Filipe Manuel Clemente, Rodrigo Ramirez-Campillo, Jason Moran, Piotr Zmijewski, Rui Miguel Silva, Morten Bredsgaard Randers
{"title":"小量训练对团体运动运动员体能适应的影响:系统回顾与元分析。","authors":"Filipe Manuel Clemente, Rodrigo Ramirez-Campillo, Jason Moran, Piotr Zmijewski, Rui Miguel Silva, Morten Bredsgaard Randers","doi":"10.1186/s40798-024-00808-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A small number of reviews have explored lower- versus higher-volume training in non-athletes, but the growing challenge of congested schedules in team sports highlights the need to synthesize evidence specific to team sport athletes. Thus, the objectives of this systematic review with meta-analysis are twofold: (i) to summarize the primary physiological and physical fitness outcomes of lower-volume versus higher-volume training interventions in team sports players; and (ii) to compare the effects of lower-volume training with higher, considering the training modalities used.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted searches across key databases, including PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science. We included team sports players with at least a trained or developmental level, focusing on studies comparing different training volumes (lower vs higher) within the same research. Lower volume training was defined in comparison to another load, emphasizing smaller training volume in terms of repetitions, duration, or frequency. The studies had to examine key physical performance adaptations and use two-arm or multi-arm designs. Methodological assessments of the included studies were performed using the Rob2 and ROBINS-I instruments, with evidence certainty evaluated through GRADE.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The initial search yielded 5,188 records, with 17 articles deemed eligible for the review. There was a non-significant trend favoring the higher-volume training group over the lower-volume group in resistance-based training when considering all pooled physical fitness outcomes (effect size - 0.05, 95% CI - 0.19 to 0.09, p = 0.506, I<sup>2</sup> = 0.0%). A meta-analysis was not conducted for aerobic-based training due to only two studies being available, with one showing that lower volume training improved maximal oxygen uptake by 3.8% compared to 1.3% for higher volume, while the other indicated that lower training volumes enhanced performance by 1.6% versus 0.8%. The evidence certainty for physical performance outcomes was very low.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In newly introduced resistance training, lower volumes-regardless of repetitions or frequency-can achieve similar fitness gains to higher volumes. More pronounced tapering also appears more effective for supercompensation. However, the variability in study designs and training methods makes it difficult to establish a clear minimal dose. The main contribution of this review is mapping current research, providing a foundation for future studies and training optimization.</p>","PeriodicalId":21788,"journal":{"name":"Sports Medicine - Open","volume":"11 1","pages":"3"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11747014/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of Lower-Volume Training on Physical Fitness Adaptations in Team Sports Players: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Filipe Manuel Clemente, Rodrigo Ramirez-Campillo, Jason Moran, Piotr Zmijewski, Rui Miguel Silva, Morten Bredsgaard Randers\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s40798-024-00808-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A small number of reviews have explored lower- versus higher-volume training in non-athletes, but the growing challenge of congested schedules in team sports highlights the need to synthesize evidence specific to team sport athletes. Thus, the objectives of this systematic review with meta-analysis are twofold: (i) to summarize the primary physiological and physical fitness outcomes of lower-volume versus higher-volume training interventions in team sports players; and (ii) to compare the effects of lower-volume training with higher, considering the training modalities used.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted searches across key databases, including PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science. We included team sports players with at least a trained or developmental level, focusing on studies comparing different training volumes (lower vs higher) within the same research. Lower volume training was defined in comparison to another load, emphasizing smaller training volume in terms of repetitions, duration, or frequency. The studies had to examine key physical performance adaptations and use two-arm or multi-arm designs. Methodological assessments of the included studies were performed using the Rob2 and ROBINS-I instruments, with evidence certainty evaluated through GRADE.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The initial search yielded 5,188 records, with 17 articles deemed eligible for the review. There was a non-significant trend favoring the higher-volume training group over the lower-volume group in resistance-based training when considering all pooled physical fitness outcomes (effect size - 0.05, 95% CI - 0.19 to 0.09, p = 0.506, I<sup>2</sup> = 0.0%). A meta-analysis was not conducted for aerobic-based training due to only two studies being available, with one showing that lower volume training improved maximal oxygen uptake by 3.8% compared to 1.3% for higher volume, while the other indicated that lower training volumes enhanced performance by 1.6% versus 0.8%. The evidence certainty for physical performance outcomes was very low.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In newly introduced resistance training, lower volumes-regardless of repetitions or frequency-can achieve similar fitness gains to higher volumes. More pronounced tapering also appears more effective for supercompensation. However, the variability in study designs and training methods makes it difficult to establish a clear minimal dose. The main contribution of this review is mapping current research, providing a foundation for future studies and training optimization.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21788,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sports Medicine - Open\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"3\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11747014/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sports Medicine - Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-024-00808-3\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"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 - Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-024-00808-3","RegionNum":2,"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:少数综述探讨了非运动员的低量训练与高量训练,但团队项目中日程拥挤的挑战日益突出,需要综合针对团队项目运动员的证据。因此,本荟萃分析系统综述的目的有两个:(i)总结团队运动运动员低量与高量训练干预的主要生理和身体健康结果;(ii)考虑到所使用的训练方式,比较低量训练和高量训练的效果。方法:我们在PubMed、Scopus、SPORTDiscus和Web of Science等关键数据库中进行了检索。我们纳入了至少具有训练或发展水平的团队运动运动员,重点研究在同一研究中比较不同训练量(低与高)的研究。低量训练的定义是与另一种负荷相比,强调在重复、持续时间或频率方面更小的训练量。这些研究必须检查关键的身体性能适应,并使用双臂或多臂设计。使用Rob2和ROBINS-I仪器对纳入的研究进行方法学评估,并通过GRADE评估证据确定性。结果:最初的检索产生了5188条记录,其中17篇文章被认为符合审查条件。当考虑所有汇总的体能结果时,在阻力训练中,大容量训练组比小容量训练组有不显著的趋势(效应值- 0.05,95% CI - 0.19至0.09,p = 0.506, I2 = 0.0%)。由于只有两项研究可用,因此没有对有氧训练进行荟萃分析,其中一项研究表明,低量训练使最大摄氧量提高3.8%,而高量训练使最大摄氧量提高1.3%,而另一项研究表明,低量训练使表现提高1.6%,而0.8%。体能表现结果的证据确定性非常低。结论:在新引入的阻力训练中,无论重复次数或频率如何,较低的量可以获得与较高量相似的健康收益。更明显的减债似乎对超补偿也更有效。然而,研究设计和训练方法的可变性使得难以确定明确的最小剂量。本综述的主要贡献是梳理当前的研究现状,为今后的研究和训练优化提供基础。
Impact of Lower-Volume Training on Physical Fitness Adaptations in Team Sports Players: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Background: A small number of reviews have explored lower- versus higher-volume training in non-athletes, but the growing challenge of congested schedules in team sports highlights the need to synthesize evidence specific to team sport athletes. Thus, the objectives of this systematic review with meta-analysis are twofold: (i) to summarize the primary physiological and physical fitness outcomes of lower-volume versus higher-volume training interventions in team sports players; and (ii) to compare the effects of lower-volume training with higher, considering the training modalities used.
Methods: We conducted searches across key databases, including PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science. We included team sports players with at least a trained or developmental level, focusing on studies comparing different training volumes (lower vs higher) within the same research. Lower volume training was defined in comparison to another load, emphasizing smaller training volume in terms of repetitions, duration, or frequency. The studies had to examine key physical performance adaptations and use two-arm or multi-arm designs. Methodological assessments of the included studies were performed using the Rob2 and ROBINS-I instruments, with evidence certainty evaluated through GRADE.
Results: The initial search yielded 5,188 records, with 17 articles deemed eligible for the review. There was a non-significant trend favoring the higher-volume training group over the lower-volume group in resistance-based training when considering all pooled physical fitness outcomes (effect size - 0.05, 95% CI - 0.19 to 0.09, p = 0.506, I2 = 0.0%). A meta-analysis was not conducted for aerobic-based training due to only two studies being available, with one showing that lower volume training improved maximal oxygen uptake by 3.8% compared to 1.3% for higher volume, while the other indicated that lower training volumes enhanced performance by 1.6% versus 0.8%. The evidence certainty for physical performance outcomes was very low.
Conclusions: In newly introduced resistance training, lower volumes-regardless of repetitions or frequency-can achieve similar fitness gains to higher volumes. More pronounced tapering also appears more effective for supercompensation. However, the variability in study designs and training methods makes it difficult to establish a clear minimal dose. The main contribution of this review is mapping current research, providing a foundation for future studies and training optimization.