Medicine and science in sports and exercise · 2021
Effectiveness of HIIE versus MICT in Improving Cardiometabolic Risk Factors in Health and Disease: A Meta-analysis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mattioni Maturana Felipe, Martus Peter, Zipfel Stephan, NIEß Andreas M
Аннотация
PURPOSE: We aimed to investigate differences between high-intensity interval exercise (HIIE, including high-intensity interval training and sprint interval training) and moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) on physical fitness, body composition, blood pressure, blood lipids, insulin and glucose metabolism, inflammation, and endothelial function.
METHODS: Differences between HIIE and MICT were summarized using a random-effects meta-analysis on the effect size (Cohen's d). A meta-regression was conducted using the following subgroups: population, age, training duration, men ratio, exercise type, baseline values (clinical relevant ranges), and type of HIIE. Studies were included if at least one of the following outcomes were reported: maximal oxygen uptake (V˙O2max), flow-mediated dilation (FMD), body mass index (BMI), body mass, percent body fat, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, high-density lipoprotein (HDL), low-density lipoprotein (LDL), triglycerides, total cholesterol, C-reactive protein (CRP), fasting glucose and insulin, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), and insulin resistance (HOMA-IR). A total of 55 studies were included.
RESULTS: Overall, HIIE was superior to MICT in improving V˙O2max (d = 0.40, P < 0.001) and FMD (d = 0.54, P < 0.05). Oppositely, MICT was superior to HIIE in improving HbA1c (d = -0.27, P < 0.05). No differences were observed in BMI (d = -0.02), body mass (d = -0.05), percent body fat (d = 0.04), systolic blood pressure (d = -0.04), diastolic blood pressure (d = 0.03), HDL (d = -0.05), LDL (d = 0.08), triglycerides (d = 0.03), total cholesterol (d = 0.14), CRP (d = -0.11), fasting insulin (d = 0.02), fasting glucose (d = 0.02), and HOMA-IR (d = -0.04). Moderator analyses indicated that the difference between HIIE and MICT was affected by different subgroups.
CONCLUSION: Overall, HIIE showed to be more effective in improving cardiovascular health and cardiorespiratory fitness, whereas MICT was superior in improving long-term glucose metabolism. In the process of personalized training counseling, health-enhancing effects of exercise training may be improved by considering the individual risk profiles.
METHODS: Differences between HIIE and MICT were summarized using a random-effects meta-analysis on the effect size (Cohen's d). A meta-regression was conducted using the following subgroups: population, age, training duration, men ratio, exercise type, baseline values (clinical relevant ranges), and type of HIIE. Studies were included if at least one of the following outcomes were reported: maximal oxygen uptake (V˙O2max), flow-mediated dilation (FMD), body mass index (BMI), body mass, percent body fat, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, high-density lipoprotein (HDL), low-density lipoprotein (LDL), triglycerides, total cholesterol, C-reactive protein (CRP), fasting glucose and insulin, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), and insulin resistance (HOMA-IR). A total of 55 studies were included.
RESULTS: Overall, HIIE was superior to MICT in improving V˙O2max (d = 0.40, P < 0.001) and FMD (d = 0.54, P < 0.05). Oppositely, MICT was superior to HIIE in improving HbA1c (d = -0.27, P < 0.05). No differences were observed in BMI (d = -0.02), body mass (d = -0.05), percent body fat (d = 0.04), systolic blood pressure (d = -0.04), diastolic blood pressure (d = 0.03), HDL (d = -0.05), LDL (d = 0.08), triglycerides (d = 0.03), total cholesterol (d = 0.14), CRP (d = -0.11), fasting insulin (d = 0.02), fasting glucose (d = 0.02), and HOMA-IR (d = -0.04). Moderator analyses indicated that the difference between HIIE and MICT was affected by different subgroups.
CONCLUSION: Overall, HIIE showed to be more effective in improving cardiovascular health and cardiorespiratory fitness, whereas MICT was superior in improving long-term glucose metabolism. In the process of personalized training counseling, health-enhancing effects of exercise training may be improved by considering the individual risk profiles.