Sports Medicine ( IF 9.3 ) Pub Date : 2024-08-19 , DOI: 10.1007/s40279-024-02089-y John R M Renwick 1 , Nicholas Preobrazenski 1, 2 , Zeyu Wu 1 , Ava Khansari 1 , Matisse A LeBouedec 1 , Jared M G Nuttall 1 , Kyra R Bancroft 1 , Nia Simpson-Stairs 1 , Paul A Swinton 3 , Brendon J Gurd 1
|
Background
Although numerous attempts to demonstrate inter-individual differences in trainability across various outcomes have been unsuccessful, the investigation of maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max) trainability warrants further study.
Objective
Our objective was to conduct the first systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate inter-individual differences in VO2max trainability across aerobic exercise training protocols utilizing non-exercising comparator groups.
Methods
We conducted a literature search across three databases: EMBASE, PubMed and SCOPUS. The search strategy incorporated two main concepts: aerobic exercise training and VO2max. Studies were included if they used human participants, employed standardized and supervised exercise training, reported absolute or relative VO2max, included a non-exercise comparator group, reported VO2max change scores for non-exercise and exercise groups and provided the standard deviation (SD) of change for all groups. We calculated the SD of individual response (SDIR) to estimate the presence of inter-individual differences in trainability across all studies.
Results
The literature search generated 32,968 studies, 24 of which were included in the final analysis. Our findings indicated that (1) the majority of variation in observed change scores following an intervention is due to measurement error, (2) calculating SDIR within a single study would not yield sufficient accuracy of SDIR due to generally small sample sizes and (3) meta-analysis of \({\text{SD}}_{\text{IR}}^{2}\) across studies does not provide strong evidence for a positive value.
Conclusion
Overall, our meta-analysis demonstrated that there is not strong evidence supporting the existence of VO2max trainability across single interventions. As such, it appears unlikely that clinically relevant predictors of VO2max response will be discovered.
Registration can be found online (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/X9VU3).
中文翻译：
运动干预后最大摄氧量的个体反应标准差：系统回顾和荟萃分析
背景
尽管许多尝试证明不同结果的可训练性之间的个体差异均未成功，但最大耗氧量 ( V O 2max ) 可训练性的调查值得进一步研究。
客观的
我们的目标是进行首次系统回顾和荟萃分析，以评估使用非运动比较组的有氧运动训练方案中V O 2max可训练性的个体间差异。
方法
我们对三个数据库进行了文献检索：EMBASE、PubMed 和 SCOPUS。搜索策略包含两个主要概念：有氧运动训练和VO 2max 。如果研究使用人类参与者、采用标准化和监督运动训练、报告绝对或相对V O 2max 、包括非运动比较组、报告非运动组和运动组的V O 2max变化分数并提供标准差，则研究被纳入。 (SD) 所有群体的变革。我们计算了个体反应的 SD (SD IR )，以估计所有研究中可训练性之间是否存在个体间差异。
结果
文献检索共产生 32,968 篇研究，其中 24 篇纳入最终分析。我们的研究结果表明（1）干预后观察到的变化分数的大部分变化是由于测量误差造成的，（2）由于样本量通常较小，在单个研究中计算 SD IR不会产生足够的 SD IR准确性，并且（ 3）跨研究的\({\text{SD}}_{\text{IR}}^{2}\)荟萃分析并没有提供积极价值的有力证据。
结论
总体而言，我们的荟萃分析表明，没有强有力的证据支持单一干预措施中V O 2max可训练性的存在。因此，似乎不太可能发现V O 2max反应的临床相关预测因子。
可以在线注册（https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/X9VU3）。
京公网安备 11010802027423号