间歇训练改善大学生心肺适能效果的Meta分析

Interval training for cardiopulmonary fitness of college students: a network Meta-analysis

目的比较不同类型间歇训练与持续训练对改善大学生心肺适能的效果,为大学生健康促进提供干预方法的证据支持。方法采用Meta分析的方法,检索Web of Science、PubMed、Science Direct、Scopus、the Cochrane Library和CNKI等数据库中建库至2020年4月1日关于传统高强度间歇训练(high-intensity interval training, HIIT)、重复冲刺训练(repeated-sprint training, RST)及短跑间歇训练(sprint-interval training, SIT)干预久坐不运动大学生的随机对照实验研究文献,由2名研究者独立对文献进行筛选、数据提取及偏倚风险的评估,采用Stata 16.0软件依次进行传统Meta分析及网状Meta分析。结果共纳入21篇文献728名样本;Meta分析显示HIIT(SMD=0.35,95%CI=0.10~0.60,P<0.05),SIT(SMD=0.38,95%CI=0.05~0.70,P<0.05)在提高VO2max指标上优于中等强度持续运动(moderate-intensity continuous training, MICT)、RST(SMD=-0.08,95%CI=-0.41~0.25,P>0.05)对比MICT差异无统计学意义;HIIT(SMD=0.40,95%CI=0.08~0.72,P<0.05)、SIT(SMD=0.35,95%CI=0.03~0.67,P<0.05)提高VO2max指标方面优于RST,HIIT与SIT(SMD=0.05,95%CI=-0.25~0.36,P>0.05)之间差异无统计学意义;4种训练方式提高VO2max指标的效果大小可能性排序为HIIT与SIT高于RST及MICT,且HIIT高于SIT,RST高于MICT。结论高强度间歇训练改善VO2max的效果整体优于MICT,且采用HIIT进行训练可能效果最好。

Objective To compare the effects of different types of high-intensity interval training and moderate-intensity steady training on improving cardiorespiratory fitness of college students, and to provide evidence supporting intervention methods for health promotion of college students. Methods By using the method of Meta-analysis, Web of science, PubMed, Scopus and CNKI database was searched for randomized control trails regarding high-intensity intervention(HIIT), repeated-sprint training(RST) and sprint-interval training(SIT) among sedentary college students in April 1, 2020. Two independent researchers conducted literature filtering, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, as well as traditional Meta-analysis and network Meta-analysis by using Stata software version 16.0. Results A total of 21 articles and 728 participants were included. Meta-analysis showed that HIIT(SMD=0.35, 95%CI=0.10-0.60, P<0.05) and SIT(SMD=0.38, 95%CI=0.05-0.70, P<0.05) were significantly better than MICT, there was no statistical difference in RST(SMD=-0.08, 95%CI=-0.41-0.25, P>0.05) compared with MICT;HIIT(SMD=0.40, 95%CI=0.08-0.72, P<0.05) and SIT(SMD=0.35, 95%CI=0.03-0.67, P<0.05) were significantly better than RST, there was no significant difference between HIIT and SIT(SMD=0.05, 95%CI=-0.25-0.36, P>0.05). The ranking of the four training methods for improving the effect size of VO2max index was HIIT>SIT>RST>MICT. Conclusion The overall effect of high intensity interval training on VO2max is better than MICT, and HIIT training may be the best.