Feng Xinmiao, Zhao Linlin, Chen Yonghui, Wang Zihao, Lu Hongyuan, Wang Chuangang
Sports Coaching College, Beijing Sports University, Beijing, China.
Beijing Sport University, Beijing, China.
Front Physiol. 2023 Sep 5;14:1223037. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2023.1223037. eCollection 2023.
This study aimed to compare and rank the effect of hypoxic practices on maximum oxygen consumption (VOmax) in athletes and determine the hypoxic dose-response correlation using network meta-analysis. The Web of Science, PubMed, EMBASE, and EBSCO databases were systematically search for randomized controlled trials on the effect of hypoxc interventions on the VOmax of athletes published from inception until 21 February 2023. Studies that used live-high train-high (LHTH), live-high train-low (LHTL), live-high, train-high/low (HHL), intermittent hypoxic training (IHT), and intermittent hypoxic exposure (IHE) interventions were primarily included. LHTL was further defined according to the type of hypoxic environment (natural and simulated) and the altitude of the training site (low altitude and sea level). A meta-analysis was conducted to determine the standardized mean difference between the effects of various hypoxic interventions on VOmax and dose-response correlation. Furthermore, the hypoxic dosage of the different interventions were coordinated using the "kilometer hour" model. From 2,072 originally identified titles, 59 studies were finally included in this study. After data pooling, LHTL, LHTH, and IHT outperformed normoxic training in improving the VOmax of athletes. According to the P-scores, LHTL combined with low altitude training was the most effective intervention for improving VOmax (natural: 0.92 and simulated: 0.86) and was better than LHTL combined with sea level training (0.56). A reasonable hypoxic dose range for LHTH (470-1,130 kmh) and HL (500-1,415 kmh) was reported with an inverted U-shaped curve relationship. Different types of hypoxic training compared with normoxic training serve as significant approaches for improving aerobic capacity in athletes. Regardless of the type of hypoxic training and the residential condition, LHTL with low altitude training was the most effective intervention. The characteristics of the dose-effect correlation of LHTH and LHTL may be associated with the negative effects of chronic hypoxia.
本研究旨在比较并排序低氧训练对运动员最大摄氧量（VOmax）的影响，并使用网络荟萃分析确定低氧剂量-反应相关性。系统检索了Web of Science、PubMed、EMBASE和EBSCO数据库中从创刊至2023年2月21日发表的关于低氧干预对运动员VOmax影响的随机对照试验。主要纳入使用高住高练（LHTH）、高住低练（LHTL）、高住、高/低训练（HHL）、间歇性低氧训练（IHT）和间歇性低氧暴露（IHE）干预的研究。LHTL根据低氧环境类型（自然和模拟）以及训练地点的海拔高度（低海拔和海平面）进一步定义。进行荟萃分析以确定各种低氧干预对VOmax影响之间的标准化平均差和剂量-反应相关性。此外，使用“千米小时”模型协调不同干预的低氧剂量。从最初识别的2072篇标题中，最终有59项研究纳入本研究。数据合并后，LHTL、LHTH和IHT在提高运动员VOmax方面优于常氧训练。根据P值，LHTL结合低海拔训练是提高VOmax最有效的干预措施（自然环境：0.92，模拟环境：0.86），且优于LHTL结合海平面训练（0.56）。报告了LHTH（470-1130千米小时）和HL（500-1415千米小时）的合理低氧剂量范围，呈倒U形曲线关系。与常氧训练相比，不同类型的低氧训练是提高运动员有氧能力的重要方法。无论低氧训练类型和居住条件如何，LHTL结合低海拔训练是最有效的干预措施。LHTH和LHTL剂量-效应相关性的特征可能与慢性低氧的负面影响有关。
