Department of Sports Science and Physical Education, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong.
School of Health and Exercise Sciences, University of British Columbia, Kelowna, BC, Canada.
Sports Med. 2024 Nov;54(11):2817-2840. doi: 10.1007/s40279-024-02070-9. Epub 2024 Jul 14.
Although the efficacy of interval training for improving body composition has been summarized in an increasing number of systematic reviews in recent years, discrepancies in review findings and conclusions have been observed.
This study aims to synthesize the available evidence on the efficacy of interval training compared with moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) and nonexercise control (CON) in reducing body adiposity in apparently healthy adults.
An umbrella review with meta-analysis was performed. A systematic search was conducted in seven databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database, CINAHL, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science) up to October 2023. Systematic reviews with meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing interval training and MICT/CON were included. Literature selection, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment (AMSTAR-2) were conducted independently by two reviewers. Meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on the type of interval training [high-intensity interval training (HIIT) and sprint interval training (SIT)], intervention duration, body mass index, exercise modality, and volume of HIIT protocols.
Sixteen systematic reviews, including 79 RCTs and 2474 unique participants, met the inclusion criteria. Most systematic reviews had a critically low (n = 6) or low (n = 6) AMSTAR-2 score. Interval training demonstrated significantly greater reductions in total body fat percent (BF%) compared with MICT [weighted mean difference (WMD) of - 0.77%; 95% confidence interval (CI) - 1.12 to - 0.32%] and CON (WMD of - 1.50%; 95% CI - 2.40 to - 0.58%). Significant reductions in fat mass, visceral adipose tissue, subcutaneous abdominal fat, and android abdominal fat were also observed following interval training compared to CON. Subgroup analyses indicated that both HIIT and SIT resulted in superior BF% loss than MICT. These benefits appeared to be more prominent in individuals with overweight/obesity and longer duration interventions (≥ 12 weeks), as well as in protocols using cycling as a modality and low-volume HIIT (i.e., < 15 min of high-intensity exercise per session).
This novel umbrella review with large-scale meta-analysis provides an updated synthesis of evidence with implications for physical activity guideline recommendations. The findings support interval training as a viable exercise strategy for reducing adiposity in the general population.
近年来，越来越多的系统评价总结了间歇训练对改善身体成分的功效，但在评价结果和结论上存在差异。
本研究旨在综合现有证据，评估间歇训练与中等强度持续训练（MICT）和非运动对照（CON）相比，在减少健康成年人身体脂肪方面的效果。
采用伞式评价与荟萃分析。系统检索了 7 个数据库（MEDLINE、EMBASE、Cochrane 数据库、CINAHL、Scopus、SPORTDiscus 和 Web of Science），截至 2023 年 10 月。纳入了比较间歇训练与 MICT/CON 的随机对照试验（RCT）的系统评价和荟萃分析。文献选择、数据提取和方法学质量评估（AMSTAR-2）由两名评审员独立进行。使用随机效应模型进行荟萃分析。根据间歇训练类型[高强度间歇训练（HIIT）和冲刺间歇训练（SIT）]、干预持续时间、体重指数、运动方式和 HIIT 方案的容量进行亚组分析。
纳入了 16 项系统评价，包括 79 项 RCT 和 2474 名独特参与者。大多数系统评价的 AMSTAR-2 评分较低（n=6）或临界低（n=6）。与 MICT 相比，间歇训练显著降低了体脂百分比（BF%）（加权均数差（WMD）为-0.77%；95%置信区间（CI）为-1.12 至-0.32%）和 CON（WMD 为-1.50%；95%CI 为-2.40 至-0.58%）。与 CON 相比，间歇训练还显著降低了脂肪量、内脏脂肪组织、腹部皮下脂肪和腹部安卓脂肪。亚组分析表明，HIIT 和 SIT 均导致 BF%的降低优于 MICT。这些益处似乎在超重/肥胖和持续时间较长的干预（≥12 周），以及使用自行车作为运动方式和低容量 HIIT（即每次会话的高强度运动时间<15 分钟）的方案中更为明显。
本项具有大规模荟萃分析的新型伞式评价提供了最新的证据综合，对体力活动指南建议具有重要意义。研究结果支持间歇训练作为一种可行的运动策略，可用于降低普通人群的肥胖率。
