间歇与持续训练对体力活动不足成人生活质量影响的 Meta 分析.

Effects of interval and continuous training on the quality of life in physically inactive adults: a metaanalysis.

OBJECTIVE: High-intensity interval training (HIIT) and moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) can improve the quality of life of patients with clinical chronic diseases, but their application effects and regulatory factors in adults with insufficient physical activity are still unclear. This study aimed to explore the application effects and regulatory factors of HIIT and MICT on the quality of life of adults with insufficient physical activity. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in databases including Web of Science Core Collection, Medline (EBSCO Host), PubMed, and Cochrane Library. The search time limit was from the establishment of each database to September 2023. The types of included literature were randomized controlled trials, and the research subjects were physically inactive adults. RevMan 5.4 software and the GRADE evidence evaluation framework were used to assess the quality of the included literature. Main effects pooling of random effects models was performed using R Studio (version 4.2.0). Subgroup analyses, regression analyses, and sensitivity analyzes were used to explore the sources of study heterogeneity and moderators. RESULTS: (1) Thirty-two randomized controlled trials of moderate to high quality were included, involving 2 083 physically inactive adults (HIIT group n=474; MICT group n=708; control group n=901). (2) Compared with the non-training control group, HIIT [Hedges’ g=0.61; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.40-0.83; I 2 =45%] and MICT (Hedges’ g=0.66; 95% CI: 0.25-1.08; I 2 =89%) significantly improved the quality of life. Direct comparison studies of HIIT and MICT found no significant differences in the quality of life (Hedges’ g=-0.01; 95% CI: -0.23-0.21; I 2 =0%). (3) Subgroup analysis showed that HIIT and MICT were more effective in improving the physical components of the quality of life (HIIT: Hedges’ g=0.82 vs. 0.75; MICT: Hedges’ g=0.74 vs. 0.55), while cycling had a better trend in improving overall quality of life (HIIT: Hedges’ g=0.74 vs. 0.36; MICT: Hedges’ g=1.08 vs. 0.52). (4) Additionally, regression analysis did not identify any significant moderators (P > 0.05 for all factors). (5) None of the above meta-analyses found publication bias (Egger test P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: (1) Moderate to high level evidence shows that both HIIT and MICT can improve the quality of life of adults with insufficient physical activity, and the intervention effects between the two are similar. Therefore, when choosing between these two options, it is necessary to comprehensively consider factors such as time economy, scheduling flexibility, and application feasibility to formulate a personalized exercise plan. (2) This study recommends that when applying HIIT, a low-volume protocol (for example, 5 groups each time, 1 minute each), 3 times/week, and ride at 80%-95% of the maximum heart rate is used to achieve the theoretical best improvement effect. (3) Although MICT improves the quality of life, there is insufficient evidence that increasing exercise duration brings additional benefits. Therefore, this study recommends that when MICT is conducted, it should be carried out more than three times a week, with each training duration controlled between 25 and 60 minutes, and cycling at 50%-75% of the maximum heart rate, in order to achieve the theoretically expected best improvement effect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

目的: 高强度间歇训练 (high-intensity interval training, HIIT) 和中等强度持续训练 (moderate-intensity continuous training, MICT) 对临床慢性病 患者生活质量均有改善作用, 但其对于体力活动不足成人的应用效果与调节因素尚不明确. 文章旨在探究HIIT与 MICT 对体力活动不足成人 生活质量的应用效果与调节因素. 方法: 在 Web of Science 核心合集、Medline (EBSCO Host) 、PubMed 和 Cochrane Library 数据库中进行文献检索, 检索时限为各数据库建库至 2023 年 9 月. 纳入文献类型为随机对照试验, 研究对象为体力活动不足成人. 采用 RevMan 5.4软件和 GRADE 证据评价框架对纳入文献进行 质量评价. 使用 R Studio (版本4.2.0) 进行随机效应模型的主效应合并. 亚组分析、回归分析和敏感性分析用于探讨研究异质性来源和调节因 素. 结果: ①纳入32 项中等至高质量的随机对照试验, 共 2 083 名体力活动不足成人对象 (HIIT 组 474 例; MICT 组 708 例; 对照组 901 例). ②相比 于无训练对照组, HIIT (Hedges’ g=0.61; 95%CI: 0.40-0.83; I 2 =45%) 与 MICT (Hedges’ g=0.66; 95%CI: 0.25-1.08; I 2 =89%) 均能显著提升生活质 量. 当直接比较 HIIT 与 MICT 时, 二者之间的影响未观察到显著差异 (Hedges’ g=-0.01; 95%CI: -0.23-0.21; I 2 =0%). ③亚组分析结果显示, HIIT 和 MICT 在提高身体层面的生活质量更为有效 (HIIT: Hedges’ g=0.82 vs. 0.75; MICT: Hedges’ g=0.74 vs. 0.55), 而骑行在提高整体生活质 量方面有更好的趋势 (HIIT: Hedges’ g=0.74 vs. 0.36; MICT: Hedges’ g=1.08 vs. 0.52). ④回归分析未识别出任何显著的调节因素 (所有因素P > 0.05). ⑤上述 Meta 分析均未发现发表偏倚 (Egger 检验 P > 0.05). 结论: ①中高级别的证据表明, HIIT 与 MICT 均能改善体力活动不足成人的生活质量, 且二者之间的干预效果类似. 因此, 在选择这两种方 案时, 需综合考虑安排灵活性、时间经济性以及应用可行性等因素制订个性化运动方案. ②文章推荐在应用HIIT时, 3 次/周, 使用低量方 案 (例如, 每次 5 组, 每组 1 min), 以 80%-95% 最大心率进行骑行可达理论最佳改善效果. ③尽管 MICT 可提高生活质量, 但尚无充分证据显 示增加运动时长会带来额外益处. 因此, 建议在实施 MICT 时, 每周进行 3 次以上, 每次训练时长控制在 25-60 min, 并以 50%-75% 最大心率 进行骑行, 以达到理论上预期的最佳改善效果. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research / Zhongguo Zuzhi Gongcheng Yanjiu is the property of Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)