Department of Sports Medicine, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Frankfurt/Main, Germany.
Sci Rep. 2020 Dec 10;10(1):21680. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-78615-5.
High-intensity functional training (HIFT) has become a popular method in the sports and fitness sector. In contrast to unimodal approaches such as strength or endurance training, it has been hypothesized to induce concurrent adaptations in multiple markers of motor function. However, to date, the effectiveness of HIFT in this regard has not been studied. The present systematic review quantified the chronic effects of HIFT on motor function in healthy individuals. A multilevel meta-analysis with a robust random effects meta-regession model was used to pool the standardized mean differences (SMD) between (a) HIFT and (b) no-exercise (NEX) as well as conventional endurance, resistance and balance training for outcomes of muscle strength, endurance capacity and balance. The influence of possible effect modifiers such as program duration, session duration, age or sex was examined in a moderator analysis. Seventeen papers with moderate to high methodological quality (PEDro scale) were identified. Compared to NEX, HIFT had small to moderate positive effects on endurance capacity (SMD: 0.42, 95% CI 0.07-0.78, p = 0.03) and strength (0.60, 95% CI 0.02-1.18, p = 0.04) but no effect on balance (SMD: - 0.10, 95% CI - 1.13 to 0.92, p = 0.42). Regarding endurance, HIFT showed similar effectiveness as moderate-intensity endurance training (SMD: - 0.11, 95% CI - 1.17 to 0.95, p = 0.75) and high-intensity interval endurance training (SMD: - 0.15, 95% CI - 1.4 to 1.1, p = 0.66). No comparisons of HIFT vs. classical resistance or balance training were found. Moderator analyses revealed no influence of most effect modifiers. However, regarding endurance, females seemed to respond more strongly to HIFT in the comparison to NEX (p < .05). HIFT appears to represent an appropriate method to induce chronic improvements in motor function. While being superior to NEX and non-inferior to endurance training, current evidence does not allow a comparison against resistance and balance training. The impact of possible effect moderators should be further elucidated in future research.
高强度功能性训练（HIFT）已成为运动和健身领域的一种流行方法。与单一模式的方法（如力量或耐力训练）相比，它被假设可以同时适应多个运动功能标志物。然而，迄今为止，尚未研究 HIFT 在这方面的有效性。本系统评价定量评估了 HIFT 对健康个体运动功能的慢性影响。使用多级荟萃分析和稳健随机效应荟萃回归模型，对高强度功能性训练（HIFT）与（a）无运动（NEX）以及常规耐力、阻力和平衡训练之间的标准化均数差（SMD）进行了汇总，以评估肌肉力量、耐力能力和平衡能力的结果。在一项调节分析中，检查了可能的调节因素（如方案持续时间、疗程持续时间、年龄或性别）的影响。确定了 17 篇具有中等至高度方法学质量（PEDro 量表）的论文。与 NEX 相比，HIFT 对耐力能力（SMD：0.42，95%CI 0.07-0.78，p=0.03）和力量（0.60，95%CI 0.02-1.18，p=0.04）有小到中度的积极影响，但对平衡没有影响（SMD：-0.10，95%CI -1.13 至 0.92，p=0.42）。关于耐力，HIFT 与中等强度耐力训练（SMD：-0.11，95%CI -1.17 至 0.95，p=0.75）和高强度间歇耐力训练（SMD：-0.15，95%CI -1.4 至 1.1，p=0.66）具有相似的效果。没有发现 HIFT 与经典阻力或平衡训练的比较。调节分析显示，大多数调节因素没有影响。然而，关于耐力，女性在与 NEX 的比较中似乎对 HIFT 的反应更为强烈（p<.05）。HIFT 似乎是一种能够诱导运动功能慢性改善的合适方法。虽然优于 NEX 且与耐力训练相当，但目前的证据不允许与阻力和平衡训练进行比较。未来的研究应进一步阐明可能的调节因素的影响。
