大强度间歇训练与中等强度持续训练对耗氧量动力学特征影响的比较研究

The Comparative Study of High-Intensity Interval Training and Moderate-intensity Continuous Training on the Oxygen Uptake Kinetics

目的:比较大强度间歇训练(High-intensity Interval Training,HIT)和中等强度持续训练(Moderate-intensity Continuous Training,MCT)对斜坡测试(Ramp)、中等强度及高强度持续运动中耗氧量动力学(OUK,Oxygen Uptake Kinetics)等参数的影响。方法:36名青年男性受试者分为高强度间歇训练组(HIT)、中等强度持续训练组(MCT,)和对照组(NOT),MCT和HIT两干预组分别进行6周、每周3次强度不同而训练量相同的运动干预;各组干预前(Pre)、中(Mid)、后(Post)分别进行Ramp力竭测试及中、高强度持续运动的OUK测试。结果:6周干预后,HIT与MCT两干预组VO_2max/kg(最大耗氧量)、VO_2-VAT(通气无氧阈耗氧量)、VO_2/kg-VAT(通气无氧阈耗氧量相对值)、Waat-VAT(通气无氧阈功率)均表现为干预后值高于干预前(P<0.05)、干预中值(P<0.01);3组受试者之间上述参数组间差异显著(P<0.05),但仅表现HIT、MCT组与NOT组之间差异显著,HIT与MCT两组之间差异不显著(P>0.05);A_(slop)(Delta效率)、A_(OUES)(耗氧效率坡度)组间效应不显著(P>0.05)。中等强度下OUK各参数仅有τ(Tau,OUK时间常数)值组间效应显著(F=3.652,P=0.04<0.05),HIT与MCT两干预组分别与NOT之间组间效应显著(HIT vs NOT,P=0.027<0.05;MCT vs NOT,P=0.027<0.05),但HIT、MCT两干预组Mid、Post阶段,组间差异不显著(P>0.05),各组各时间点TD值、A值组间差异不显著(P>0.05)。大强度运动时A1(A,耗氧幅度)值组间效应显著(F=4.439,P=0.011<0.05),除了MCT及HIT分别与NOT组组间差异显著外,HIT与MCT之间差异显著(P<0.05),6周后HIT组A1值显著高于同阶段MCT组(1 893.9±132.1vs 1 632.3±340.0,P<0.05);而对于观测值τ_1,3组受试者之间组间效应显著(F=9.083,P<0.01),MIT及HIT组和NOT组相比,τ_1显著降低,并且MIT和HIT组间差异显著(P<0.05);3周后HIT组τ_1值已经显著高于NOT组(Mid:42.5±3.8 vs 53.7±4.3,P<0.01),而MCT在6周后出现(Post:43.1±4.6 vs 53.4±6.0,P<0.01)。3周后HIT组A2值比NOT组显著减低(P<0.05),6周后Post值显著低于MCT组及NOT组同阶段值(P<0.01),而MCT组在各阶段与NOT组之间差异不显著(P>0.05)。τ_2虽有所升高,但并无显著意义(P>0.05)。结论:大强度间歇训练和中等强度持续训练均可提高VO_2max、VAT等心肺耐力评定参数,但两种训练模式对上述参数改善并无显著区别;两训练模式对中等强度下耗氧动力参数影响无显著区别,但大强度间歇训练在提高大强度运动过程中氧耗应答速率及减少耗氧量慢成分方面有着更明显的优势。

Objective： The purpose of this study was to compare the effect on oxygen uptake kinet- ics between high-intensity interval training and moderate-intensity continuous training. Methods： 36 subjects were divided into high intensity interval training group （HIT group）, moderate-inten- sity continuous training （MCT group, ） and the control group （NOT）. The subjects of MCT and HIT were trained respectively for 6 weeks, the four tests were performed before the intervention in the middle of it and after it, including the ramp incremental load exhaustive test （ramp）, and oxygen uptake kinetics of moderate intensity and high intensity continuous cycling. Results： After 6-week, the intervention showed higher post value than the mid and the pre of ＂VO2max/kg, VO2 - VAT, VO2 -VAT （P〈 0.05, P〈0.01 ）, Waat-VAT in HIT and MCT： There were significant differ-ence between the above parameters between three groups （P〈0.05）, but only between the HIT, MCT group with NOT group, no significant difference between HIT and MCT. There was no sig- nitieant differences in A slop and AOUES between three groups （P〉0.05）. Only τ（ Tau, OUE Time Constant, ） value showed significant difference between group effects （F=3.652 P=0.04〈 0.05）, in moderate-intensity OUK parameters, which was the two intervention groups of MCT and HIT with and control group respectively, but not in pre and med between HIT （P〉0.05） TD and A value, in each group at different stage between groups, had no significant difference （P〉0.05）. There was significant effect between groups on AI （A, oxygen consumption ampli- tude） value in high intensity exercise （F=4.439, P=0.011 〈 0.05 ）, not only between MCT and HIT with NOT groups, but also between HIT and MCT （P=0.011 〉 0.05）, A1 of HIT group was signif- icantly higher than the same period in MCT group （ 1893.9 ＋ 132.1 vs 1632.3 ＋ 340, P 〈 0.05） and for the τ1, after 6-week intervention, there were significant group effect （F= 9.083, P〈 0.01 ） in three groups , τ1 value was decreased significantly in MIT and HIT group （P〈0.05） ; τ1 value of HIT group was significantly higher than that of NOT group （Mid-42.5＋3.8 vs. 53.7＋4.3, P〈 0.01） after 3 weeks, but after 6 weeks in MCT group （post： 43.1＋4.6 vs. 53.4＋6）. A2 value of HIT group has significantly reduced （P〈0.05） after 3 weeks （mid）, and the post value was sig- nificantly lower than the MCT group and the NOT group after 6 weeks （P〈0.01）, while there was no significantly difference （P 〉 0.05 ）between the MCT group and the NOT group in different stage, τ2 value was increased with no significant difference （P〉 0.05）. Conclusions： High-intens- ity interval training and moderate-intensity continuous training can improve cardiopulmonary en- durance evaluation parameters of the VO2max , VAT, but the improvement showed no significant difference between two training modes ; No significant effect was found on oxygen uptake kinetics in moderate-intensity continuous cycling, but more advantages were showed in increasing re- sponse rate of oxygen consumption and reducing the slow component of oxygen uptake kinetics in high intensity interval training.