de Oude Kirsten I, Elbers Roy G, Gerger Heike, Maes-Festen Dederieke A M, Oppewal Alyt
Department of General Practice, Intellectual Disability Medicine Research, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, NA 1909, P.O. Box 2040, Rotterdam, 3000 CA, The Netherlands.
Academic Collaborative Research Center Healthy Ageing and Intellectual Disabilities, NA 1909, P.O. Box 2040, Rotterdam, 3000 CA, The Netherlands.
Eur Heart J Open. 2025 Aug 12;5(5):oeaf093. doi: 10.1093/ehjopen/oeaf093. eCollection 2025 Sep.
Resistance training effectively reduces cardiovascular risk factors (CVRFs). However, the optimal training intensity remains unclear. Firstly, this systematic review investigated the effects of different resistance training intensities on glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), systolic blood pressure (SBP), low-density lipoprotein (LDL), and waist-to-hip ratio (WHR). Secondly, we aimed to compare the effect of different resistance training intensities with each other. We identified randomized controlled trials ( = 59) investigating progressive ( = 9), low ( = 15), moderate ( = 33), and high intensity ( = 4) resistance training in adults with CVRFs. We used random-effects models to investigate the effects of each intensity on CVRFs compared to non-active controls and meta-regression analyses to investigate differences in effect between training intensities. Meta-analyses showed statistically significant effects of low to moderate certainty. Progressive intensity reduced SBP {-14.70 mm/Hg, 95% confidence interval [CI] (-16.40; -13.00)} and LDL [-0.16 mmol/L, 95% CI (-0.19; -0.13)]. High intensity reduced HbA1c [-0.81%, 95% CI (-1.52; -0.10)], low intensity LDL [-0.10 mmol/L, 95% CI (-0.16; -0.04)], and moderate intensity WHR [-0.02, 95% CI (-0.03; -0.01)] and HbA1c [-0.40%, 95% CI (-0.66; -0.14)]. Meta-regression analyses showed high intensity was significantly more effective in reducing WHR than low intensity. No significant differences were found between resistance training intensities for HbA1c, SBP, and LDL. In one study, high intensity was more effective than low intensity in reducing WHR. However, the limited number of studies investigating high and progressive intensity and the certainty of evidence limits the ability for definitive conclusions. More research is needed for clarification on the effect of different resistance training intensities on multiple CVRFs.
抗阻训练能有效降低心血管危险因素（CVRFs）。然而，最佳训练强度仍不明确。首先，本系统评价研究了不同抗阻训练强度对糖化血红蛋白（HbA1c）、收缩压（SBP）、低密度脂蛋白（LDL）和腰臀比（WHR）的影响。其次，我们旨在比较不同抗阻训练强度之间的效果。我们纳入了59项随机对照试验，这些试验研究了有CVRFs的成年人进行渐进式（9项）、低强度（15项）、中等强度（33项）和高强度（4项）抗阻训练的情况。我们使用随机效应模型研究与非运动对照组相比，每种强度对CVRFs的影响，并进行meta回归分析以研究训练强度之间的效果差异。Meta分析显示具有低至中等确定性的统计学显著效果。渐进式强度降低了SBP（-14.70 mmHg，95%置信区间[CI]为[-16.40；-13.00]）和LDL（-0.16 mmol/L，95%CI为[-0.19；-0.13]）。高强度降低了HbA1c（-0.81%，95%CI为[-1.52；-0.10]）、低强度组的LDL（-0.10 mmol/L，95%CI为[-0.16；-0.04]）、中等强度组的WHR（-0.02，95%CI为[-0.03；-0.01]）和HbA1c（-0.40%，95%CI为[-0.66；-0.14]）。Meta回归分析显示，高强度在降低WHR方面比低强度显著更有效。在HbA1c、SBP和LDL方面，抗阻训练强度之间未发现显著差异。在一项研究中，高强度在降低WHR方面比低强度更有效。然而，研究高强度和渐进式强度的研究数量有限以及证据的确定性限制了得出明确结论的能力。需要更多研究来阐明不同抗阻训练强度对多种CVRFs的影响。
