Changes in Cardiorespiratory Fitness Following Exercise Training Prescribed Relative to Traditional Intensity Anchors and Physiological Thresholds: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis of Individual Participant Data
Samuel J. R. Meyler, Paul A. Swinton, Lindsay Bottoms, Lance C. Dalleck, Ben Hunter, Mark A. Sarzynski, David Wellsted, Camilla J. Williams, Daniel Muniz-Pumares
{"title":"Changes in Cardiorespiratory Fitness Following Exercise Training Prescribed Relative to Traditional Intensity Anchors and Physiological Thresholds: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis of Individual Participant Data","authors":"Samuel J. R. Meyler, Paul A. Swinton, Lindsay Bottoms, Lance C. Dalleck, Ben Hunter, Mark A. Sarzynski, David Wellsted, Camilla J. Williams, Daniel Muniz-Pumares","doi":"10.1007/s40279-024-02125-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Background</h3><p>It is unknown whether there are differences in maximal oxygen uptake (<span>\\({V}\\)</span>O<sub>2max</sub>) response when prescribing intensity relative to traditional (TRAD) anchors or to physiological thresholds (THR).</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Objectives</h3><p>The present meta-analysis sought to compare: (a) mean change in <span>\\({V}\\)</span>O<sub>2max</sub>, (b) proportion of individuals increasing <span>\\({V}\\)</span>O<sub>2max</sub> beyond a minimum important difference (MID) and (c) response variability in <span>\\({V}\\)</span>O<sub>2max</sub> between TRAD and THR.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>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 <span>\\({V}\\)</span>O<sub>2max</sub> 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<sup>−1</sup> min<sup>−1</sup>).</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>In controlled studies, mean <span>\\({V}\\)</span>O<sub>2max</sub> change was greater in the THR group compared with TRAD (4.1 versus 1.8 mL kg<sup>−1</sup> min<sup>−1</sup>, BF > 100), with 64% of individuals in the THR group experiencing an increase in <span>\\({V}\\)</span>O<sub>2max</sub> > 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<sup>−1</sup> min<sup>−1</sup>, BF = 0.55), and greater variation in exercise groups relative to non-exercising controls (1.9 versus 1.3 mL kg<sup>−1</sup> min<sup>−1</sup>, BF = 12.4). In non-controlled studies, mean <span>\\({V}\\)</span>O<sub>2max</sub> change was greater in the THR group versus the TRAD group (4.4 versus 3.4 mL kg<sup>−1</sup> min<sup>−1</sup>, BF = 35.1), with no difference in standard deviation of change (3.0 versus 3.2 mL kg<sup>−1</sup> min<sup>−1</sup>, BF = 0.41).</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusion</h3><p>Prescribing exercise intensity using THR approaches elicited superior mean changes in <span>\\({V}\\)</span>O<sub>2max</sub> and increased the likelihood of increasing <span>\\({V}\\)</span>O<sub>2max</sub> 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 <span>\\({V}\\)</span>O<sub>2max</sub> trainability, and if meaningful, the causative factors.</p>","PeriodicalId":21969,"journal":{"name":"Sports Medicine","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sports Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-024-02125-x","RegionNum":1,"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
Abstract
Background
It is unknown whether there are differences in maximal oxygen uptake (\({V}\)O2max) 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 \({V}\)O2max, (b) proportion of individuals increasing \({V}\)O2max beyond a minimum important difference (MID) and (c) response variability in \({V}\)O2max 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 \({V}\)O2max 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 \({V}\)O2max 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 \({V}\)O2max > 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 \({V}\)O2max 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 \({V}\)O2max and increased the likelihood of increasing \({V}\)O2max 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 \({V}\)O2max trainability, and if meaningful, the causative factors.
期刊介绍:
Sports Medicine focuses on providing definitive and comprehensive review articles that interpret and evaluate current literature, aiming to offer insights into research findings in the sports medicine and exercise field. The journal covers major topics such as sports medicine and sports science, medical syndromes associated with sport and exercise, clinical medicine's role in injury prevention and treatment, exercise for rehabilitation and health, and the application of physiological and biomechanical principles to specific sports.
Types of Articles:
Review Articles: Definitive and comprehensive reviews that interpret and evaluate current literature to provide rationale for and application of research findings.
Leading/Current Opinion Articles: Overviews of contentious or emerging issues in the field.
Original Research Articles: High-quality research articles.
Enhanced Features: Additional features like slide sets, videos, and animations aimed at increasing the visibility, readership, and educational value of the journal's content.
Plain Language Summaries: Summaries accompanying articles to assist readers in understanding important medical advances.
Peer Review Process:
All manuscripts undergo peer review by international experts to ensure quality and rigor. The journal also welcomes Letters to the Editor, which will be considered for publication.