The effect of different resistance exercise training intensities on cardiovascular risk factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

European heart journal open Pub Date : 2025-08-12 eCollection Date: 2025-09-01 DOI:10.1093/ehjopen/oeaf093
Kirsten I de Oude, Roy G Elbers, Heike Gerger, Dederieke A M Maes-Festen, Alyt Oppewal
{"title":"The effect of different resistance exercise training intensities on cardiovascular risk factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Kirsten I de Oude, Roy G Elbers, Heike Gerger, Dederieke A M Maes-Festen, Alyt Oppewal","doi":"10.1093/ehjopen/oeaf093","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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 (<i>n</i> = 59) investigating progressive (<i>n</i> = 9), low (<i>n</i> = 15), moderate (<i>n</i> = 33), and high intensity (<i>n</i> = 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":93995,"journal":{"name":"European heart journal open","volume":"5 5","pages":"oeaf093"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12448439/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European heart journal open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjopen/oeaf093","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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 (n = 59) investigating progressive (n = 9), low (n = 15), moderate (n = 33), and high intensity (n = 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.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

不同阻力运动训练强度对心血管危险因素的影响:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
阻力训练能有效降低心血管危险因素(CVRFs)。然而,最佳训练强度仍不清楚。首先,本系统综述研究了不同阻力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,我们的目的是比较不同阻力训练强度的效果。我们确定了随机对照试验(n = 59),研究了成人cvrf患者的进行性(n = 9)、低强度(n = 15)、中度(n = 33)和高强度(n = 4)阻力训练。我们使用随机效应模型来研究与非主动对照相比,每种强度对cvrf的影响,并使用元回归分析来研究不同训练强度对cvrf的影响差异。荟萃分析显示,低至中等确定性的影响具有统计学意义。进行性强度降低收缩压{-14.70 mm/Hg, 95%可信区间[CI](-16.40; -13.00)}和LDL [-0.16 mmol/L, 95% CI(-0.19; -0.13)]。高强度降低HbA1c [-0.81%, 95% CI(-1.52; -0.10)],低强度LDL [-0.10 mmol/L, 95% CI(-0.16; -0.04)],中等强度WHR [-0.02, 95% CI(-0.03; -0.01)]和HbA1c [-0.40%, 95% CI(-0.66; -0.14)]。meta回归分析显示,高强度治疗比低强度治疗更有效。阻力训练强度对HbA1c、SBP和LDL的影响无显著差异。在一项研究中,高强度比低强度更有效地降低腰宽比。然而,调查高强度和渐进强度的研究数量有限,证据的确定性限制了得出明确结论的能力。不同抗阻训练强度对多种cvrf的影响有待进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信