Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Lidcombe, New South Wales, Australia.
Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.
Sports Med. 2019 Nov;49(11):1687-1721. doi: 10.1007/s40279-019-01167-w.
Evidence for the efficacy of low-volume high-intensity interval training (HIIT) for the modulation of body composition is unclear.
We examined the effect of low-volume HIIT versus a non-exercising control and moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) on body composition and cardiorespiratory fitness in normal weight, overweight and obese adults. We evaluated the impact of low-volume HIIT (HIIT interventions where the total amount of exercise performed during training was ≤ 500 metabolic equivalent minutes per week [MET-min/week]) compared to a non-exercising control and MICT.
A database search was conducted in PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus and Scopus from the earliest record to June 2019 for studies (randomised controlled trials and non-randomised controlled trials) with exercise training interventions with a minimum 4-week duration. Meta-analyses were conducted for between-group (low-volume HIIT vs. non-exercising control and low-volume HIIT vs. MICT) comparisons for change in total body fat mass (kg), body fat percentage (%), lean body mass (kg) and cardiorespiratory fitness.
From 11,485 relevant records, 47 studies were included. No difference was found between low-volume HIIT and a non-exercising control on total body fat mass (kg) (effect size [ES]: - 0.129, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.468 to 0.210; p = 0.455), body fat (%) (ES: - 0.063, 95% CI - 0.383 to 0.257; p = 0.700) and lean body mass (kg) (ES: 0.050, 95% CI - 0.250 to 0.351; p = 0.744), or between low-volume HIIT and MICT on total body fat mass (kg) (ES: - 0.021, 95% CI - 0.272 to 0.231; p = 0.872), body fat (%) (ES: 0.005, 95% CI - 0.294 to 0.304; p = 0.974) and lean body mass (kg) (ES: 0.030, 95% CI - 0.167 to 0.266; p = 0.768). However, low-volume HIIT significantly improved cardiorespiratory fitness compared with a non-exercising control (p < 0.001) and MICT (p = 0.017).
These data suggest that low-volume HIIT is inefficient for the modulation of total body fat mass or total body fat percentage in comparison with a non-exercise control and MICT. A novel finding of our meta-analysis was that there appears to be no significant effect of low-volume HIIT on lean body mass when compared with a non-exercising control, and while most studies tended to favour improvement in lean body mass with low-volume HIIT versus MICT, this was not significant. However, despite its lower training volume, low-volume HIIT induces greater improvements in cardiorespiratory fitness than a non-exercising control and MICT in normal weight, overweight and obese adults. Low-volume HIIT, therefore, appears to be a time-efficient treatment for increasing fitness, but not for the improvement of body composition.
低容量高强度间歇训练（HIIT）对调节身体成分的功效证据尚不清楚。
我们研究了低容量 HIIT 与非运动对照组和中等强度持续训练（MICT）对正常体重、超重和肥胖成年人的身体成分和心肺功能的影响。我们评估了低容量 HIIT（HIIT 干预中每周运动总量为≤500 代谢当量分钟[MET-min/周]）与非运动对照组和 MICT 相比的影响。
从最早的记录到 2019 年 6 月，在 PubMed（MEDLINE）、EMBASE、CINAHL、Web of Science、SPORTDiscus 和 Scopus 数据库中进行了文献检索，以获取至少持续 4 周的运动训练干预的研究（随机对照试验和非随机对照试验）。对低容量 HIIT 与非运动对照组（低容量 HIIT 与非运动对照组）和低容量 HIIT 与 MICT 之间的组间变化进行了荟萃分析，包括全身脂肪量（kg）、体脂百分比（%）、瘦体重（kg）和心肺功能。
从 11485 篇相关记录中，纳入了 47 项研究。低容量 HIIT 与非运动对照组在全身脂肪量（kg）（效应大小[ES]：-0.129，95%置信区间[CI]：-0.468 至 0.210；p=0.455）、体脂百分比（%）（ES：-0.063，95% CI：-0.383 至 0.257；p=0.700）和瘦体重（kg）（ES：0.050，95% CI：-0.250 至 0.351；p=0.744）方面无差异，低容量 HIIT 与 MICT 在全身脂肪量（kg）（ES：-0.021，95% CI：-0.272 至 0.231；p=0.872）、体脂百分比（%）（ES：0.005，95% CI：-0.294 至 0.304；p=0.974）和瘦体重（kg）（ES：0.030，95% CI：-0.167 至 0.266；p=0.768）方面也无差异。然而，低容量 HIIT 与非运动对照组（p<0.001）和 MICT（p=0.017）相比，显著改善了心肺功能。
这些数据表明，与非运动对照组和 MICT 相比，低容量 HIIT 对全身脂肪量或体脂百分比的调节效率较低。我们荟萃分析的一个新发现是，与非运动对照组相比，低容量 HIIT 对瘦体重似乎没有显著影响，而大多数研究倾向于认为低容量 HIIT 与 MICT 相比更能改善瘦体重，但这并不显著。然而，尽管低容量 HIIT 的训练量较低，但与非运动对照组和 MICT 相比，低容量 HIIT 可显著改善心肺功能。因此，低容量 HIIT 似乎是一种提高健康水平的高效治疗方法，但不是改善身体成分的方法。
