{"title":"预防心血管疾病的冲刺间歇训练:一种有效的选择还是一种夸大的承诺?总结性评论。","authors":"Weibao Liang, Chuannan Liu, Shuting Xu, Shuhui Ma, Yue Zong, Xujie Yan","doi":"10.1007/s00421-025-05975-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Sprint interval training (SIT) is a time-efficient strategy for improving cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF). However, existing systematic reviews show conflicting results and variable quality. This umbrella review synthesizes this evidence to appraise the certainty of SIT's effects on CRF.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search was conducted in six databases for systematic reviews with meta-analyses comparing SIT with non-exercise control conditions and other comparator training modalities such as moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT), or high-intensity interval training (HIIT). The methodological quality of included systematic reviews was assessed using AMSTAR-2.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixteen systematic reviews were included, with a majority (9/16) rated as 'Low' or 'Critically Low' methodological quality. The 16 included reviews synthesized data from 393 unique primary studies and more than 8642 participants, encompassing populations from healthy sedentary adults and athletes to individuals with cardiovascular risk factors. Pooled data showed SIT elicited a significant improvement in CRF versus control (Standardized Mean Difference [SMD] = 0.59; 95% CI 0.43-0.74). In contrast, no significant difference was found between SIT and MICT (SMD = 0.07; 95% CI - 0.03 to 0.16). Evidence comparing SIT to HIIT was inconclusive.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>SIT is an effective intervention for improving CRF compared to no exercise. However, current evidence, especially from higher-quality systematic reviews, does not support SIT's superiority over MICT. Confidence in these findings is limited by prevalent methodological flaws, underscoring the need for more rigorous primary and secondary research.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>PROSPERO ID CRD420251074348.</p>","PeriodicalId":12005,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Applied Physiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sprint interval training for cardiovascular prevention: a time-efficient alternative or an overstated promise? An umbrella review.\",\"authors\":\"Weibao Liang, Chuannan Liu, Shuting Xu, Shuhui Ma, Yue Zong, Xujie Yan\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00421-025-05975-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Sprint interval training (SIT) is a time-efficient strategy for improving cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF). However, existing systematic reviews show conflicting results and variable quality. This umbrella review synthesizes this evidence to appraise the certainty of SIT's effects on CRF.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search was conducted in six databases for systematic reviews with meta-analyses comparing SIT with non-exercise control conditions and other comparator training modalities such as moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT), or high-intensity interval training (HIIT). The methodological quality of included systematic reviews was assessed using AMSTAR-2.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixteen systematic reviews were included, with a majority (9/16) rated as 'Low' or 'Critically Low' methodological quality. The 16 included reviews synthesized data from 393 unique primary studies and more than 8642 participants, encompassing populations from healthy sedentary adults and athletes to individuals with cardiovascular risk factors. Pooled data showed SIT elicited a significant improvement in CRF versus control (Standardized Mean Difference [SMD] = 0.59; 95% CI 0.43-0.74). In contrast, no significant difference was found between SIT and MICT (SMD = 0.07; 95% CI - 0.03 to 0.16). Evidence comparing SIT to HIIT was inconclusive.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>SIT is an effective intervention for improving CRF compared to no exercise. However, current evidence, especially from higher-quality systematic reviews, does not support SIT's superiority over MICT. Confidence in these findings is limited by prevalent methodological flaws, underscoring the need for more rigorous primary and secondary research.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>PROSPERO ID CRD420251074348.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12005,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Applied Physiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Applied Physiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-025-05975-z\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PHYSIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Applied Physiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-025-05975-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:冲刺间歇训练(SIT)是一种提高心肺功能(CRF)的时间效率策略。然而,现有的系统综述显示出相互矛盾的结果和不同的质量。本综述综合了这些证据,以评估SIT对CRF影响的确定性。方法:在6个数据库中进行系统检索,进行系统综述和荟萃分析,将SIT与非运动控制条件和其他比较训练方式(如中等强度连续训练(MICT)或高强度间歇训练(HIIT))进行比较。采用AMSTAR-2评估纳入系统评价的方法学质量。结果:纳入了16篇系统评价,其中大多数(9/16)的方法学质量被评为“低”或“极低”。这16篇综述综合了来自393项独特的初级研究和8642多名参与者的数据,涵盖了从健康的久坐成年人和运动员到有心血管风险因素的个人。汇总数据显示,与对照组相比,SIT可显著改善CRF(标准化平均差[SMD] = 0.59; 95% CI 0.43-0.74)。相比之下,SIT和MICT之间没有显著差异(SMD = 0.07; 95% CI - 0.03至0.16)。比较SIT和HIIT的证据尚无定论。结论:与不运动相比,静坐是改善CRF的有效干预措施。然而,目前的证据,特别是来自高质量系统评价的证据,并不支持SIT优于MICT。对这些发现的信心受到普遍存在的方法缺陷的限制,强调需要更严格的初级和次级研究。试验注册:PROSPERO ID CRD420251074348。
Sprint interval training for cardiovascular prevention: a time-efficient alternative or an overstated promise? An umbrella review.
Purpose: Sprint interval training (SIT) is a time-efficient strategy for improving cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF). However, existing systematic reviews show conflicting results and variable quality. This umbrella review synthesizes this evidence to appraise the certainty of SIT's effects on CRF.
Methods: A systematic search was conducted in six databases for systematic reviews with meta-analyses comparing SIT with non-exercise control conditions and other comparator training modalities such as moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT), or high-intensity interval training (HIIT). The methodological quality of included systematic reviews was assessed using AMSTAR-2.
Results: Sixteen systematic reviews were included, with a majority (9/16) rated as 'Low' or 'Critically Low' methodological quality. The 16 included reviews synthesized data from 393 unique primary studies and more than 8642 participants, encompassing populations from healthy sedentary adults and athletes to individuals with cardiovascular risk factors. Pooled data showed SIT elicited a significant improvement in CRF versus control (Standardized Mean Difference [SMD] = 0.59; 95% CI 0.43-0.74). In contrast, no significant difference was found between SIT and MICT (SMD = 0.07; 95% CI - 0.03 to 0.16). Evidence comparing SIT to HIIT was inconclusive.
Conclusion: SIT is an effective intervention for improving CRF compared to no exercise. However, current evidence, especially from higher-quality systematic reviews, does not support SIT's superiority over MICT. Confidence in these findings is limited by prevalent methodological flaws, underscoring the need for more rigorous primary and secondary research.
期刊介绍:
The European Journal of Applied Physiology (EJAP) aims to promote mechanistic advances in human integrative and translational physiology. Physiology is viewed broadly, having overlapping context with related disciplines such as biomechanics, biochemistry, endocrinology, ergonomics, immunology, motor control, and nutrition. EJAP welcomes studies dealing with physical exercise, training and performance. Studies addressing physiological mechanisms are preferred over descriptive studies. Papers dealing with animal models or pathophysiological conditions are not excluded from consideration, but must be clearly relevant to human physiology.