Julio Benvenutti Bueno de Camargo, Deivid G Silva, João G A Bergamasco, Diego Bittencourt, Enya T A Nacafucasaco, Nathalia F Dias, Ana J F Neves, Maíra C Scarpelli, Cleiton A Libardi
{"title":"中等强度的持续训练会促进肌肉肥大吗?随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Julio Benvenutti Bueno de Camargo, Deivid G Silva, João G A Bergamasco, Diego Bittencourt, Enya T A Nacafucasaco, Nathalia F Dias, Ana J F Neves, Maíra C Scarpelli, Cleiton A Libardi","doi":"10.1139/apnm-2025-0152","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The effects of moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) on muscle hypertrophy remain controversial, largely due to the absence of non-exercise control groups in several trials and considerable heterogeneity in training protocols, assessment methods, and participant characteristics. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the effects of MICT on skeletal muscle hypertrophy. Following PRISMA guidelines, searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library for chronic human interventions comparing MICT to non-exercise controls, reporting both whole-body and localized muscle mass outcomes (lower limb lean mass, muscle cross-sectional area, fiber cross-sectional area, and muscle thickness) in healthy adults without chronic diseases or musculoskeletal injuries. A random-effects model compared MICT vs. control for total and regional muscle mass outcomes combined and separately. Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria. The standardized mean difference was 0.050 (95% CI: -0.147 to 0.248) for total and regional outcomes combined, and 0.080 (95% CI: -0.277 to 0.437) for regional outcomes alone. In conclusion, the current evidence does not consistently support a hypertrophic effect of MICT. However, this conclusion should be interpreted with caution due to variability in study design, populations, and measurement sensitivity.</p>","PeriodicalId":93878,"journal":{"name":"Applied physiology, nutrition, and metabolism = Physiologie appliquee, nutrition et metabolisme","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does moderate intensity continuous training promote muscle hypertrophy? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.\",\"authors\":\"Julio Benvenutti Bueno de Camargo, Deivid G Silva, João G A Bergamasco, Diego Bittencourt, Enya T A Nacafucasaco, Nathalia F Dias, Ana J F Neves, Maíra C Scarpelli, Cleiton A Libardi\",\"doi\":\"10.1139/apnm-2025-0152\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The effects of moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) on muscle hypertrophy remain controversial, largely due to the absence of non-exercise control groups in several trials and considerable heterogeneity in training protocols, assessment methods, and participant characteristics. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the effects of MICT on skeletal muscle hypertrophy. Following PRISMA guidelines, searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library for chronic human interventions comparing MICT to non-exercise controls, reporting both whole-body and localized muscle mass outcomes (lower limb lean mass, muscle cross-sectional area, fiber cross-sectional area, and muscle thickness) in healthy adults without chronic diseases or musculoskeletal injuries. A random-effects model compared MICT vs. control for total and regional muscle mass outcomes combined and separately. Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria. The standardized mean difference was 0.050 (95% CI: -0.147 to 0.248) for total and regional outcomes combined, and 0.080 (95% CI: -0.277 to 0.437) for regional outcomes alone. In conclusion, the current evidence does not consistently support a hypertrophic effect of MICT. However, this conclusion should be interpreted with caution due to variability in study design, populations, and measurement sensitivity.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93878,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied physiology, nutrition, and metabolism = Physiologie appliquee, nutrition et metabolisme\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied physiology, nutrition, and metabolism = Physiologie appliquee, nutrition et metabolisme\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1139/apnm-2025-0152\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied physiology, nutrition, and metabolism = Physiologie appliquee, nutrition et metabolisme","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1139/apnm-2025-0152","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
中等强度连续训练(MICT)对肌肉肥大的影响仍然存在争议,这主要是由于在一些试验中缺乏非运动对照组,并且在训练方案、评估方法和参与者特征方面存在相当大的异质性。本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在研究MICT对骨骼肌肥大的影响。遵循PRISMA指南,在MEDLINE、Embase、Web of Science、Scopus和Cochrane Library中进行了慢性人体干预的搜索,将MICT与非运动对照进行比较,报告了没有慢性疾病或肌肉骨骼损伤的健康成人的全身和局部肌肉质量结果(下肢瘦质量、肌肉横截面积、纤维横截面积和肌肉厚度)。一个随机效应模型比较了MICT与对照组的总肌肉质量和局部肌肉质量结果。13项研究符合纳入标准。总结局和地区结局的标准化平均差异为0.050 (95% CI: -0.147至0.248),单独地区结局的标准化平均差异为0.080 (95% CI: -0.277至0.437)。总之,目前的证据并不一致地支持MICT的肥厚效应。然而,由于研究设计、人群和测量敏感性的差异,这一结论应谨慎解释。
Does moderate intensity continuous training promote muscle hypertrophy? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
The effects of moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) on muscle hypertrophy remain controversial, largely due to the absence of non-exercise control groups in several trials and considerable heterogeneity in training protocols, assessment methods, and participant characteristics. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the effects of MICT on skeletal muscle hypertrophy. Following PRISMA guidelines, searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library for chronic human interventions comparing MICT to non-exercise controls, reporting both whole-body and localized muscle mass outcomes (lower limb lean mass, muscle cross-sectional area, fiber cross-sectional area, and muscle thickness) in healthy adults without chronic diseases or musculoskeletal injuries. A random-effects model compared MICT vs. control for total and regional muscle mass outcomes combined and separately. Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria. The standardized mean difference was 0.050 (95% CI: -0.147 to 0.248) for total and regional outcomes combined, and 0.080 (95% CI: -0.277 to 0.437) for regional outcomes alone. In conclusion, the current evidence does not consistently support a hypertrophic effect of MICT. However, this conclusion should be interpreted with caution due to variability in study design, populations, and measurement sensitivity.