Despite robust public health authority recommendations, the vast majority of people undertake too little exercise, with “lack of time” as the most commonly cited barrier. Studies suggest laboratory-based high intensity interval training (HIT) is a potent but time efficient way to improve fitness and cardiovascular disease risk. Additional barriers to exercise include limited access to facilities and appropriate equipment, difficulty with transportation or inadequate financial resources. To overcome these barriers home-based physical activity programmes have been successfully introduced in various populations. However, the effect of a home-based HIT intervention, that would combine the time efficiency of HIT with the ease of home-based interventions, has not been studied. We investigated the efficacy of home-based HIT (HB_HIT) in individuals with elevated risk of type 2 diabetes compared to supervised laboratory-based HIT (LB_HIT). Eleven previously sedentary, obese adults (32 ± 4 yr; BMI = 34.1 ± 1.2 kg/m2) were allocated to either 4 weeks of HB_HIT (n=5) or LB_HIT (n=6). Both groups completed 4 1min intervals interspersed with 1min of rest 3x/week. HB_HIT consisted of simple bodyweight exercises in an unsupervised place of the participant’s choosing. Participants were instructed to exercise at 90% of heart rate (HR) max. Compliance and exercise intensity were monitored using a HR monitor and mobile application that could be monitored by the research team. The LB_HIT group attended the laboratory for supervised training (cycling at a workload equivalent to 90% HR max). Body mass index (BMI), maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max), maximum workload capacity (Wmax) and aortic pulse wave velocity (PWV) were determined pre and post training. Training session completion rate was 95% in HB_HIT and 94% in LB_HBIT with participants achieving the target HR in 97% of HB_HIT and 99% of LB_HIT sessions. Both forms of HIT decreased BMI (HB_HIT 36.3±2.0 vs. 35.8±2.0, LB_HIT 32.3±1.2 vs. 31.9±1.1; main effect P<0.05). Training also increased Wmax (HB_HIT 187±18 vs. 218±15, LB_HIT 169±20 vs. 204±27; main effect P<0.05); however, VO2max was unaltered in both groups (HB_HIT 26.1±1.9 vs. 26.5±0.7, LB_HIT 27.1±2.4 vs. 29.4±2.8; P=0.168). Aortic PWV was also unaltered by both forms of HIT (HB_HIT 6.3±0.6 vs. 6.5±0.5, LB_HIT 6.6±0.3 vs. 6.6±0.3; P=0.694). This is the first study to investigate the efficacy of HB_HIT in individuals with elevated risk of type 2 diabetes. Despite being unsupervised and having no encouragement, HB_HIT had high adherence rates at the prescribed exercise intensity, comparable with the fully supervised LB_HIT group. HB_HIT was also comparably effective at increasing maximum workload capacity and reducing BMI to LB_HIT. This suggests HB_HIT is effective at minimising many barriers to exercise, therefore increasing exercise participation.