Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Bond Institute of Health and Sport , Gold Coast, Australia.
Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University , Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
J Sports Sci. 2020 Jul;38(14):1635-1649. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2020.1754716. Epub 2020 May 12.
The systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effect of aerobic, resistance and combined exercise on RMR (kCal·day) and performed a methodological assessment of indirect calorimetry protocols within the included studies. Subgroup analyses included energy/diet restriction and body composition changes. Randomized control trials (RCTs), quasi - RCTs and cohort trials featuring a physical activity intervention of any form and duration excluding single exercise bouts were included. Participant exclusions included medical conditions impacting upon RMR, the elderly (≥65 years of age) or pregnant, lactating or post-menopausal women. The review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD 42,017,058,503). 1669 articles were identified; 22 were included in the qualitative analysis and 18 were meta-analysed. Exercise interventions (aerobic and resistance exercise combined) did not increase resting metabolic rate (mean difference (MD): 74.6 kCal·day[95% CI: -13.01, 161.33], P = 0.10). While there was no effect of aerobic exercise on RMR (MD: 81.65 kCal·day[95% CI: -57.81, 221.10], P = 0.25), resistance exercise increased RMR compared to controls (MD: 96.17 kCal·day[95% CI: 45.17, 147.16], P = 0.0002). This systematic review effectively synthesises the effect of exercise interventions on RMR in comparison to controls; despite heterogenous methodologies and high risk of bias within included studies.
本系统评价和荟萃分析评估了有氧运动、抗阻运动和结合运动对静息代谢率（kCal·day）的影响，并对纳入研究中的间接测热法方案进行了方法学评估。亚组分析包括能量/饮食限制和身体成分变化。纳入了任何形式和持续时间的身体活动干预的随机对照试验（RCT）、准 RCT 和队列试验，但不包括单次运动。排除了影响静息代谢率的医疗条件、老年人（≥65 岁）或孕妇、哺乳期或绝经后妇女。该综述已在国际前瞻性系统评价注册库（CRD42,017,058,503）中注册。共确定了 1669 篇文章；22 篇被纳入定性分析，18 篇进行荟萃分析。运动干预（有氧运动和抗阻运动结合）并未增加静息代谢率（平均差异（MD）：74.6 kCal·day[95% CI：-13.01, 161.33]，P = 0.10）。虽然有氧运动对 RMR 没有影响（MD：81.65 kCal·day[95% CI：-57.81, 221.10]，P = 0.25），但与对照组相比，抗阻运动增加了 RMR（MD：96.17 kCal·day[95% CI：45.17, 147.16]，P = 0.0002）。本系统评价有效地综合了运动干预对 RMR 的影响与对照组相比；尽管纳入研究中的方法学存在异质性和高偏倚风险。
