Lafontant Kworweinski, Rukstela Alexa, Hanson Ardis, Chan Janet, Alsayed Yasamian, Ayers-Creech Wayne A, Bale Cassidy, Ohigashi Yuto, Solis John, Shelton Gretchen, Alur Indira, Resler Cassandra, Heath Andrew, Ericksen Savannah, Forbes Scott C, Campbell Bill I
University of South Florida, Performance & Physique Enhancement Lab, Exercise Science Program, Tampa, FL, USA.
University of Central Florida, Physiology of Work and Exercise Response (POWER) Lab, Institute of Exercise Physiology and Rehabilitation Sciences, Orlando, FL, USA.
J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2025 Dec;22(1):2507949. doi: 10.1080/15502783.2025.2507949. Epub 2025 May 22.
This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the differential effects of resistance training (RT), aerobic training (AT), and concurrent training (CT) on body mass and body fat loss in metabolically healthy individuals.
A systematic search of PubMed, SportDiscus, and Web of Science databases for randomized controlled trials published between January 1980 and January 2023, comparing RT, AT, and CT in healthy adults was conducted. Primary outcomes of interest included changes in fat mass and body fat percentage; secondary outcomes were body mass and fat-free mass (FFM). Sub-analyses on intervention duration (< or ≥ 10 weeks), CT timing (aerobic and resistance exercises done on the same day versus different days within a week), and workload matching (equating workloads between AT, RT, and CT), were conducted. Study protocols followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines and were pre-registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023396530).
In total, 36 studies with 1564 participants were included in the systematic review, with only 31 studies included in the meta-analysis due to missing data. For studies lasting at least 10 weeks, AT outperformed RT in reducing body mass (mean difference (MD) = -1.82 kg [95% CI = -2.72 to -0.93]; < 0.001) and fat mass (MD = -1.06 kg [95% CI = -1.88 to -0.24]; = 0.01) but led to less FFM retention (MD = - 0.88 kg [95% CI = -1.73 to -0.03], = 0.04). CT reduced significantly more fat mass compared to RT (MD: -1.09 kg [95% CI = -0.27 to -1.91]; = 0.009). No significant differences were found between CT, AT, and RT in altering body fat percentage ( > 0.05). For studies shorter than 10 weeks, no significant differences were noted across exercise modalities ( > 0.05). Under conditions where AT, RT, and CT workloads were matched, similar fat mass, body mass, body fat percentage, and FFM changes were observed between exercise modalities ( > 0.05). Similar body mass and body fat percentage loss was observed between same-day and different-day CT ( > 0.05); body fat mass loss only differed in a single study ( = 1) when comparing RT to different-day CT (aerobic and resistance exercises done on different days within a week).
While there are no differences in percent body fat loss between exercise modes, AT and CT are more effective than RT alone in reducing absolute fat mass; however, RT neither improved nor impeded fat mass loss when incorporated into CT. Combining aerobic and resistance exercises on the same-day or different-day does not appear to influence the effectiveness of CT. When exercise interventions are short in duration (<10 weeks), there does not appear to be a difference in fat loss between exercise modalities. These results support the concurrent use of aerobic and resistance exercises for fat mass reduction, as well as an emphasis on workload and duration when programming exercise for fat loss.
本系统评价和荟萃分析比较了抗阻训练(RT)、有氧训练(AT)和联合训练(CT)对代谢健康个体体重和体脂减少的不同影响。
对1980年1月至2023年1月发表的比较健康成年人中RT、AT和CT的随机对照试验,在PubMed、SportDiscus和Web of Science数据库中进行系统检索。感兴趣的主要结局包括脂肪量和体脂百分比的变化;次要结局是体重和去脂体重(FFM)。对干预持续时间(<或≥10周)、CT时间安排(有氧和抗阻运动在同一天进行与在一周内不同天进行)以及工作量匹配(使AT、RT和CT之间的工作量相等)进行亚组分析。研究方案遵循PRISMA 2020指南,并在PROSPERO(CRD42023396530)上预先注册。
系统评价共纳入36项研究1564名参与者,由于数据缺失,荟萃分析仅纳入31项研究。对于持续至少10周的研究,AT在减轻体重(平均差值(MD)=-1.82 kg [95%置信区间(CI)=-2.72至-0.93];P<0.001)和脂肪量(MD=-1.06 kg [95% CI=-1.88至-0.24];P=0.01)方面优于RT,但导致FFM保留较少(MD=-0.88 kg [95% CI=-1.73至-0.03],P=0.04)。与RT相比,CT显著减少更多的脂肪量(MD:-1.09 kg [95% CI=-0.27至-1.91];P=0.009)。在改变体脂百分比方面,CT、AT和RT之间未发现显著差异(P>0.05)。对于持续时间短于10周的研究,各运动方式之间未观察到显著差异(P>0.05)。在AT、RT和CT工作量匹配的条件下,各运动方式之间观察到相似的脂肪量、体重、体脂百分比和FFM变化(P>0.05)。同一天和不同天CT之间观察到相似的体重和体脂百分比下降(P>0.05);在将RT与不同天CT(有氧和抗阻运动在一周内不同天进行)比较时,仅在一项研究(n=1)中观察到脂肪量减少存在差异。
虽然不同运动方式在体脂减少百分比上没有差异,但AT和CT在减少绝对脂肪量方面比单独的RT更有效;然而,RT纳入CT时既没有改善也没有阻碍脂肪量的减少。在同一天或不同天进行有氧和抗阻运动似乎不会影响CT的效果。当运动干预持续时间较短(<10周)时,各运动方式之间在脂肪减少方面似乎没有差异。这些结果支持同时使用有氧和抗阻运动来减少脂肪量,以及在制定减脂运动计划时强调工作量和持续时间。