High-intensity interval training is not superior to continuous aerobic training in reducing body fat: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

IF 2.4 2区 医学 Q2 SPORT SCIENCES
Ana Marenco Kramer, Jocelito Bijoldo Martins, Patricia Caetano de Oliveira, Alexandre Machado Lehnen, Gustavo Waclawovsky
{"title":"High-intensity interval training is not superior to continuous aerobic training in reducing body fat: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials","authors":"Ana Marenco Kramer,&nbsp;Jocelito Bijoldo Martins,&nbsp;Patricia Caetano de Oliveira,&nbsp;Alexandre Machado Lehnen,&nbsp;Gustavo Waclawovsky","doi":"10.1016/j.jesf.2023.09.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background/Objective</h3><p>Guidelines on obesity management reinforce regular exercise to reduce body fat. Exercise modalities, including high-intensity interval training (HIIT), appear to produce a similar effect to continuous aerobic training (CAT) on body fat. However, they have not addressed the chronic effect of HIIT vs. CAT on body fat assessed by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA). Thus, we compared the effectiveness of CAT vs. HIIT protocols on body fat (absolute or relative) (%BF) and abdominal visceral fat reduction, assessed by DEXA, in adults with overweight and obesity.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) including both female or male adults with excess body weight. We performed searches in the databases MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Scopus, LILACS, Web of Science and Cochrane.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>In our analysis (11 RCTs), we found no greater benefit on %BF of HIIT vs. CAT (MD –0.55%, 95% CI –1.42 to 0.31; p = 0.209). As for abdominal visceral fat, no training modality was superior (SMD: −0.05, 95% CI –0.29 to 0.19; p = 0.997). Regarding secondary outcomes (body weight, BMI, VO<sub>2</sub> max, glycemic and lipid profiles), HIIT shows greater benefit than CAT in increasing VO<sub>2</sub> max and fasting blood glucose and reducing total cholesterol.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>HIIT is not superior to CAT in reducing %BF or abdominal visceral fat in individuals characterized by excess weight. However, HIIT showed beneficial effects on cardiorespiratory fitness, total cholesterol and fasting blood glucose when compared to CAT.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":15793,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Exercise Science & Fitness","volume":"21 4","pages":"Pages 385-394"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10624584/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Exercise Science & Fitness","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1728869X23000461","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background/Objective

Guidelines on obesity management reinforce regular exercise to reduce body fat. Exercise modalities, including high-intensity interval training (HIIT), appear to produce a similar effect to continuous aerobic training (CAT) on body fat. However, they have not addressed the chronic effect of HIIT vs. CAT on body fat assessed by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA). Thus, we compared the effectiveness of CAT vs. HIIT protocols on body fat (absolute or relative) (%BF) and abdominal visceral fat reduction, assessed by DEXA, in adults with overweight and obesity.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) including both female or male adults with excess body weight. We performed searches in the databases MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Scopus, LILACS, Web of Science and Cochrane.

Results

In our analysis (11 RCTs), we found no greater benefit on %BF of HIIT vs. CAT (MD –0.55%, 95% CI –1.42 to 0.31; p = 0.209). As for abdominal visceral fat, no training modality was superior (SMD: −0.05, 95% CI –0.29 to 0.19; p = 0.997). Regarding secondary outcomes (body weight, BMI, VO2 max, glycemic and lipid profiles), HIIT shows greater benefit than CAT in increasing VO2 max and fasting blood glucose and reducing total cholesterol.

Conclusion

HIIT is not superior to CAT in reducing %BF or abdominal visceral fat in individuals characterized by excess weight. However, HIIT showed beneficial effects on cardiorespiratory fitness, total cholesterol and fasting blood glucose when compared to CAT.

在减少体脂方面,高强度间歇训练并不优于连续有氧训练:随机临床试验的系统综述和荟萃分析。
背景/目的:肥胖管理指南加强定期锻炼以减少体脂。运动方式,包括高强度间歇训练(HIIT),似乎对体脂产生了与连续有氧训练(CAT)类似的效果。然而,他们还没有解决通过双能X射线吸收法(DEXA)评估的HIIT与CAT对体脂的慢性影响。因此,我们比较了CAT和HIIT方案对超重和肥胖成年人的体脂(绝对或相对)(%BF)和腹部内脏脂肪减少的有效性(通过DEXA评估)。方法:我们对随机临床试验(RCT)进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析,包括超重的女性或男性成年人。我们在数据库MEDLINE(PubMed)、EMBASE、Scopus、LILACS、Web of Science和Cochrane中进行了搜索。结果:在我们的分析(11项随机对照试验)中,我们发现HIIT的%BF与CAT相比没有更大的益处(MD-0.55%,95%CI-1.42-0.31;p=0.029)。至于腹部内脏脂肪,没有训练模式更优越(SMD:-0.05,95%CI-0.29-0.19;p=0.997)。关于次要结果(体重、BMI、VO2max、血糖和脂质状况),HIIT在增加VO2max和空腹血糖以及降低总胆固醇方面显示出比CAT更大的益处。结论:HIIT在减轻超重个体的%BF或腹部内脏脂肪方面并不优于CAT。然而,与CAT相比,HIIT对心肺健康、总胆固醇和空腹血糖表现出有益的影响。
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
5.10
自引率
3.60%
发文量
54
审稿时长
31 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Exercise Science and Fitness is the official peer-reviewed journal of The Society of Chinese Scholars on Exercise Physiology and Fitness (SCSEPF), the Physical Fitness Association of Hong Kong, China (HKPFA), and the Hong Kong Association of Sports Medicine and Sports Science (HKASMSS). It is published twice a year, in June and December, by Elsevier. The Journal accepts original investigations, comprehensive reviews, case studies and short communications on current topics in exercise science, physical fitness and physical education.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信