Institute of Sports and Preventive Medicine, Saarland University , Saarbruecken , Germany.
Institute for Sport Sciences, Department of Sociology and Economics of Sports, Saarland University , Saarbruecken , Germany.
J Appl Physiol (1985). 2018 Jun 1;124(6):1567-1579. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00896.2017. Epub 2018 Jan 11.
Observed response to regular exercise training differs widely between individuals even in tightly controlled research settings. However, the respective contributions of random error and true interindividual differences as well as the relative frequency of nonresponders are disputed. Specific challenges of analyses on the individual level as well as a striking heterogeneity in definitions may partly explain these inconsistent results. Repeated testing during the training phase specifically addresses the requirements of analyses on the individual level. Here we report a first implementation of this innovative design amendment in a head-to-head comparison of existing analytical approaches. To allow for comparative implementation of approaches we conducted a controlled endurance training trial (1 yr walking/jogging, 3 days/wk for 45 min with 60% heart rate reserve) in healthy, untrained subjects ( n = 36, age = 46 ± 8 yr; body mass index 24.7 ± 2.7 kg/m; V̇o 36.6 ± 5.4). In the training group additional V̇o tests were conducted after 3, 6, and 9 mo. Duration of the control condition was 6 mo due to ethical constraints. General efficacy of the training intervention could be verified by a significant increase in V̇o in the training group ( P < 0.001 vs. control). Individual training response of relevant magnitude (>0.2 × baseline variability in V̇o) could be demonstrated by several approaches. Regarding the classification of individuals, only 11 of 20 subjects were consistently classified, demonstrating remarkable disagreement between approaches. These results are in support of relevant interindividual variability in training efficacy and stress the limitations of a responder classification. Moreover, this proof-of-concept underlines the need for tailored methodological approaches for well-defined problems. NEW & NOTEWORTHY This work reports a first implementation of a repeated testing training trial for the investigation of individual response. This design amendment was recently proposed to address specifically the statistical requirements of analyses on the individual level. Moreover, a comprehensive comparison of previously published methods exemplifies the striking heterogeneity of existing approaches.
即使在严格控制的研究环境中,个体对常规运动训练的反应也存在很大差异。然而,随机误差和真实个体差异的各自贡献,以及无反应者的相对频率仍存在争议。个体水平分析的具体挑战以及定义上的明显异质性可能部分解释了这些不一致的结果。在训练阶段进行重复测试特别满足了个体水平分析的要求。在这里,我们报告了这种创新设计修正在现有分析方法的直接比较中的首次实施。为了允许方法的比较实施,我们在健康、未经训练的受试者中进行了一项对照耐力训练试验(1 年步行/慢跑,每周 3 天,每次 45 分钟,心率储备 60%)(n=36,年龄=46±8 岁;体重指数 24.7±2.7kg/m;V̇o36.6±5.4)。在训练组中,在 3、6 和 9 个月后进行了额外的 V̇o 测试。由于伦理限制,对照组的持续时间为 6 个月。通过训练组 V̇o 的显著增加,可以验证训练干预的一般疗效(P<0.001 与对照组相比)。通过几种方法可以证明相关幅度的个体训练反应(V̇o 基线变异性的>0.2×)。关于个体的分类,只有 20 名受试者中的 11 名被一致分类,表明方法之间存在显著分歧。这些结果支持训练效果的个体间变异性,并强调了反应者分类的局限性。此外,这一概念验证强调了针对明确问题的定制方法的必要性。