Suppr超能文献

间歇训练是减脂的“神奇子弹”吗?一项比较中等强度持续训练与高强度间歇训练(HIIT)的系统评价和荟萃分析。

Is interval training the magic bullet for fat loss? A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing moderate-intensity continuous training with high-intensity interval training (HIIT).

机构信息

Faculty of Physical Education and Dance, Federal University of Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil.

Faculty of Physical Education, Federal University of Pará, Castanhal, Pará, Brazil.

出版信息

Br J Sports Med. 2019 May;53(10):655-664. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2018-099928. Epub 2019 Feb 14.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of interval training and moderate-intensity continuous training (MOD) on body adiposity in humans, and to perform subgroup analyses that consider the type and duration of interval training in different groups.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

English-language, Spanish-language and Portuguese-language searches of the electronic databases PubMed and Scopus were conducted from inception to 11 December 2017.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Studies that met the following criteria were included: (1) original articles, (2) human trials, (3) minimum exercise training duration of 4 weeks, and (4) directly or indirectly compared interval training with MOD as the primary or secondary aim.

RESULTS

Of the 786 studies found, 41 and 36 were included in the qualitative analysis and meta-analysis, respectively. Within-group analyses showed significant reductions in total body fat percentage (%) (interval training: -1.50 [95% CI -2.14 to -0.86, p<0.00001] and MOD: -1.44 [95% CI -2.00 to -0.89, p<0.00001]) and in total absolute fat mass (kg) (interval training: -1.58 [95% CI -2.74 to -0.43, p=0.007] and MOD: -1.13 [95% CI -2.18 to -0.08, p=0.04]), with no significant differences between interval training and MOD for total body fat percentage reduction (-0.23 [95% CI -1.43 to 0.97], p=0.705). However, there was a significant difference between the groups in total absolute fat mass (kg) reduction (-2.28 [95% CI -4.00 to -0.56], p=0.0094). Subgroup analyses comparing sprint interval training (SIT) with MOD protocols favour SIT for loss of total absolute fat mass (kg) (-3.22 [95% CI -5.71 to -0.73], p=0.01). Supervised training, walking/running/jogging, age (<30 years), study quality and intervention duration (<12 weeks) favourably influence the decreases in total absolute fat mass (kg) observed from interval training programmes; however, no significant effect was found on total body fat percentage (%). No effect of sex or body mass index was observed on total absolute fat mass (kg) or total body fat percentage (%).

CONCLUSION

Interval training and MOD both reduce body fat percentage (%). Interval training provided 28.5% greater reductions in total absolute fat mass (kg) than MOD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018089427.

摘要

目的

比较间歇训练和中等强度持续训练(MOD)对人体脂肪含量的影响,并进行亚组分析,考虑不同组别的间歇训练类型和持续时间。

设计

系统评价和荟萃分析。

数据来源

从建库至 2017 年 12 月 11 日,对英文、西班牙文和葡萄牙文电子数据库 PubMed 和 Scopus 进行检索。

纳入研究的标准

符合以下标准的研究被纳入:(1)原始文章,(2)人体试验,(3)运动训练的最低持续时间为 4 周,(4)直接或间接将间歇训练与 MOD 作为主要或次要目标进行比较。

结果

在检索到的 786 篇研究中,41 篇和 36 篇分别纳入定性分析和荟萃分析。组内分析显示,总体脂百分比(%)(间歇训练:-1.50[95%CI-2.14 至-0.86,p<0.00001]和 MOD:-1.44[95%CI-2.00 至-0.89,p<0.00001])和总绝对脂肪量(kg)(间歇训练:-1.58[95%CI-2.74 至-0.43,p=0.007]和 MOD:-1.13[95%CI-2.18 至-0.08,p=0.04])显著减少,且间歇训练与 MOD 之间在总体脂百分比降低方面无显著差异(-0.23[95%CI-1.43 至 0.97],p=0.705)。然而,两组在总绝对脂肪量(kg)减少方面存在显著差异(-2.28[95%CI-4.00 至-0.56],p=0.0094)。比较冲刺间歇训练(SIT)与 MOD 方案的亚组分析表明,SIT 更有利于减少总绝对脂肪量(kg)(-3.22[95%CI-5.71 至-0.73],p=0.01)。监督训练、步行/跑步/慢跑、年龄(<30 岁)、研究质量和干预时间(<12 周)有利于观察到的间歇训练方案中总绝对脂肪量(kg)的减少,但对体脂百分比(%)无显著影响。性别或体重指数对总绝对脂肪量(kg)或体脂百分比(%)无显著影响。

结论

间歇训练和 MOD 均可降低体脂百分比(%)。间歇训练比 MOD 多减少 28.5%的总绝对脂肪量(kg)。

临床试验注册号

CRD42018089427。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验