School of Kinesiology and Health Studies, Queen's University, 28 Division Street, Kingston, ON K7L 3N6, Canada.
School of Health and Exercise Sciences, The University of British Columbia Okanagan, 1147 Research Road, Kelowna, BC V1V 1V7, Canada.
Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2020 Jun;45(6):650-658. doi: 10.1139/apnm-2019-0492. Epub 2019 Nov 29.
Young adults (52 females, 16 males; age = 21 ± 3 years; O: 41 ± 6 mL/(kg·min)) were randomized into 3 groups: () no-exercise control (CTL; = 15), () Tabata ( = 27), or () vigorous-intensity continuous training (VICT; = 26) groups for a 4-week supervised training period (4 sessions/week). O, time-to-fatigue (TTF), 5 km time-trial performance (TT), and muscular endurance were assessed at baseline, post-training (POST), and 2-month follow-up (FU). Response confidence intervals (CI) were used to classify individuals as likely responders (R; CI > 0). Both exercise interventions increased TTF and TT at POST (both < 0.01), but these benefits were maintained at FU after VICT only ( < 0.01). Push-up performance was increased at POST and FU (both < 0.01) after Tabata. VICT resulted in a greater proportion of TTF R versus both groups at POST (CTL: 1/15; VICT: 19/26; Tabata: 9/27) and versus Tabata at FU (3/15; 13/26; 4/27). VICT also had a greater proportion of TT R versus CTL at POST (2/15; 17/26; 10/27). Tabata had a greater proportion of R for maximum push-up repetitions versus both groups at POST (3/15; 6/26; 18/27) and versus CTL at FU (2/15; 10/26; 18/27). Collectively, VICT appears to be more effective for improving cardiorespiratory fitness, whereas whole-body Tabata confers larger improvements in push-up performance following short-term training. Vigorous-intensity continuous training elicits larger improvements in cardiorespiratory fitness versus whole-body Tabata. Individual response profiles parallel group-level changes in cardiorespiratory fitness and muscular endurance.
年轻人（52 名女性，16 名男性；年龄=21 ± 3 岁；O：41 ± 6 mL/（kg·min））被随机分为 3 组：（）无运动对照组（CTL；=15），（）Tabata 组（=27）或（）剧烈强度连续训练（VICT；=26）组，进行为期 4 周的监督训练（每周 4 次）。在基线、训练后（POST）和 2 个月随访（FU）时评估 O、疲劳时间（TTF）、5km 计时赛表现（TT）和肌肉耐力。使用响应置信区间（CI）将个体分类为可能响应者（R；CI>0）。两种运动干预均在 POST 时增加了 TTF 和 TT（均<0.01），但仅在 VICT 后 FU 时仍保持这些益处（均<0.01）。Tabata 后 POST 和 FU 时俯卧撑表现增加（均<0.01）。与对照组相比，VICT 在 POST 时增加了 TTF R 的比例（CTL：1/15；VICT：19/26；Tabata：9/27），在 FU 时增加了 TTF R 的比例（CTL：3/15；13/26；4/27）。与 CTL 相比，VICT 在 POST 时 TT R 的比例更高（CTL：2/15；VICT：17/26；Tabata：10/27）。Tabata 在 POST 时的最大俯卧撑重复次数的 R 比例高于对照组（CTL：3/15；6/26；18/27），与 CTL 相比，FU 时的 R 比例更高（CTL：2/15；10/26；18/27）。总的来说，VICT 似乎更有效地提高心肺适能，而全身 Tabata 在短期训练后可更大地提高俯卧撑表现。与全身 Tabata 相比，剧烈强度连续训练可更大地提高心肺适能。个体响应谱与心肺适能和肌肉耐力的群体水平变化平行。
Zotero 插件