Kemmler Wolfgang, Lell M, Scharf M, Fraunberger L, von Stengel S
Institut für Medizinische Physik, Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU).
Institut für Radiologie, FAU.
Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2015 Jan;140(1):e7-e13. doi: 10.1055/s-0040-100423. Epub 2015 Jan 12.
Introduction | The philosophy on how to improve cardiometabolic risk factors most efficiently by endurance exercise is still controversial. To determine the effect of high-intensity (interval) training (HI[I]T) vs. moderate-intensity continuous exercise (MICE) training on cardiometabolic risk factors we conducted a 16-week crossover randomized controlled trial. Methods | 81 healthy untrained middle aged men were randomly assigned to a HI(I)T-group and a control-group that started the MICE running program after their control status. HI(I)T consisted of running exercise around or above the individual anaerobic threshold (≈ 80- 100 % HRmax); MICE focused on continuous running exercise at ≈ 65-77.5 % HRmax. Both protocols were comparable with respect to energy consumption. Study endpoints were cardiorespiratory fitness (VO2max), left ventricular mass index (LVMI), metabolic syndrome Z-score (MetS-Z-score), intima-media-thickness (IMT) and body composition. Results | VO2max-changes in this overweighed male cohort significantly (p=0.002) differ between HIIT (14.7 ± 9.3 %, p=0.001) and MICE (7.9 ± 7.4 %,p=0.001). LVMI, as determined via magnetic resonance imaging, significantly increased in both exercise groups (HIIT: 8.5 ± 5.4 %, p=0.001 vs. MICE: 5.3 ± 4.0 %, p=0.001), however the change was significantly more pronounced (p=0.005) in the HIIT-group. MetS-Z-score (HIIT: -2.06 ± 1.31, p=0.001 vs. MICE: -1.60 ± 1.77, p=0.001) and IMT (4.6 ± 5.9 % p=0.011 vs. 4.4 ± 8.1 %, p=0.019) did not show significant group-differences. Reductions of fat mass (-4.9 ± 9.0 %, p=0.010 vs. -9.5 ± 9.4, p=0.001) were significantly higher among the MICE-participants (p=0.034), however, the same was true (p=0.008) for lean body mass (0.5 ± 2.3 %, p=0.381 vs. -1.3 ± 2.0 %, p=0.003). Conclusion | In summary high-intensity interval training tends to impact cardiometabolic health more favorable compared with a moderate-intensity continuous endurance exercise protocol.
引言 | 关于如何通过耐力运动最有效地改善心脏代谢风险因素的理念仍存在争议。为了确定高强度（间歇）训练（HI[I]T）与中等强度持续运动（MICE）训练对心脏代谢风险因素的影响，我们进行了一项为期16周的交叉随机对照试验。方法 | 81名未经训练的健康中年男性被随机分为HI(I)T组和对照组，对照组在其对照期结束后开始MICE跑步计划。HI(I)T包括在个体无氧阈值（约80 - 100% HRmax）或以上进行跑步运动；MICE则专注于在约65 - 77.5% HRmax进行持续跑步运动。两种方案在能量消耗方面具有可比性。研究终点包括心肺适能（VO2max）、左心室质量指数（LVMI）、代谢综合征Z评分（MetS - Z评分）、内膜中层厚度（IMT）和身体成分。结果 | 在这个超重男性队列中，HIIT组（14.7 ± 9.3%，p = 0.001）和MICE组（7.9 ± 7.4%，p = 0.001）的VO2max变化存在显著差异（p = 0.002）。通过磁共振成像测定的LVMI在两个运动组中均显著增加（HIIT组：8.5 ± 5.4%，p = 0.001；MICE组：5.3 ± 4.0%，p = 0.001），然而HIIT组的变化更为显著（p = 0.005）。MetS - Z评分（HIIT组：-2.06 ± 1.31，p = 0.001；MICE组：-1.60 ± 1.77，p = 0.001）和IMT（4.6 ± 5.9%，p = 0.011；4.4 ± 8.1%，p = 0.019）未显示出显著的组间差异。MICE组参与者的脂肪量减少（-4.9 ± 9.0%，p = 0.010；-9.5 ± 9.4，p = 0.001）显著更高（p = 0.034），然而，瘦体重的情况也是如此（p = 0.008）（0.5 ± 2.3% vs. -1.3 ± 2.0%，p = 0.003）。结论 | 总之，与中等强度持续耐力运动方案相比，高强度间歇训练对心脏代谢健康的影响往往更有利。
