table 1 for more information) or strength (SG) (see Table 2 for more information), engaged in 8 weeks of endurance and strength exercise interventions within the PE class schedule during school hours. Familiarization with functional training, endurance and strength training through recreational activities and games occurred during initial physical education classes in the first month of the academic year. The training program was designed specifically for physical education teachers and tailored to adolescents. A pilot test confirmed its feasibility and positive student response. The program included engaging exercises, such as martial arts-inspired partner kicks for cardiovascular improvement and unconventional strength exercises like lifting kettlebells and heavy wheels to motivate students. Sessions were structured to ensure logical progression in intensity, variety and participant grouping. For the CG, PE classes predominantly featured cooperation–opposition games and sports emphasizing factors of lesser significance in terms of strength and endurance.

2.3.3. Post-Intervention

After the eight-week intervention period, both the control group and the experimental strength and endurance groups underwent evaluation within the same week, albeit on separate days, consistent with the two post-interventions, within the same conditions.

2.4. Measures

All the following measurements were evaluated pre- and post-intervention.

2.4.1. Anthropometry

The anthropometric measurements of students, including their height and body weight, were conducted. Their body weight was measured using a scale with a precision of 0.1 kg, administered by a principal investigator to ensure consistency across assessments. Their height was measured using a stadiometer (Type SECA 225, Hamburg, Germany) with a precision of 0.1 cm. The participants were instructed to remove their footwear and any accessories that could influence the measurement accuracy and assume an upright, motionless posture, with their arms extended along the body, facing forward. Two measurements were obtained for each parameter and the arithmetic mean was calculated. All the anthropometric measurements, including waist circumference, were performed by the same experienced researcher to ensure consistency among the participants. While no formal reliability metrics were evaluated, the researcher had extensive experience in these procedures, which minimized potential variability.

2.4.2. Physical Fitness

Physical fitness levels were assessed using the ALPHA-Fitness battery of tests. The test administration adhered to the established protocols for the battery and followed the ACSM guidelines to ensure participant safety. Prior to the assessment, all the students were briefed on the protocols necessary for accurate data collection, both in the control and experimental groups. The measures of physical fitness included hand grip strength, which assesses upper body strength and the standing long jump, which assesses lower body strength and explosive power.

Standing Long Jump

This test evaluated lower extremity explosive force. Participants performed horizontal jumps to achieve a maximum distance (in centimeters). Each participant performed the standing long jump twice, with a 20 s recovery interval between attempts to mitigate fatigue effects. The best jump was recorded as the final result. The test was conducted in the secondary school gymnasium to minimize slip hazards.

Speed-Agility Test 4 × 10 m

This test assessed coordination, agility and speed. Participants were tasked with completing four repetitions of a 10 m distance, running at maximum speed. Each participant had two attempts and the better performance was recorded in seconds using a Casio handheld stopwatch (HS-3V-1).

Course Navette

Cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) was evaluated using the Shuttle Run test (Course Navette). Participants ran between two lines separated by 20 m while synchronizing their pace with audio signals emitted from a loudspeaker following the test protocol. The initial speed was set at 8.5 km/h, increasing by 0.5 km/h (stage duration = 1 min). The last completed half leg was recorded as an indicator of CRF. Additionally, VO2 max was estimated using the equation VO2 max = 5.857 × speed (km/h) − 19.45.

2.4.3. Cognitive Functions

D2 Test

Selective attention and concentration were assessed using the D2 test, measuring the ability to attend to presented stimuli. The test comprised 14 rows of letters (d and p), totaling 47 elements per row, with students allotted 20 s per row to identify and cross out the letter “d” accompanied by two dashes above or below, disregarding other stimuli. The students were instructed to work swiftly within the allotted time, as indicated by the evaluator’s “change of row” cue. Accuracy was emphasized, as errors and omissions incurred penalties. Three primary scores were derived from the D2 test: concentration performance, errors and processing speed. The elements analyzed by the evaluator are the processed elements (TR), the number of correct responses (TA), omissions (O) and commissions or errors (C). Additionally, the task efficiency (TOT), concentration (CON) and stimuli in the row with the most attempted elements (TR+) and with the fewest attempted elements (TR−) were analyzed, as was the variation index between the last analyzed stimulus and the differences between them (VAR). This test had a test–retest reliability of up to 0.90 in the original study. The concentration was calculated as the total number of elements that processed minus errors due to omission and commission, reflecting both speed and accuracy. Errors represented the number of incorrectly processed items, while processing speed denoted the total number of items detected.

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics were computed for each variable, employing the mean and standard deviation for data processing. Data normality was assessed utilizing the Shapiro–Wilk test, employing parametric statistical procedures upon the acceptance of normality assumptions. Data analysis was conducted using Statistics software (version 13.1; Statsoft, Inc., Tulsa, OK, USA), with the alpha level set at p < 0.05. The study consisted of the within-participant factors of group condition (control group, endurance group and strength group); the group conditions were treated as factors between groups, while the pre- and post-intervention measurements were analyzed as factors within participants. In this sense, different repeated measures ANOVA (3 group × 2 moment) were conducted to elucidate the differences between the group and moment in body composition (weight, waist circumference and body mass index), physical fitness (handgrip, 4 × 10 and VO2 max) and attentional variables (TR, TA, O, C, TOT, CON, TR+ and TR−). The effect size was denoted by a partial eta squared for Fs.

3. Results

Descriptive statistics were calculated and evaluated for each body composition (weight, waist circumference and body mass index), physical fitness (handgrip, 4 × 10 and VO2 max) and attentional variables (TR, TA, O, C, TOT, CON, TR+ and TR−) in each moment (See Table 3 and Table 4). Post hoc analyses were performed after the detection of major effects or significant interactions. These analyses identified significant differences between the intervention and control groups, particularly in the areas of aerobic capacity and muscle strength.

3.1. Anthropometrical Measures

A repeated measures ANOVA with participants’ mean weight was performed for the within-participants factors of group condition (CG, EG and SG) and the moment condition (pre-intervention and post-intervention). ANOVA was conducted with the group conditions as factors between groups and pre- and post-intervention measurements as factors within participants. The dataset did not reveal either the main effect of the group or the main effect of moment. However, an interaction group × moment showed significant differences, F (2.46) = 5.17, p = 0.01 *, η2 = 0.01. In the same line, another ANOVA with the participants’ mean waist circumference was carried out for the within-participants factors of group condition (CG, EG and SG) and the moment condition (pre-intervention and post-intervention). The dataset showed a significant main effect of group, F (2.46) = 6.19, p = 0.004, η2 = 0.21. However, it did not reveal significant differences in the main effect of moment. Crucially, an interaction group × moment revealed significant differences, F (2.46) = 5.17, p = 0.01, η2 = 0.01. Last, an ANOVA with the participants’ mean waist body mass index was realized for the within-participants factors of group condition (CG, EG and SG) and the moment condition (pre-intervention and post-intervention). In this case, the analysis did not reveal either the main effect of group or the main effect of the moment. Nevertheless, an interaction group × moment showed significant differences, F (2.46) = 4.82, p = 0.01, η2 = 0.17. In the case of interaction group × moment, planned comparisons were performed to elucidate the trend of the effect (See Table 3, for more information).

3.2. Physical Fitness

Different repeated measures ANOVA with the participants’ mean horizontal jump, handgrip, 4 × 10 m and Course Navette values were performed for the within-participants factors of group condition (CG, EG and SG) and the moment condition (pre-intervention and post-intervention). The dataset did not reveal either the main effect of the group, the main effect of the moment or the interaction of the group × moment. However, in the case of Course Navette, the analysis showed a main effect of group, F (2.46) =4.98, p = 0.01, η2 = 0.17. (See Table 4)

3.3. Attentional Measures (D2)

Different repeated measures ANOVA with the participants’ mean TR, TA, O, C, TOT, CON, TR+ and TR−, were performed for the within-participants factors of group condition (control group, endurance group and strength group) and the moment condition (pre-intervention and post-intervention). In all the cases, the TR, TA, O, C, TOT, CON and TR− excerpt of TR+ the analysis revealed a main effect of the group, F (2.46) = 4.05, p = 0.02, η2 = 0.14, F (2.46) = 9.97, p = 0.001, η2 = 0.39, F (2.46) = 6.11, p = 0.001, η2 = 0.99, F (2.46) = 5.92, p = 0.01, η2 = 0.20, F (2.46) = 894, p = 0.001, η2 = 0.28, F (2.46) = 15.45, p = 0.001, η2 = 0.40, F (2.46) = 3.70, p = 0.03, η2 = 0.13 and F (2.46) = 2.94, p = 0.06, η2 = 0.11. In addition, in the case of TR+, we found a significant main effect of the moment, F (1.23) = 13.72, p = 0.001, η2 = 0.37. The dataset did not reveal another main effect of the group or interaction. (See Table 4, for more information).

4. Discussion

The present study aimed to evaluate the effects of school-based endurance and strength exercise interventions designed to improve body composition, physical fitness and cognitive functions in adolescents. Our findings provide critical information about how school-based endurance and strength exercise intervention can influence these key health parameters. Our results showed the significant effects of group × moment interaction on cognitive function, weight, waist circumference and body mass index (BMI). Specifically, a significant interaction between weight and waist circumference was observed, suggesting that the intervention program produced differential effects in different intervention groups (i.e., endurance and strength groups). Post hoc analyses revealed significant differences between the resistance group and the control group in terms of improvements in aerobic capacity, while the strength group demonstrated greater gains in muscle strength compared to the control group. The analysis of cognitive parameters revealed significant effects on the reduction of omissions and commissions, as well as improvements in reaction time and a decrease in slow reactions. Specifically, EG demonstrated a greater reduction in omissions and commissions, while the SG resulted in more notable improvements in reaction time. Additionally, both the strength and endurance interventions contributed to a decrease in slow reactions, with the effect being more pronounced in the endurance group.
The analysis of anthropometric measures, including weight, waist circumference and BMI, showed significant improvements in the group × moment interaction. The SG had a greater impact on increasing weight and BMI, while showing a smaller gain in waist circumference compared to the other groups. This suggests that the strength intervention not only contributed to increased body mass, but also helped maintain a more favorable distribution of body fat around the waist.
In the physical fitness parameters, the group × moment interaction indicated significant improvements in grip strength, agility and VO2 max. The SG resulted in the greatest improvements in grip strength and agility. On the other hand, the EG had a more notable effect on improving VO2 max, reflecting a significant increase in participants in the Course Navette. These differences underscore the importance of choosing the appropriate type of physical intervention based on the specific physical improvement goal.
The ALPHA-Fitness battery included measures such as body composition, horizontal jump, grip strength, 4 × 10-m and Course Navette (VO2 max). Notably, the Course Navette showed a significant group × main effect, indicating that different training modalities had distinct impacts on cardiovascular fitness. The absence of significant primary effects or interactions in the other fitness tests suggests that, although overall fitness improved, the EG may have been particularly effective in improving aerobic capacity compared to SG and CG. Several studies corroborate our findings on the effectiveness of physical activity interventions improving physical fitness. A study [34] found that a 12-week resistance training program significantly improved the VO2 max and aerobic capacity in adolescents. Similarly, another study [35] reported significant improvements in cardiovascular capacity and muscle strength following a structured physical activity program, aligning with the best performance in the Course Navette observed in our EG. There were no differences or main effects observed in the rest of the physical fitness domains or body composition. A possible reason for this could be the short duration of the intervention. However, as an example, the previous literature observed expected strength gains of 30–40% in untrained youth following their participation in an introductory (8–20 weeks) resistance training program [36]. Furthermore, the convenience of the educational centers, teaching hours and established curriculum made it difficult to incorporate a longer duration of the intervention. Therefore, more research is needed to understand the effects on body composition and physical condition related to the different types of exercise intervention in the school context.
Our analysis unveiled significant group principal effects across various variables. Notably, we observed a significant main effect of the moment for TR+, indicating temporal enhancements in specific cognitive functions. These findings align with the growing body of literature emphasizing the cognitive advantages of PA. Recently, a study [37] highlighted the cognitive benefits associated with PA, supporting our results. Furthermore, a meta-analysis [38] demonstrated the positive impact of PA on cognitive function, particularly executive function, in children and adolescents, as another recent study demonstrated [39].
Also, it has been reported that the results taken from our study indicate that physical exercise, specifically the effect of cooperative high-intensity interval training (C-HIIT), enhances attention and concentration in 12–16-year-old students within a school setting [18].
Our assessment of cognitive function utilized attentional measures, specifically focusing on the variables from the D2 test: TR, TA, O, C, TOT, CON, TR+ and TR−. While the precise mechanisms underlying the effects of exercise on executive functions remain unclear, our findings underscore the significance of implementing exercise intervention programs within educational settings to enhance these executive functions, potentially leading to improved academic performance among young individuals.
In this sense, numerous studies have highlighted the positive impact of physical activity on cognitive function. PA has been associated with improved executive function in children and adolescents [40]. Indeed, chronic exercise has been shown to enhance attention, concentration and overall cognitive performance [17]. On the one hand, introducing exercise intervention programs within educational contexts has been increasingly recognized as a valuable strategy to enhance cognitive functions in students. These programs not only promote physical health, but also contribute to improved academic performance [39]. On the other hand, it has demonstrated the specific benefits of HIIT on attention and concentration in adolescents [18]. This highlights the importance of tailored exercise programs to target cognitive functions effectively [41]. In sum, our findings contribute to the existing literature by reinforcing the link between physical activity, cognitive function and academic performance. By recognizing the importance of exercise interventions in educational settings, we can potentially enhance executive functions and overall cognitive abilities in young individuals, ultimately fostering better academic success.
The implementation of similar physical activity interventions in school settings has shown promising results in improving both physical and cognitive outcomes. For example, the “Active Schools” initiative, documented [42] significant improvements in physical fitness and academic performance following the integration of structured physical activity into the school curriculum. These findings are in line with our study, suggesting that school-based physical activity programs may be a viable strategy for improving students’ overall health and cognitive function.
Improving physical fitness and health is a challenge often present in the physical education curriculum. There are numerous deficiencies in the planning for enhancing physical fitness in PE [26], as minimal sessions are usually not scheduled and the correct methodology is not used. In this regard, it suggested that circuit organization is the methodological approach that maximizes motor engagement time in physical education classes [27]. Furthermore, only students with poorer physical fitness and those who are more motivated show significant improvements in physical education classes [29,43]. Therefore, when implementing fitness improvement programs in physical education classes, individual student needs must be considered [44,45]. Unfortunately, in the present study, student motivation and satisfaction variables were not evaluated.
Moreover, physical fitness can be enhanced through a variety of programs and content, as demonstrated by [46], which shows that “outdoor” natural environment activities can improve fitness, as well as exergames (Wii or Xbox), as has been published [47]. This improvement in physical fitness can be maintained, for instance, through activities involving body expression, as evidenced by [48]. Identifying the motivating methodologies and interventions that promote the adherence to physical activity both inside and outside the classroom is essential. This includes increasing motor engagement times and conducting moderate to vigorous intensity activities in physical education classes [23].
Although there is limited evidence on the optimal intensity and duration of physical education classes [24], methodologies such as HIIT have emerged, yielding significant improvements in cardiorespiratory fitness and other areas of physical fitness [8]. Moreover, a meta-analysis [25] compared various PE interventions and the findings indicate that HIIT is the most effective intervention in reducing BMI, and improving VO2 max and sprint performance.
Also, some studies [49,50] have reported that HIIT enhances performance in the 20 m sprint. These authors highlight anaerobic power and leg muscle strength as the primary determinants of sprint performance. Recent research [51,52] further suggests that targeted HIIT and strength training are critical for modifying these key factors. Specifically, endurance-focused HIIT and speed-based HIIT have been shown to be particularly effective in improving these performance-related attributes.
Moreover, It has been demonstrated that HIIT is particularly effective in enhancing shuttle running performance and VO2 max [25]. This finding aligns with the results of a meta-analysis [53], which also highlighted the superior impact of HIIT on these fitness parameters. The observed improvements are likely attributable to beneficial exercise-induced mitochondrial adaptations, along with enhanced blood capillarization, increased oxidative enzyme activity and improved oxygen transport within the muscular system [54].
In our study, the experiments carried out an intervention based on strength or an endurance program focused on HIIT protocol, engaged in 8 weeks of specialized training within the PE class schedule during school hours. Previous studies have shown that age-related resistance training can have a favorable influence on the psychological well-being of school-age youth, provided that self-improvement and enjoyment remain central to the training program [55]. The findings of the present study are limited to the context of physical education classes and the effects of the intervention on physical fitness and cognitive performance. As such, any conclusions must remain within the scope of these outcomes and with this type of intervention, always taking into account correct physical education planning [30]. This involves meaningful learning that can be applied in their daily lives, providing opportunities and tools to occupy their leisure time. It has been published that this will encourage students to be more active during their free time [31].
Our study has some limitations that should be considered. First, the research was conducted in a school context, which introduces additional variables that can affect outcomes, such as the variability in program implementation and differences in student engagement. The short-term intervention (8 weeks, 16 sessions) was derived from the school calendar itself, as there are often holidays that interrupt interventions. It is important to recognize that the duration of the intervention in this study (8 weeks) may not have been sufficient to elicit the full range of adaptations typically associated with improvements in motor qualities such as strength and endurance. While positive outcomes were observed within the available time frame, previous research suggests that longer intervention periods may be necessary to achieve more significant and lasting changes in these attributes [36]. Additionally, we may consider using more cognitive measurement tools, measuring the effect of the post-exercise intervention.
The sample size and diversity are also limitations; regarding age, the sample was made up of secondary school students between 13 and 17 years old, selected from a single educational center in the city of Melilla. A randomization process was conducted at the class level to ensure the students were assigned to groups in a way that minimized selection bias. However, based on our knowledge, since late childhood and early adolescence cannot be defined by fixed chronological boundaries, childhood can be defined as the first birthday to the onset of adolescence (which requires the identification of the onset of sexual maturation) [55]. Adolescence is a difficult period to define and some suggest a range of 10–22 years in boys. The state of adolescence begins with the onset of normal puberty and ends with adult identity, roughly between 10–19 years of age [4]. However, significant interindividual variance exists for the level (magnitude of change), timing (onset of change) and tempo (rate of change) of biological maturation. The relative mismatch and wide variation in biological maturation between children of the same chronological age emphasizes the limitations in using chronological age as a determinant.
Finally, causality versus correlation poses another challenge: while the study may demonstrate associations between physical activity and cognitive function, establishing causality may be difficult.
This study reinforces the concept that physical fitness is closely associated with cognitive functions, specifically attention and concentration. This suggests that exercise interventions should be designed not only to improve physical health, but also to enhance cognitive performance in adolescents.
By providing empirical evidence on the effects of specific exercise interventions (endurance and strength training) on both physical fitness and cognitive functions, the study supports the development of evidence-based practices in educational settings. This can inform educators and policymakers in the implementation of effective physical activity programs that address the developmental needs of adolescents. Moreover, the programs described in Table 1 and Table 2 can be applied, as circuit-based organization has the potential to increase motor engagement time in physical education classes.
The implications and strengths of the study are that the findings indicate that different types of exercise interventions may yield varied outcomes in terms of physical and cognitive benefits. This underscores the importance of tailoring interventions to meet the specific needs of different populations, taking into account factors such as age, fitness level and cognitive demands, and establishing different levels of execution and intensity, bringing physical activity closer to the students’ concerns, including the game factors in the exercises.
The implications of this research extend beyond physical education, encompassing fields such as psychology, neuroscience and public health. It encourages interdisciplinary collaboration to explore the multifaceted benefits of physical activity, promoting a comprehensive understanding of its impact on the overall well-being of students.
In line with this, a significant strength of this study is its examination of both physical fitness and cognitive functions, offering a more holistic perspective of the benefits of exercise interventions. While many studies focus solely on either physical or cognitive outcomes, this research integrates both aspects, providing a deeper understanding of their interaction. Additionally, the study’s substantial sample size of students aged 13–17 years enhances the generalizability of the findings and the use of a pre–post quasi-experimental design with a control group strengthens the validity of the results.
In summary, our study underscores the multifaceted benefits of structured physical activity interventions. Significant improvements in anthropometric measures, physical fitness and cognitive function emphasize the importance of incorporating these programs into routine adolescent health strategies. Some practical implications include the promotion of regular physical activity outside of school hours, as other studies [31] indicate, which will encourage students to be more active during their free time. Long-term health benefits are also demonstrated by HIIT as a strategy for increasing it in the adult population.

5. Conclusions

This study investigated the effects of a school-based exercise intervention designed to enhance endurance and strength, and the physical fitness and cognitive functions of adolescents PE classes. The intervention compared three groups: an endurance group, a strength group and a control group. The findings reveal significant positive outcomes across various anthropometric, physical fitness and cognitive domains in the intervention groups.
In terms of anthropometric outcomes, significant reductions in body weight and waist circumference were observed in both the endurance and strength groups. Additionally, changes in BMI were noted, which varied depending on the type of intervention and the timing of the measurements. These findings suggest that targeted physical exercise interventions can effectively improve body composition in adolescents.
With respect to physical fitness, there were significant improvements in VO2 max performance in the endurance and strength groups, underscoring the beneficial impact of these interventions on the aerobic capacity of the participants. These results highlight the importance of incorporating cardiovascular fitness-enhancing activities, such as high-intensity interval training (HIIT), into physical education programs for adolescents. HIIT, in particular, emerged as an effective option due to its efficiency in terms of time and minimal equipment requirements, addressing the common constraints of limited time and resources in school settings.
Cognitive assessments revealed significant improvements in attentional measures across all three groups, with notable enhancements in indicators such as TR, TA, O, C, TOT, CON and TR−. The strength group also exhibited a temporary effect on TR+, suggesting that physical exercise interventions, regardless of type, can positively influence attention and other cognitive functions in adolescents.
Overall, this study emphasizes the critical role of implementing specific physical activity programs within the school environment to enhance both the physical and cognitive health of adolescents. Future research should take these methodological differences into account when comparing findings between studies. Endurance and strength-based interventions were particularly effective in improving body composition and aerobic capacity, while all types of physical exercise demonstrated a positive impact on cognitive functions.

Author Contributions

E.V.-G., F.T.G.-F. and J.A.P.-R. participated in the study design and data collection, performed the statistical analyses, contributed to the interpretation of the results, wrote the manuscript, approved the final manuscript as presented, reviewed and provided feedback for the manuscript and made substantial contributions to the final manuscript. E.V.-G., F.T.G.-F. and J.A.P.-R. conceived of the study and participated in its design and coordination. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by University of Granada Plan Propio de Investigación 2016—Excellence actions: Unit of Excellence on Exercise and Health (UCEES).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Granada (case nº 2496/CEIH/2021).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated for this study are available on request to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Poitras, V.J.; Gray, C.E.; Borghese, M.M.; Carson, V.; Chaput, J.P.; Janssen, I.; Tremblay, M.S. Systematic review of the relationships between objectively measured physical activity and health indicators in school-aged children and youth. Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. 2016, 41 (Suppl. S3), S197–S239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Guthold, R.; Stevens, G.A.; Riley, L.M.; Bull, F.C. Global trends in insufficient physical activity among adolescents: A pooled analysis of 298 population-based surveys with 1·6 million participants. Lancet Child Adolesc. Health 2020, 4, 23–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Aubert, S.; Barnes, J.D.; Demchenko, I.; Hawthorne, M.; Abdeta, C.; Nader, P.A.; Sala, J.C.A.; Aguilar-Farias, N.; Aznar, S.; Bakalár, P.; et al. Global Matrix 4.0 Physical Activity Report Card Grades for Children and Adolescents: Results and Analyses From 57 Countries. J. Phys. Act. Health 2022, 19, 700–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. WHO. WHO Guidelines on Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  5. Chaput, J.P.; Willumsen, J.; Bull, F.; Chou, R.; Ekelund, U.; Firth, J.; Katzmarzyk, P.T. 2020 WHO guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour for children and adolescents aged 5–17 years: Summary of the evidence. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2020, 17, 141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lang, J.J.; Tremblay, M.S.; Léger, L.; Olds, T.; Tomkinson, G.R. International variability in 20 m shuttle run performance in children and youth: Who are the fittest from a 50-country comparison? A systematic literature review with pooling of aggregate results. Br. J. Sports Med. 2018, 52, 276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Tomkinson, G.R.; Kaster, T.; Dooley, F.L.; Fitzgerald, J.S.; Annandale, M.; Ferrar, K.; Lang, J.J.; Smith, J.J. Temporal Trends in the Standing Broad Jump Performance of 10,940,801 Children and Adolescents Between 1960 and 2017. Sports Med. 2021, 51, 531–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Eddolls, W.T.B.; McNarry, M.A.; Lester, L.; Winn, C.O.N.; Stratton, G.; Mackintosh, K.A. The association between physical activity, fitness and body mass index on mental well-being and quality of life in adolescents. Qual. Life Res. 2018, 27, 2313–2320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ludyga, S.; Koutsandréou, F.; Reuter, E.M.; Voelcker-Rehage, C.; Budde, H. A Randomized Controlled Trial on the Effects of Aerobic and Coordinative Training on Neural Correlates of Inhibitory Control in Children. J. Clin. Med. 2019, 8, 184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Rosa Guillamón, A.; Garcia Canto, E.; Martínez García, H. Ejercicio físico aeróbico y atención selectiva en escolares de educación primaria (Aerobic physical exercise and selective attention in primary school children). Retos 2020, 39, 421–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zhu, Y.; Nan, N.; Wei, L.; Li, T.; Gao, X.; Lu, D. The effect and safety of high-intensity interval training in the treatment of adolescent obesity: A meta-analysis. Ann. Palliat. Med. 2021, 10, 8596–8606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kao, S.C.; Baumgartner, N.; Noh, K.; Wang, C.H.; Schmitt, S. Acute effects of intense interval versus aerobic exercise on children’s behavioral and neuroelectric measures of inhibitory control. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2023, 26, 316–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Tottori, N.; Morita, N.; Ueta, K.; Fujita, S. Effects of High Intensity Interval Training on Executive Function in Children Aged 8–12 Years. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Rosenberg, M.D.; Finn, E.S.; Scheinost, D.; Papademetris, X.; Shen, X.; Constable, R.T.; Chun, M.M. A neuromarker of sustained attention from whole-brain functional connectivity. Nat. Neurosci. 2016, 19, 165–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Jeon, Y.K.; Ha, C.H. The effect of exercise intensity on brain derived neurotrophic factor and memory in adolescents. Environ. Health Prev. Med. 2017, 22, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Robinson, K.J.; Lubans, D.R.; Mavilidi, M.F.; Hillman, C.H.; Benzing, V.; Valkenborghs, S.R.; Riley, N. Effects of Classroom-Based Resistance Training With and Without Cognitive Training on Adolescents’ Cognitive Function, On-task Behavior, and Muscular Fitness. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 811534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Xue, Y.; Yang, Y.; Huang, T. Effects of chronic exercise interventions on executive function among children and adolescents: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Br. J. Sports Med. 2019, 53, 1397–1404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Martínez-López, E.J.; Torre-Cruz, M.J.; Suárez-Manzano, S.; Ruiz-Ariza, A. 24 Sessions of monitored cooperative high-intensity interval training improves attention-concentration and mathematical calculation in secondary school. J. Phys. Educ. Sport 2018, 18, 1572–1582. [Google Scholar]
  19. Fernandes, M.; De Sousa, A.; Medeiros, A.R.; Del Rosso, S.; Stults-Kolehmainen, M.; Boullosa, D.A. The influence of exercise and physical fitness status on attention: A systematic review. Int. Rev. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2019, 12, 202–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Brickenkamp, R.; Brickenkamp, R. The D2 Test. Test of Attention under Pressure (Trad. Al Castellano Por N. Seisdedos); TEA Ediciones: Madrid, Spain, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  21. Phillips, D.S.; Hannon, J.C.; Gregory, B.B.; Burns, R.D. Effect of Vigorous Physical Activity on Executive Control in Middle-School Students. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Costigan, S.A.; Eather, N.; Plotnikoff, R.C.; Hillman, C.H.; Lubans, D.R. High-Intensity Interval Training for Cognitive and Mental Health in Adolescents. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2016, 48, 1985–1993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Costigan, S.A.; Eather, N.; Plotnikoff, R.C.; Taaffe, D.R.; Lubans, D.R. High-intensity interval training for improving health-related fitness in adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Br. J. Sports Med. 2015, 49, 1253–1261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Kremer, M.M.; Reichert, F.F.; Hallal, P.C. Intensidade e duração dos esforços físicos em aulas de Educação Física. Rev. Saúde Pública 2012, 46, 320–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Wu, J.; Yang, Y.; Yu, H.; Li, L.; Chen, Y.; Sun, Y. Comparative effectiveness of school-based exercise interventions on physical fitness in children and adolescents: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Front. Public Health 2023, 11, 1194779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Viciana Ramírez, J.; Mayorga-Vega, D.; Mompeán Campillo, M. Compliance of curriculum standards of health-related physical fitness in Physical Education. A study of planning in pre-service teachers. Cult. Cienc. Deporte 2016, 11, 87–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Viciana, J.; Lozano, L.; Cocca, A.; Mayorga, D. Influence of the Organizational System on Motor Engagement Time in Physical Education on High School Students. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 69, 1160–1167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Mayorga-Vega, D.; Viciana, J.; Cocca, A. Effects of a Circuit Training Program on Muscular and Cardiovascular Endurance and their Maintenance in Schoolchildren. J. Hum. Kinet. 2013, 37, 153–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Guijarro-Romero, S.; Mayorga-Vega, D.; Casado-Robles, C.; Viciana, J. Una unidad didáctica intermitente de acondicionamiento físico solo mejora los niveles de capacidad cardiorrespiratoria de los estudiantes con un perfil no saludable de condición física (An intermittent physical fitness teaching unit only improves cardior. Retos 2020, 38, 8–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Viciana, J.; Mayorga-Vega, D. The three-axes model of planning in physical education (El modelo de planificación de tres ejes en Educación Física). Retos 2017, 313–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Wang, P.; Wei, X.; Yingwei, X.; Xiaodan, C. The Impact of Residents’ Leisure Time Allocation Mode on Individual Subjective Well-being: The Case of China. Appl. Res. Qual. Life 2022, 17, 1831–1866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Álamo-Martínez, G.; Peláez- Barrios, E.M.; Vernetta, M. Música, condición física y adolescentes: Revisión sistemática. Rev. Iberoam Cienc. Act Física El Deporte 2024, 13, 86–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ruiz, J.R.; España Romero, V.; Castro Piñero, J.; Artero, E.G.; Ortega, F.B.; Cuenca García, M. Batería ALPHA-Fitness: Test de campo para la evaluación de la condición física relacionada con la salud en niños y adolescentes. Nutr. Hosp. 2011, 26, 1210–1214. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  34. Dos Santos Vieira, E.F.; Aidar, F.J.; de Matos, D.G.; da Rosa Santos, L.; da Silva Junior, W.M.; dos Santos Estevam, C.; Marçal, A.C. The Effects of High-Intensity Interval Training on VO2 max in Different Groups: A Review. J. Exerc. Physiol. Online 2019, 22, 142–153. [Google Scholar]
  35. García-Hermoso, A.; Ramírez-Vélez, R.; Ramírez-Campillo, R.; Peterson, M.D.; Martínez-Vizcaíno, V. Concurrent aerobic plus resistance exercise versus aerobic exercise alone to improve health outcomes in paediatric obesity: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Br. J. Sports Med. 2018, 52, 161–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Faigenbaum, A.D.; Kraemer, W.J.; Blimkie, C.J.R.; Jeffreys, I.; Micheli, L.J.; Nitka, M.; Rowland, T.W. Youth Resistance Training: Updated Position Statement Paper from the National Strength and Conditioning Association. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2009, 23 (Suppl. S5), S60–S79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Altermann, W.; Gröpel, P. Effects of acute endurance, strength, and coordination exercise interventions on attention in adolescents: A randomized controlled study. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2023, 64, 102300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Sibley, B.A.; Etnier, J.L. The Relationship between Physical Activity and Cognition in Children: A Meta-Analysis. Pediatr. Exerc. Sci. 2003, 15, 243–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Rodríguez-García, L.; De La Cruz-Campos, J.C.; Martín-Moya, R.; González-Fernández, F.T. Active Teaching Methodologies Improve Cognitive Performance and Attention-Concentration in University Students. Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hillman, C.H.; Pontifex, M.B.; Raine, L.B.; Castelli, D.M.; Hall, E.E.; Kramer, A.F. The effect of acute treadmill walking on cognitive control and academic achievement in preadolescent children. Neuroscience 2009, 159, 1044–1054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Reigal, R.E.; Moral-Campillo, L.; de Mier, R.J.-R.; Morillo-Baro, J.P.; Morales-Sánchez, V.; Pastrana, J.L.; Hernández-Mendo, A. Physical Fitness Level Is Related to Attention and Concentration in Adolescents. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Donnelly, J.E.; Greene, J.L.; Gibson, C.A.; Smith, B.K.; Washburn, R.A.; Sullivan, D.K.; DuBose, K.; Mayo, M.S.; Schmelzle, K.H.; Ryan, J.J.; et al. Physical Activity Across the Curriculum (PAAC): A randomized controlled trial to promote physical activity and diminish overweight and obesity in elementary school children. Prev. Med. 2009, 49, 336–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Martínez-Baena, A. Motivación hacia la Educación Física y su relación con la condición física saludable en escolares de Educación Secundaria Obligatoria. Nutr. Hosp. 2016, 33. (accessed on 26 June 2024). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Casado-Robles, C.; Viciana, J.; Guijarro-Romero, S.; Mayorga-Vega, D. Effect of an Inside–Outside School Alternated Teaching Unit of Knowledge of the Environment for Practicing Physical Activity: A Cluster Randomized Control Trial. J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 2022, 41, 149–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Pasek, M.; Michalowska-Sawczyn, M.; Nowak-Zaleska, A. Changes in maximal aerobic fitness and students’ attitude towards physical effort during outdoor and indoor school lessons of Physical Education. Balt. J. Health Phys. Act. 2014, 6. Available online: https://www.balticsportscience.com/journal/vol6/iss1/3/ (accessed on 27 June 2024). [CrossRef]
  46. Ye, S.; Lee, J.E.; Stodden, D.F.; Gao, Z. Impact of Exergaming on Children’s Motor Skill Competence and Health-Related Fitness: A Quasi-Experimental Study. J. Clin. Med. 2018, 7, 261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Guijarro-Romero, S.; Mayorga-Vega, D.; Casado-Robles, C.; Viciana, J. School physical education-based reinforced program through moderate-to-vigorous physical activity improves and maintains schoolchildren’s cardiorespiratory fitness: A cluster-randomized controlled trial. Sci. Sports 2022, 37, 74.e1–74.e12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Behm, D.G.; Young, J.D.; Whitten, J.H.D.; Reid, J.C.; Quigley, P.J.; Low, J.; Li, Y.; Lima, C.D.; Hodgson, D.D.; Chaouachi, A.; et al. Effectiveness of Traditional Strength vs. Power Training on Muscle Strength, Power and Speed with Youth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Front. Physiol. 2017, 8, 423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. McQuilliam, S.J.; Clark, D.R.; Erskine, R.M.; Brownlee, T.E. Free-Weight Resistance Training in Youth Athletes: A Narrative Review. Sports Med. 2020, 50, 1567–1580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. De Oliveira-Nunes, S.G.; Castro, A.; Sardeli, A.V.; Cavaglieri, C.R.; Chacon-Mikahil, M.P.T. HIIT vs. SIT: What Is the Better to Improve VO2max? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 13120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. McKinlay, B.J.; Wallace, P.; Dotan, R.; Long, D.; Tokuno, C.; Gabriel, D.A.; Falk, B. Effects of Plyometric and Resistance Training on Muscle Strength, Explosiveness, and Neuromuscular Function in Young Adolescent Soccer Players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2018, 32, 3039–3050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Gripp, F.; Nava, R.C.; Cassilhas, R.C.; Esteves, E.A.; Magalhães, C.O.D.; Dias-Peixoto, M.F.; Amorim, F.T. HIIT is superior than MICT on cardiometabolic health during training and detraining. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2021, 121, 159–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Batacan, R.B.; Duncan, M.J.; Dalbo, V.J.; Tucker, P.S.; Fenning, A.S. Effects of high-intensity interval training on cardiometabolic health: A systematic review and meta-analysis of intervention studies. Br. J. Sports Med. 2017, 51, 494–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Lloyd, R.S.; Faigenbaum, A.D.; Stone, M.H.; Oliver, J.L.; Jeffreys, I.; A Moody, J.; Brewer, C.; Pierce, K.C.; McCambridge, T.M.; Howard, R.; et al. Position statement on youth resistance training: The 2014 International Consensus. Br. J. Sports Med. 2014, 48, 498–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Villa-González, E.; Barranco-Ruiz, Y.; García-Hermoso, A.; Faigenbaum, A.D. Efficacy of school-based interventions for improving muscular fitness outcomes in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2023, 23, 444–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1. Calendar of endurance program with different phases according to physical attitude. Organization in circuit with different work time and rest time rising the intensity in next phase.
Table 1. Calendar of endurance program with different phases according to physical attitude. Organization in circuit with different work time and rest time rising the intensity in next phase.
Weeks 12345678
Session 12345678910111213141516
Phases Familiarization PhasePhase 1Phase 2Phase 3
Warm-upAerobic activity10 min of low intensity aerobic activity (50–60% HRR) on games and neuromuscular control.
Types of exercises performedLearning exercises of movement patternLearning exercises of movement patterns and weight-bearingCompensatory training and exercises with partnersCompensatory training and exercises with partnersCompensatory training and group exercisesCompensatory training and group exercisesStrength training and individual exercisesStrength training and individual exercises
Circuit:
1. Side kick
2. Jump and kick
3. Front kick
4. Combo (kick and Punch)
5. Jumping rope
6. Punch
7. High knees		Circuit:
1. High knees and punch
2. Jumping jacks
3. Jumping rope
4. Climbers
5. 20 m sprint
6. Side kick
7. Superman		Circuit:
1. Climbers
2. Jumping rope
3. 20m sprint
4. Front kick
5. Squat + plank
6. Burpees
7. 4 feet race		Circuit:
1. Jumping jacks
2. Plank + touch cones
3. Combo (kick + punch)
4. Jumping rope
5. Burpees
6. 20m sprint
7. Climbers		Circuit:
1. Jumping rope
2. Crunch with partners
3. Bring partner
4. Climbers
5. Squat hold Wall
6. Burpees
7. Medicine ball		Circuit:
1. Jumping rope
2. Move tyres
3. Combo (kick-Punch)
4. Burpees
5. Climbers
6. Bring the group
7. High kness		Circuit:
1. Jumping rope
2. Elastic band climbers
3. Pick-up partner
4. Football circuit
5. Burpees
6. Up-Down
7. Battle Rope		Circuit:
1. Side-by-side burpee
2. Sprint 3 line
3. Pick-up mat race
4. Up Stairs
5. Sprint pickup balls
6. Climbers
7. Battle rope
Training stimulus aimInitialization to strength programEnjoying with strength programs
Sets44444444
Work–rest15″:30″15″:30″20″:30″20″:30″30″:40″30″:40″40″:60″40″:60″
Exercise intensitySubMaxSubMaxSubMaxMaxMaxMaxMaxMax
RPE
Total exercises77788888
Density1:21:21:21:21:21:11:11:1
Cool-downFlexibility5 min static flexibility exercises.
Table 2. Calendar of strength program with different phases according to physical attitude. Organization in circuit with different work time and rest time rising the intensity in next phase.
Table 2. Calendar of strength program with different phases according to physical attitude. Organization in circuit with different work time and rest time rising the intensity in next phase.
Weeks 12345678
Session 12345678910111213141516
Phases Familiarization PhasePhase 1Phase 2Phase 3
Warm-upAerobic activity10 min of low intensity aerobic activity (50–60% HRR) on games and neuromuscular control.
Types of exercises performedLearning exercises of movement pattern.
1. Balance in place (1 leg)
2. Jump race 1 leg alt.
3. Push-ups
4. Squat
5. Elastic band raising hands stepping with feet
6. Rope jump 2 feet
7. High knees		Learning exercises of movement patterns and weight-bearing.
1. Crunch Elevating legs
2. Superman
3. Jump rope feet together
4. Jump to mat
5. Bird dog
6. Elastic band with alternate legs
7. Rope jump side/side		Compensatory training and exercises with partners
1. Plank
2. Elastic band
3. Rope tug-of-war (2 Teams)
4. Abs
5. Rope jumping to 2 Sides
6. Jump race and place cones in color order
7. Crunch elevating legs		Compensatory training and exercises with partners
1. Jumping rope (R-L)
2. Crunch passing the ball from the right/left
3. Sack race
4. Balance on 1 leg
5. Hopscotch jumping 1 leg in a row without throwing a stone
6. Medicine ball jar
7. Burpees		Compensatory training and group exercises
1. Climers in front of partner
2. Side plank with partner
3. Jumping alt. feet
4. Bird dog
5. Plank 1 × 1
6. Burpee
7. Box jump (to mat)		Compensatory training and group exercises
1. Crunch passing B. Medicinal
2. Jump box (to mat)
3. Band elastic (shoulder press)
4. Plank 1 × 1
5. Bird dog alt. legs
6. TRX exercise
7. Elastic band (horizontal squat)		Strength training and Individual exercises
Circuit:
1. Medicine ball to wall
2. Bosu platform
3. Pick-up partner
4. Carry tire
5. Burpees
6. Up-down
7. Battle rope
8. Plank		Strength training and Individual exercises
Circuit:
1. Side-by-side burpees
2. Elastic band
3. Pick-up mat race
4. Up stairs
5. Kettlebell walking lunge
6. Burpee race
7. Battle rope
8. Box jump
Training stimulus aimInitialization to strength programEnjoying with strength programs
Sets44444444
Work–rest15″:30″15″:30″20″:30″20″:30″30″:40″30″:40″40″:60″40″:60″
Exercise intensitySubMaxSubMaxSubMaxMaxMaxMaxMaxMax
RPE
Total exercises77788888
Density1:21:21:21:21:21:11:11:1
Cool-downFlexibility5 min static flexibility exercises.
Table 3. Effects on condition and within-week variations (pre-intervention and post-intervention) of anthropometrical measures: weight, waist circumference and body mass index in each group (control group, endurance group and strength group) (mean ± SD).
Table 3. Effects on condition and within-week variations (pre-intervention and post-intervention) of anthropometrical measures: weight, waist circumference and body mass index in each group (control group, endurance group and strength group) (mean ± SD).
Pre-InterventionPost-InterventionRepeated Measures ANOVA
CGEGSGCGEGSGMain Effect of GroupMain Effect of MomentInteraction Group × Moment
Body Composition
Weight (kg)50.99 ± 4.99
Min: 39.40
Range: 22.30
Max: 61.70		47.54 ± 7.36
Min: 32.70
Range: 29.20
Max: 61.90		52.39 ± 7.15
Min: 42.25
Range: 25.15
Max: 67.40		51.96 ± 4.74
Min: 40.80
Range: 18.80
Max: 59.60		48.35 ± 7.61
Min: 34.30
Range: 26.60
Max: 60.90		54.81 ± 8.20
Min: 44.00
Range: 25.60
Max: 69.60		F (2.46) = 2.84,
p = 0.07,
η2 = 0.11		F (1.23) = 3.56,
p = 0.07,
η2 = 0.13		F (2.46) = 5.17, p = 0.01 *, η2 = 0.01
Pre-C Vs. Pre-EG: p = 0.07; d = 0.55
Pre-C Vs. Pre-EG: p = 0.49; d = −0.23
Pre-C Vs. Pre-EG: p = 0.06; d = −0.23
Post-C Vs. Post-EG: p = 0.09; d = 0.57
Post-C Vs. Pre-SG: p = 0.10; d = −0.42
Post-EG Vs. Post-SG: p = 0.02 *; d = −0.82
Pre-C Vs. Post-C: p = 0.50; d = −0.20
Pre-EG Vs. Post-EG: p = 0.18; d = −0.11
Pre-SG Vs. Post-SG: p = 0.001 *; d = −0.31
Waist circumference (cm)67.30 ± 7.32
Min: 54.30
Range: 25.30
Max: 79.70		60.44 ± 6.09
Min: 50.00
Range: 23.25
Max: 73.25		65.98 ± 10.95
Min: 52.15
Range: 38.85
Max: 91.00		71.10 ± 9.19
Min: 55.25
Range: 34.00
Max: 58.25		69.29 ± 19.99
Min: 39.40
Range: 22.30
Max: 79.25		66.46 ± 9.94
Min: 53.00
Range: 33.10
Max: 86.10		F (2.46) = 6.19,
p = 0.004 **,
η2 = 0.21		F (1.23) = 2.16,
p = 0.15,
η2 = 0.08		F (2.46) = 5.17, p = 0.01 *, η2 = 0.01
Pre-C Vs. Pre-EG: p = 0.07; d = 0.55
Pre-C Vs. Pre-EG: p = 0.49; d = −0.23
Pre-C Vs. Pre-EG: p = 0.06; d = −0.23
Post-C Vs. Post-EG: p = 0.09; d = 0.57
Post-C Vs. Pre-SG: p = 0.10; d = −0.42
Post-EG Vs. Post-SG: p = 0.02 *; d = −0.82
Pre-C Vs. Post-C: p = 0.50; d = −0.20
Pre-EG Vs. Post-EG: p = 0.18; d = −0.11
Pre-SG Vs. Post-SG: p = 0.001 **; d = −0.31
Body mass index 20.46 ± 2.81
Min: 15.29
Range: 10.45
Max: 25.74		19.17 ± 2.47
Min: 14.94
Range: 9.97
Max: 24.91		21.15 ± 3.12
Min: 16.15
Range: 11.64
Max: 27.79		20.30 ± 2.56
Min: 15.53
Range: 11.30
Max: 26.83		19.43 ± 2.51
Min: 15.02
Range: 10.70
Max: 25.72		23.44 ± 10.16
Min: 16.92
Range: 11.85
Max: 28.77		F (2.46) = 1.27,
p = 0.28,
η2 = 0.05		F < 1F (2.46) = 4.82, p = 0.01 *, η2 = 0.17
Pre-C Vs. Pre-EG: p = 0.09; d = 0.49
Pre-C Vs. Pre-EG: p = 0.47; d = −0.23
Pre-C Vs. Pre-EG: p = 0.03 *; d = −0.22
Post-C Vs. Post-EG: p = 0.28; d = 0.34
Post-C Vs. Pre-SG: p = 0.11; d = −0.48
Post-EG Vs. Post-SG: p = 0.01 *; d = −0.77
Pre-C Vs. Post-C: p = 0.84; d = 0.06
Pre-EG Vs. Post-EG: p = 0.01 *; d = −0.10
Pre-SG Vs. Post-SG: p = 0.15; d = −0.19
Note: CG: Control group; EG: endurance group; SG: strength group; min: minimal value; max: maximal value. * denotes significance at p < 0.05 and ** denotes significance at p < 0.01.
Table 4. Effects on condition and within-week variations (pre-intervention and post-intervention) of physical fitness: horizontal jump, handgrip, 4 × 10 m and Course Navette in each group (control group, endurance group and strength group) (mean ± SD).
Table 4. Effects on condition and within-week variations (pre-intervention and post-intervention) of physical fitness: horizontal jump, handgrip, 4 × 10 m and Course Navette in each group (control group, endurance group and strength group) (mean ± SD).
Pre-InterventionPost-InterventionRepeated Measures ANOVA
CGEGSGCGEGSGMain Effect of GroupMain Effect of MomentInteraction Group × Moment
Physical fitness
Horizontal jump (cm)153.23 ± 25.90
Min: 105.00
Range: 87.00
Max: 192.00		150.54 ± 27.96
Min: 94.50
Range: 111.05
Max: 205.55		147.48 ± 27.43
Min: 110.00
Range: 120.50
Max: 230.50		140.65 ± 38.09
Min: 61.50
Range: 164.55
Max: 226.05		157.63 ± 30.29
Min: 113.00
Range: 99.00
Max: 212.00		150.84 ± 25.72
Min: 108.00
Range: 117.00
Max: 225.00		F(2.46) = 2.86,
p = 0.06,
η2 = 0.11		F(1.23) = 3.98,
p = 0.06,
η2 = 0.14		F < 1
Handgrip (kg)21.41 ± 4.24
Min: 9.53
Range: 17.90
Max: 27.43		22.68 ± 1.24
Min: 12.85
Range: 27.78
Max: 40.63		21.61 ± 4.34
Min: 15.80
Range: 15.13
Max: 30.93		22.48 ± 4.57
Min: 16.70
Range: 21.13
Max: 37.83		22.92 ± 6.06
Min: 12.68
Range: 21.13
Max: 39.80		22.81 ± 4.65
Min: 15.80
Range: 16.83
Max: 32.63		F < 1F(1.23) = 3.67,
p = 0.07,
η2 = 0.13		F < 1
4 × 10 m (sec)14.03 ± 2.27
Min: 11.49
Range: 9.88
Max: 21.37		12.50 ± 1.10
Min: 9.32
Range: 5.07
Max: 14.39		13.13 ± 1.33
Min: 10.91
Range: 5.25
Max: 16.16		14.81 ± 1.92
Min: 12.38
Range: 7.04
Max: 19.42		13.61 ± 1.24
Min: 11.56
Range: 5.19
Max: 16.75		14.79 ± 1.89
Min: 11.74
Range: 6.83
Max: 18.57		F < 1F(1.23) = 1.58,
p = 0.22,
η2 = 0.06		F < 1
Course Navette37.56 ± 5.58
Min: 28.45
Range: 20.36
Max: 48.81		40.31 ± 5.58
Min: 32.18
Range: 16.63
Max: 48.81		38.30 ± 4.83
Min: 32.17
Range: 19.40
Max: 51.58		37.97 ± 4.55
Min: 29.41
Range: 16.63
Max: 46.04		42.51 ± 6.42
Min: 32.18
Range: 19.40
Max: 51.58		39.80 ± 4.19
Min: 34.95
Range: 16.63
Max: 51.58		F(2.46) = 4.98,
p = 0.01 **,
η2 = 0.17		F < 1F(2.46) = 2.44,
p = 0.09,
η2 = 0.09
Note: CG: control group; EG: endurance group; SG: strength group; min: minimal value; max: maximal value. * denotes significance at p < 0.05 and ** denotes significance at p < 0.01.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Pérez-Ramírez, J.A.; González-Fernández, F.T.; Villa-González, E. Effect of School-Based Endurance and Strength Exercise Interventions in Improving Body Composition, Physical Fitness and Cognitive Functions in Adolescents. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 9200. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14209200

AMA Style

Pérez-Ramírez JA, González-Fernández FT, Villa-González E. Effect of School-Based Endurance and Strength Exercise Interventions in Improving Body Composition, Physical Fitness and Cognitive Functions in Adolescents. Applied Sciences. 2024; 14(20):9200. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14209200

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pérez-Ramírez, José Antonio, Francisco Tomás González-Fernández, and Emilio Villa-González. 2024. "Effect of School-Based Endurance and Strength Exercise Interventions in Improving Body Composition, Physical Fitness and Cognitive Functions in Adolescents" Applied Sciences 14, no. 20: 9200. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14209200

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop