Zheng Weihua, Yin Mingyue, Guo Yan, Liu Haiyang, Sun Jiaxin, Zhu Ao, Zhong Yuming, Xu Kai, Li Hansen, Piao Shunzhe
School of Social Sports, Shenyang Sport University, Shengyang, China.
School of Athletic Performance, Shanghai University of Sport, Shanghai, China.
Front Physiol. 2025 Jul 30;16:1625516. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2025.1625516. eCollection 2025.
This meta-analysis aimed to synthesize current evidence and address inconsistencies in the effects of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) and moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) on children and adolescents with overweight or obesity. We sought to: (1) assess the effects of HIIT and MICT non-exercise controls; (2) compare HIIT and MICT directly; and (3) identify potential moderators through subgroup analyses.
Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and CSTJ. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated using a random-effects model. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses explored potential moderators.
A total of 26 moderate-to-high-quality studies (Randomized controlled trials and non-RCT) involving 1,078 participants (765 males, 313 females; aged 9-19) were included. Compared with controls, HIIT significantly reduced fat mass (SMD = -0.69), waistline (SMD = -0.67), body weight (SMD = -0.81), diastolic blood pressure (diastolic blood pressure, SMD = -0.68), and improved VOmax (SMD = 2.06). moderate-intensity continuous training showed significant effects on BMI (SMD = -1.58), body weight (SMD = -0.59), DBP (SMD = -0.60), and VOmax (SMD = 1.26). HIIT outperformed MICT in improving VOmax (SMD = 0.81) and reducing systolic blood pressure (systolic blood pressure, SMD = -0.51). Subgroup analyses showed that HIIT yielded greater benefits than MICT in improving VOmax among overweight children, reducing SBP in obese male adolescents, and in programs involving more than three sessions per week.
HIIT was more effective than MICT in improving VOmax and reducing SBP, especially in specific subgroups. Running-based HIIT three times per week is recommended, while cycling may offer a safer alternative. Results should be interpreted cautiously due to limited subgroup data and potential bias.
CRD42024612098.
本荟萃分析旨在综合当前证据，解决高强度间歇训练（HIIT）和中等强度持续训练（MICT）对超重或肥胖儿童及青少年影响方面的不一致性。我们试图：（1）评估HIIT和MICT与非运动对照组相比的效果；（2）直接比较HIIT和MICT；（3）通过亚组分析确定潜在的调节因素。
在PubMed、科学网、中国知网和万方数据知识服务平台进行系统检索。使用随机效应模型计算标准化均数差（SMD）。亚组分析和敏感性分析探索潜在的调节因素。
共纳入26项中高质量研究（随机对照试验和非随机对照试验），涉及1078名参与者（765名男性，313名女性；年龄9 - 19岁）。与对照组相比，HIIT显著降低了脂肪量（SMD = -0.69）、腰围（SMD = -0.67）、体重（SMD = -0.81）、舒张压（舒张压，SMD = -0.68），并改善了最大摄氧量（SMD = 2.06）。中等强度持续训练对BMI（SMD = -1.58）、体重（SMD = -0.59）、舒张压（SMD = -0.60）和最大摄氧量（SMD = 1.26）有显著影响。在改善最大摄氧量（SMD = 0.81）和降低收缩压（收缩压，SMD = -0.51）方面，HIIT优于MICT。亚组分析表明，在超重儿童中，HIIT在改善最大摄氧量方面比MICT更有益；在肥胖男性青少年中，HIIT在降低收缩压方面更有益；在每周进行超过三次训练的项目中，HIIT也更有益。
在改善最大摄氧量和降低收缩压方面，HIIT比MICT更有效，尤其是在特定亚组中。建议每周进行三次基于跑步的HIIT，而骑自行车可能是一种更安全的选择。由于亚组数据有限和潜在偏倚，结果应谨慎解释。
PROSPERO注册编号：CRD42024612098。
