Background

It is unknown whether there are differences in maximal oxygen uptake (\({V}\)O_2max) 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 \({V}\)O_2max, (b) proportion of individuals increasing \({V}\)O_2max beyond a minimum important difference (MID) and (c) response variability in \({V}\)O_2max 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 \({V}\)O_2max 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 \({V}\)O_2max 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 \({V}\)O_2max > 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 \({V}\)O_2max 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 \({V}\)O_2max and increased the likelihood of increasing \({V}\)O_2max 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 \({V}\)O_2max trainability, and if meaningful, the causative factors.

中文翻译：

---

相对于传统强度锚点和生理阈值的规定运动训练后心肺适能的变化：对个体参与者数据进行荟萃分析的系统评价

 背景

目前尚不清楚在规定相对于传统 （TRAD） 锚或生理阈值 （THR） 的强度时，最大摄氧量 （\（{V}\）O_2max） 反应是否存在差异。

 目标

本荟萃分析试图比较：（a） \（{V}\）O_2max 的平均变化，（b） 将 \（{V}\）O_2max 增加到最小重要差 （MID） 以上的个体比例，以及 （c） TRAD 和 THR 之间 \（{V}\）O_2max 的响应变异性。

 方法

检索电子数据库，从 42 项研究中获得了 1544 名个体的数据。创建了两个数据集，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）。使用具有多级分布模型的贝叶斯方法分别分析来自两个数据集的 \（{V}\）O_2max 变化分数，并使用贝叶斯因子 （BF） 进行推断。MID 被预定义为一种代谢等效物 （MET;3.5 mL ^{kg-1 min-1}）。

 结果

在对照研究中，与 TRAD 相比，THR 组的平均 \（{V}\）O_2max 变化更大（4.1 对 1.8 mL ^{kg-1 min-1，BF} > 100），THR 组中 64% 的个体经历了 \（{V}\）O_2max > MID 的增加，而参加 TRAD 的个体为 16%。证据表明，THR 和 TRAD 之间变化的标准差没有差异（1.5 vs 1.7 mL ^{kg-1 min-1，BF} = 0.55），相对于非运动对照组，运动组的变化更大（1.9 vs 1.3 mL ^{kg-1 min-1，BF} = 12.4）。在非对照研究中，THR 组与 TRAD 组的平均 \（{V}\）O_2max 变化更大（4.4 vs 3.4 mL ^{kg-1 min-1，BF} = 35.1），变化标准差没有差异（3.0 vs 3.2 mL ^{kg-1 min-1，BF} = 0.41）。

 结论

与 TRAD 相比，使用 THR 方法规定运动强度在 \（{V}\）O_2max 中引起了更好的平均变化，并增加了 \（{V}\）O_2max 超出 MID 的可能性。因此，设计未来运动训练研究的研究人员应考虑在可能的情况下使用 THR 方法来规定运动强度。将干预措施与对照组进行比较的分析表明，干预反应存在异质性;然而，没有证据证明 THR 和 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能力进行，以调查 \（{V}\）O_2max 可训练性中的个体间差异的范围，如果有意义，还可以调查致病因素。