Sport and Exercise Psychology Laboratory (LAPE), State University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil.
Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Nov;31(11):812-817. doi: 10.1016/j.tem.2020.08.003. Epub 2020 Sep 21.
In recent years, high-intensity interval training (HIIT) has gained prominence in the health and fitness area, becoming a worldwide trend. Given the positive results of HIIT, researchers have compared it with moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT). However, much of that research has presented methodological challenges. Therefore, the aim of this opinion article is to address an important risk of bias common in research comparing HIIT and MICT: the lack of equalisation among protocols. This limitation can be considered a risk of bias that limits the conclusions of many studies. Thus, it is necessary to achieve the equalisation of sessions in some way such as using equalisation by energy expenditure, by workload performed in the session, or by duration of the session.
近年来,高强度间歇训练(HIIT)在健康和健身领域备受关注,成为一种全球趋势。鉴于 HIIT 的积极效果,研究人员将其与中等强度持续训练(MICT)进行了比较。然而,许多此类研究都提出了方法学上的挑战。因此,本文旨在探讨在比较 HIIT 和 MICT 的研究中常见的一个重要偏倚风险:方案之间缺乏均衡。这种局限性可以被认为是一种偏倚风险,限制了许多研究的结论。因此,有必要以某种方式实现方案之间的均衡,例如通过能量消耗、会话中完成的工作量或会话持续时间进行均衡。