Moreno-Cabañas Alfonso, Morales-Palomo Felix, Alvarez-Jimenez Laura, Mora-Gonzalez Diego, Garcia-Camacho Eva, Martinez-Mulero Belen, Mora-Rodriguez Ricardo
Exercise Physiology Lab at Toledo, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Toledo, Spain.
Centre for Nutrition, Exercise, and Metabolism, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.
J Appl Physiol (1985). 2025 Jan 1;138(1):144-156. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00501.2024. Epub 2024 Nov 26.
We analyzed the interindividual heterogeneity in health responses to a supervised high-intensity interval training (HIIT) program in individuals with metabolic syndrome (MetS). Two hundred and sixty-four adults with overweight/obesity (56.3 ± 7.3 yr, body mass index: 32.3 ± 4.7 kg/m) and MetS were randomized to a standard health care nonexercise group (CONT group, = 58) or standard health care plus HIIT (EXER group, = 206). HIIT intervention was performed on a cycloergometer thrice a week (43 min/session). MetS components (i.e., MetS score), cardiorespiratory fitness (V̇o), maximal cycling power (W), and body weight/composition was assessed in both groups before (0 wk) and after the intervention (16 wk). Individual responses in the EXER group were considered attributable to HIIT when the improvements were larger than twice the typical error (>2TE). TE was calculated using pre- and postintervention data from the time-matched CONT group. The percentage of participants who improved MetS score beyond 2TE was 51% driven by reductions in blood pressure (45%) and waist circumference (48%). Blood lipids and glucose response were only 21% and 16%, respectively (participants improving beyond 2TE). Sixty percent of individuals who improved MetS score also improved V̇o ( = -0.013; = 0.86), whereas 85% of individuals improving MetS score also improved W ( = 0.151; = 0.03). In summary, health providers can expect that a 16-wk HIIT program would indisputably improve MetS in approximately 50% of individuals completing the program. Finally, W better predicts which individuals would improve MetS than V̇o when the direct assessment of the five MetS factors is not feasible. Our study offers healthcare providers the expected percentage of individuals who would improve their metabolic syndrome condition after completing a standardized HIIT program (16 wk, 43 min/session, 3 days/wk). Only half of the subjects achieved indisputable improvement in their MetS score when we accounted for biological variability and instrument errors. Detection of individuals with a positive response in MetS score could be inferred from gains in maximal cycling power (i.e., exercise functionality).
我们分析了代谢综合征（MetS）患者对监督下的高强度间歇训练（HIIT）计划的健康反应的个体间异质性。264名超重/肥胖成年人（56.3±7.3岁，体重指数：32.3±4.7kg/m²）和MetS患者被随机分为标准医疗非运动组（CONT组，n = 58）或标准医疗加HIIT组（EXER组，n = 206）。HIIT干预在周期测力计上每周进行三次（每次43分钟）。在干预前（0周）和干预后（16周）评估两组的MetS组分（即MetS评分）、心肺适能（V̇O₂）、最大骑行功率（W）以及体重/身体成分。当EXER组的个体改善幅度大于典型误差的两倍（>2TE）时，其反应被认为归因于HIIT。TE使用来自时间匹配的CONT组的干预前后数据计算得出。血压（45%）和腰围（48%）降低使得MetS评分改善超过2TE的参与者比例为51%。血脂和血糖反应分别仅为21%和16%（改善超过2TE的参与者）。MetS评分改善的个体中有60%的人V̇O₂也得到改善（r = -0.013；P = 0.86），而MetS评分改善的个体中有85%的人W也得到改善（r = 0.151；P = 0.03）。总之，医疗服务提供者可以预期，一个为期16周的HIIT计划无疑会使大约50%完成该计划的个体的MetS得到改善。最后，当无法直接评估五个MetS因素时，W比V̇O₂能更好地预测哪些个体的MetS会得到改善。我们的研究为医疗服务提供者提供了完成标准化HIIT计划（16周，每次43分钟，每周3天）后代谢综合征状况会得到改善的个体的预期百分比。当我们考虑生物变异性和仪器误差时，只有一半的受试者在MetS评分上实现了无可争议的改善。MetS评分呈阳性反应的个体可以通过最大骑行功率的增加（即运动功能）来推断。
