Samuel J. R. Meyler, Paul A. Swinton, Lindsay Bottoms, Lance C. Dalleck, Ben Hunter, Mark A. Sarzynski, David Wellsted, Camilla J. Williams, Daniel Muniz-Pumares
{"title":"相对于传统强度锚点和生理阈值的运动训练后心肺功能的变化:对参与者个人数据进行元分析的系统综述","authors":"Samuel J. R. Meyler, Paul A. Swinton, Lindsay Bottoms, Lance C. Dalleck, Ben Hunter, Mark A. Sarzynski, David Wellsted, Camilla J. Williams, Daniel Muniz-Pumares","doi":"10.1007/s40279-024-02125-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Background</h3><p>It is unknown whether there are differences in maximal oxygen uptake (<span>\\({V}\\)</span>O<sub>2max</sub>) response when prescribing intensity relative to traditional (TRAD) anchors or to physiological thresholds (THR).</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Objectives</h3><p>The present meta-analysis sought to compare: (a) mean change in <span>\\({V}\\)</span>O<sub>2max</sub>, (b) proportion of individuals increasing <span>\\({V}\\)</span>O<sub>2max</sub> beyond a minimum important difference (MID) and (c) response variability in <span>\\({V}\\)</span>O<sub>2max</sub> between TRAD and THR.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>Electronic databases were searched, yielding data for 1544 individuals from 42 studies. Two datasets were created, comprising studies with a control group (‘controlled’ studies), and without a control group (‘non-controlled’ studies). A Bayesian approach with multi-level distributional models was used to separately analyse <span>\\({V}\\)</span>O<sub>2max</sub> change scores from the two datasets and inferences were made using Bayes factors (BF). The MID was predefined as one metabolic equivalent (MET; 3.5 mL kg<sup>−1</sup> min<sup>−1</sup>).</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>In controlled studies, mean <span>\\({V}\\)</span>O<sub>2max</sub> change was greater in the THR group compared with TRAD (4.1 versus 1.8 mL kg<sup>−1</sup> min<sup>−1</sup>, BF > 100), with 64% of individuals in the THR group experiencing an increase in <span>\\({V}\\)</span>O<sub>2max</sub> > MID, compared with 16% of individuals taking part in TRAD. Evidence indicated no difference in standard deviation of change between THR and TRAD (1.5 versus 1.7 mL kg<sup>−1</sup> min<sup>−1</sup>, BF = 0.55), and greater variation in exercise groups relative to non-exercising controls (1.9 versus 1.3 mL kg<sup>−1</sup> min<sup>−1</sup>, BF = 12.4). In non-controlled studies, mean <span>\\({V}\\)</span>O<sub>2max</sub> change was greater in the THR group versus the TRAD group (4.4 versus 3.4 mL kg<sup>−1</sup> min<sup>−1</sup>, BF = 35.1), with no difference in standard deviation of change (3.0 versus 3.2 mL kg<sup>−1</sup> min<sup>−1</sup>, BF = 0.41).</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusion</h3><p>Prescribing exercise intensity using THR approaches elicited superior mean changes in <span>\\({V}\\)</span>O<sub>2max</sub> and increased the likelihood of increasing <span>\\({V}\\)</span>O<sub>2max</sub> beyond the MID compared with TRAD. Researchers designing future exercise training studies should thus consider the use of THR approaches to prescribe exercise intensity where possible. Analysis comparing interventions with controls suggested the existence of intervention response heterogeneity; however, evidence was not obtained for a difference in response variability between THR and TRAD. Future primary research should be conducted with adequate power to investigate the scope of inter-individual differences in <span>\\({V}\\)</span>O<sub>2max</sub> trainability, and if meaningful, the causative factors.</p>","PeriodicalId":21969,"journal":{"name":"Sports Medicine","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Changes in Cardiorespiratory Fitness Following Exercise Training Prescribed Relative to Traditional Intensity Anchors and Physiological Thresholds: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis of Individual Participant Data\",\"authors\":\"Samuel J. R. Meyler, Paul A. Swinton, Lindsay Bottoms, Lance C. Dalleck, Ben Hunter, Mark A. Sarzynski, David Wellsted, Camilla J. Williams, Daniel Muniz-Pumares\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40279-024-02125-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Background</h3><p>It is unknown whether there are differences in maximal oxygen uptake (<span>\\\\({V}\\\\)</span>O<sub>2max</sub>) response when prescribing intensity relative to traditional (TRAD) anchors or to physiological thresholds (THR).</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Objectives</h3><p>The present meta-analysis sought to compare: (a) mean change in <span>\\\\({V}\\\\)</span>O<sub>2max</sub>, (b) proportion of individuals increasing <span>\\\\({V}\\\\)</span>O<sub>2max</sub> beyond a minimum important difference (MID) and (c) response variability in <span>\\\\({V}\\\\)</span>O<sub>2max</sub> between TRAD and THR.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Methods</h3><p>Electronic databases were searched, yielding data for 1544 individuals from 42 studies. Two datasets were created, comprising studies with a control group (‘controlled’ studies), and without a control group (‘non-controlled’ studies). A Bayesian approach with multi-level distributional models was used to separately analyse <span>\\\\({V}\\\\)</span>O<sub>2max</sub> change scores from the two datasets and inferences were made using Bayes factors (BF). The MID was predefined as one metabolic equivalent (MET; 3.5 mL kg<sup>−1</sup> min<sup>−1</sup>).</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Results</h3><p>In controlled studies, mean <span>\\\\({V}\\\\)</span>O<sub>2max</sub> change was greater in the THR group compared with TRAD (4.1 versus 1.8 mL kg<sup>−1</sup> min<sup>−1</sup>, BF > 100), with 64% of individuals in the THR group experiencing an increase in <span>\\\\({V}\\\\)</span>O<sub>2max</sub> > MID, compared with 16% of individuals taking part in TRAD. Evidence indicated no difference in standard deviation of change between THR and TRAD (1.5 versus 1.7 mL kg<sup>−1</sup> min<sup>−1</sup>, BF = 0.55), and greater variation in exercise groups relative to non-exercising controls (1.9 versus 1.3 mL kg<sup>−1</sup> min<sup>−1</sup>, BF = 12.4). In non-controlled studies, mean <span>\\\\({V}\\\\)</span>O<sub>2max</sub> change was greater in the THR group versus the TRAD group (4.4 versus 3.4 mL kg<sup>−1</sup> min<sup>−1</sup>, BF = 35.1), with no difference in standard deviation of change (3.0 versus 3.2 mL kg<sup>−1</sup> min<sup>−1</sup>, BF = 0.41).</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Conclusion</h3><p>Prescribing exercise intensity using THR approaches elicited superior mean changes in <span>\\\\({V}\\\\)</span>O<sub>2max</sub> and increased the likelihood of increasing <span>\\\\({V}\\\\)</span>O<sub>2max</sub> beyond the MID compared with TRAD. Researchers designing future exercise training studies should thus consider the use of THR approaches to prescribe exercise intensity where possible. Analysis comparing interventions with controls suggested the existence of intervention response heterogeneity; however, evidence was not obtained for a difference in response variability between THR and TRAD. Future primary research should be conducted with adequate power to investigate the scope of inter-individual differences in <span>\\\\({V}\\\\)</span>O<sub>2max</sub> trainability, and if meaningful, the causative factors.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21969,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sports Medicine\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sports Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-024-02125-x\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SPORT SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sports Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-024-02125-x","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景目前还不清楚,当规定强度相对于传统(TRAD)锚或生理阈值(THR)时,最大摄氧量(\({V}\)O2max)的反应是否存在差异。本荟萃分析旨在比较:(a)\({V}\)O2max的平均变化;(b)\({V}\)O2max增加超过最小重要差异(MID)的个体比例;(c)TRAD和THR之间\({V}\)O2max的反应变异性。建立了两个数据集,包括有对照组的研究("对照 "研究)和没有对照组的研究("非对照 "研究)。贝叶斯方法采用多级分布模型分别分析两个数据集的\({V}\)O2max变化分数,并使用贝叶斯因子(BF)进行推断。结果在对照研究中,与TRAD相比,THR组的\({V}\)O2max平均变化更大(4.1对1.8 mL kg-1 min-1,BF >100),THR组64%的人的\({V}\)O2max >MID有所增加,而TRAD组只有16%。有证据表明,THR 和 TRAD 之间的变化标准偏差没有差异(1.5 对 1.7 mL kg-1 min-1,BF = 0.55),运动组相对于非运动对照组的变化更大(1.9 对 1.3 mL kg-1 min-1,BF = 12.4)。在非对照研究中,THR 组的平均({V}\)O2max 变化大于 TRAD 组(4.4 对 3.4 mL kg-1 min-1,BF = 35.1),变化的标准偏差没有差异(3.0 对 3.结论与TRAD相比,使用THR方法规定运动强度可引起更佳的\({V}\)O2max平均变化,并增加\({V}\)O2max超过MID的可能性。因此,研究人员在设计未来的运动训练研究时,应尽可能考虑使用THR方法来规定运动强度。将干预与对照进行比较的分析表明存在干预反应异质性;但是,没有证据表明THR与TRAD之间的反应变异性存在差异。未来的初步研究应该以足够的力量来调查个体间在({V}\)O2max 训练能力方面的差异范围,如果有意义的话,还应该调查致因因素。
Changes in Cardiorespiratory Fitness Following Exercise Training Prescribed Relative to Traditional Intensity Anchors and Physiological Thresholds: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis of Individual Participant Data
Background
It is unknown whether there are differences in maximal oxygen uptake (\({V}\)O2max) response when prescribing intensity relative to traditional (TRAD) anchors or to physiological thresholds (THR).
Objectives
The present meta-analysis sought to compare: (a) mean change in \({V}\)O2max, (b) proportion of individuals increasing \({V}\)O2max beyond a minimum important difference (MID) and (c) response variability in \({V}\)O2max between TRAD and THR.
Methods
Electronic databases were searched, yielding data for 1544 individuals from 42 studies. Two datasets were created, comprising studies with a control group (‘controlled’ studies), and without a control group (‘non-controlled’ studies). A Bayesian approach with multi-level distributional models was used to separately analyse \({V}\)O2max change scores from the two datasets and inferences were made using Bayes factors (BF). The MID was predefined as one metabolic equivalent (MET; 3.5 mL kg−1 min−1).
Results
In controlled studies, mean \({V}\)O2max change was greater in the THR group compared with TRAD (4.1 versus 1.8 mL kg−1 min−1, BF > 100), with 64% of individuals in the THR group experiencing an increase in \({V}\)O2max > MID, compared with 16% of individuals taking part in TRAD. Evidence indicated no difference in standard deviation of change between THR and TRAD (1.5 versus 1.7 mL kg−1 min−1, BF = 0.55), and greater variation in exercise groups relative to non-exercising controls (1.9 versus 1.3 mL kg−1 min−1, BF = 12.4). In non-controlled studies, mean \({V}\)O2max change was greater in the THR group versus the TRAD group (4.4 versus 3.4 mL kg−1 min−1, BF = 35.1), with no difference in standard deviation of change (3.0 versus 3.2 mL kg−1 min−1, BF = 0.41).
Conclusion
Prescribing exercise intensity using THR approaches elicited superior mean changes in \({V}\)O2max and increased the likelihood of increasing \({V}\)O2max beyond the MID compared with TRAD. Researchers designing future exercise training studies should thus consider the use of THR approaches to prescribe exercise intensity where possible. Analysis comparing interventions with controls suggested the existence of intervention response heterogeneity; however, evidence was not obtained for a difference in response variability between THR and TRAD. Future primary research should be conducted with adequate power to investigate the scope of inter-individual differences in \({V}\)O2max trainability, and if meaningful, the causative factors.
期刊介绍:
Sports Medicine focuses on providing definitive and comprehensive review articles that interpret and evaluate current literature, aiming to offer insights into research findings in the sports medicine and exercise field. The journal covers major topics such as sports medicine and sports science, medical syndromes associated with sport and exercise, clinical medicine's role in injury prevention and treatment, exercise for rehabilitation and health, and the application of physiological and biomechanical principles to specific sports.
Types of Articles:
Review Articles: Definitive and comprehensive reviews that interpret and evaluate current literature to provide rationale for and application of research findings.
Leading/Current Opinion Articles: Overviews of contentious or emerging issues in the field.
Original Research Articles: High-quality research articles.
Enhanced Features: Additional features like slide sets, videos, and animations aimed at increasing the visibility, readership, and educational value of the journal's content.
Plain Language Summaries: Summaries accompanying articles to assist readers in understanding important medical advances.
Peer Review Process:
All manuscripts undergo peer review by international experts to ensure quality and rigor. The journal also welcomes Letters to the Editor, which will be considered for publication.