## 4 Discussion  
Exercise has been shown to effectively improve physical condition and health levels. Different durations and intensities of exercise produce varying effects [34]. However, most current studies focus on single-intensity intervention methods, with limited research on alternating between different intensities, especially the alternation between high, moderate, and low intensities. This study expands the methods of exercise intervention by proposing HIIT, MCIT, and LISS, as well as their alternations, based on the real-world situation of social work stress. A 16-week experiment was conducted to explore the effectiveness of different exercise intervention methods. Exercise intervention is widely regarded as the most effective treatment for fat loss and weight reduction [35]. Without calorie restriction, it has demonstrated good clinical efficacy for weight loss and weight maintenance. Moreover, a combination of various types of exercise, such as aerobic exercise and strength training, has shown even better results for weight reduction [36]. Our study validated the effectiveness of exercise in improving body composition. Participants in all exercise intervention groups experienced varying degrees of reduction in BMI and BFP. The results indicate that the HIIT-LISS, MICT-LISS, and HIIT-MICT intervention methods were most effective in improving participants' BMI, with the combination of high-intensity and low-intensity exercise proving to be particularly \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Level** & **Percentile Threshold** & **Probit** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **RSR Critical Value** \\ **(Fit Value)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
1 & \textless{}3.593 & \textless{}3.2 & \textless{}0.228\textgreater{} \\
2 & 3.593\textasci{}- & 3.2– & \textless{}0.228\textgreater{} \\
3 & 27.425\textasci{}- & 4.4– & \textless{}0.5073\textasci{}- \\
4 & 72.575\textasci{}- & 5.6– & \textless{}0.7866\textasci{}- \\
5 & 96.407\textasci{}- & 6.8– & \textless{}1.0659\textasci{}- \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Critical value table for ranking and classification. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Item** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Information Entropy** \\ **Value** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Information Utility** \\ **Value** \\ \end{tabular} & **Weight** \\ \hline BMI & 0.911 & 0.089 & 9.647 \\ BFP & 0.905 & 0.095 & 10.274 \\ LDL-C & 0.928 & 0.072 & 7.737 \\ HDL-C & 0.916 & 0.084 & 9.054 \\ SBP & 0.903 & 0.097 & 10.451 \\ DBP & 0.917 & 0.083 & 8.957 \\ HR & 0.901 & 0.099 & 10.736 \\ VO-max & 0.92 & 0.08 & 8.596 \\ WT & 0.913 & 0.087 & 9.419 \\ PACES & 0.926 & 0.074 & 8.008 \\ GHQ-12 & 0.934 & 0.066 & 7.119 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Indicator weight calculation results. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Training** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **RSR Ranking** \\ **Approaches** \\ \end{tabular} & **Probit** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **RSR Fitted** \\ **Value** \\ \end{tabular} & **Level** \\ \hline HIIT-MICT & 1 & 6.86 & 1.08 & 5 \\ HIIT & 3 & 5.67 & 0.80 & 4 \\ HIIT-LISS & 2 & 6.15 & 0.91 & 4 \\ MICT & 5 & 5.00 & 0.65 & 3 \\ MICT-LISS & 4 & 5.32 & 0.72 & 3 \\ HIIT-MICT-LISS & 6 & 4.68 & 0.57 & 3 \\ LISS & 7 & 4.33 & 0.49 & 2 \\ Control & 8 & 3.85 & 0.38 & 2 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Comprehensive evaluation result. effective, achieving a 5.37% improvement. This highlights the effectiveness of alternating exercise modalities in enhancing health indicators [37] and suggests that both HIIT and MICT can induce moderate improvements in body composition [38]. Continuous HIIT is more effective in reducing body fat percentage, with the highest reduction reaching 5.65%. Similar results have also been observed in studies involving obese women [39] and obese adolescents [40]. It is worth noting that the isolated LISS appears to be less effective, as the components of energy balance tend to be compensated, resulting in the calories burned not achieving the desired effect in the short term [41].