背景:间歇性锻炼计划的特征是密集的锻炼发作与被动或主动恢复交替(即,间歇训练),已被证明可以增强心肺健康的措施。然而,在间隔训练期间应用哪种恢复类型(主动或被动)导致更大的性能改进是未解决的。
目的:本系统综述旨在总结长期间歇运动训练后被动或主动恢复对健康训练和未经训练的个体的体能和生理适应指标的影响的最新证据。研究协议在开放科学框架(OSF)平台(https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF)中注册。IO/9BUEY)。
方法:我们搜索了9个数据库,包括灰色文献(学术搜索精英,CINAHL,ERIC,开放获取论文和论文,OpenDissertations,PsycINFO,PubMed/MEDLINE,Scopus,和SPORTDiscus)从成立到2023年2月。关键术语是高强度间歇训练,恢复模式,使用被动或主动恢复。进行了系统评价而不是荟萃分析,因为大量的结果参数会产生实质性的异质性。
结果:筛选标题后,摘要,和全文,24项研究有资格纳入我们的最终分析。13项研究研究了间歇训练与被动恢复制度对受过训练(6项研究)和未经训练(7项研究)的个体的身体健康和生理反应的影响。13项研究中有11项报告了身体素质的显著改善(例如,最大有氧速度(MAV),溜溜球跑步测试,跳跃表现)和生理参数(例如,最大摄氧量[VO2max],乳酸阈值,血压)在训练中(来自单个研究的效应大小:0.13结论:本系统综述的结果表明,间歇训练与主动或被动恢复方案相结合,有可能改善受过训练和未受过训练的成年人和受过训练的年轻人的身体素质和生理结果。也就是说,应用的恢复类型似乎不会影响结果.尽管如此,关于恢复类型对青少年身体健康和生理适应措施的影响,还需要更多的研究。
BACKGROUND: Intermittent exercise programs characterized through intensive exercise bouts alternated with passive or active recovery (i.e., interval training), have been proven to enhance measures of cardiorespiratory fitness. However, it is unresolved which recovery type (active or passive) applied during interval training results in larger performance improvements.
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to summarize recent evidence on the effects of passive or active recovery following long-term interval exercise training on measures of physical fitness and physiological adaptations in healthy trained and untrained individuals. The study protocol was registered in the Open Science Framework (OSF) platform ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/9BUEY ).
METHODS: We searched nine databases including the grey literature (Academic Search Elite, CINAHL, ERIC, Open Access Theses and Dissertations, Open Dissertations, PsycINFO, PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus) from inception until February 2023. Key terms as high-intensity interval training, recovery mode, passive or active recover were used. A systematic review rather than a meta-analysis was performed, as a large number of outcome parameters would have produced substantial heterogeneity.
RESULTS: After screening titles, abstracts, and full texts, 24 studies were eligible for inclusion in our final analysis. Thirteen studies examined the effects of interval training interspersed with passive recovery regimes on physical fitness and physiological responses in trained (6 studies) and untrained (7 studies) individuals. Eleven out of 13 studies reported significant improvements in physical fitness (e.g., maximal aerobic velocity (MAV), Yo-Yo running test, jump performance) and physiological parameters (e.g., maximal oxygen uptake [VO2max], lactate threshold, blood pressure) in trained (effect sizes from single studies: 0.13 < Cohen\'s d < 3.27, small to very large) and untrained individuals (effect sizes: 0.17 < d < 4.19, small to very large) despite the type of interval training or exercise dosage (frequency, intensity, time, type). Two studies were identified that examined the effects of passive recovery applied during interval training in young female basketball (15.1 ± 1.1 years) and male soccer players (14.2 ± 0.5 years). Both studies showed positive effects of passive recovery on VO2max, countermovement jump performance, and the Yo-Yo running test. Eleven studies examined the effects of interval training interspersed with active recovery methods on physical fitness and physiological parameters in trained (6 studies) and untrained individuals (5 studies). Despite the type of interval training or exercise dosage, nine out of eleven studies reported significant increases in measures of physical fitness (e.g., MAV) and physiological parameters (e.g., VO2max, blood pressures) in trained (effect sizes from single studies: 0.13 < d < 1.29, small to very large) and untrained individuals (effect sizes: 0.19 < d < 3.29, small to very large). There was no study available that examined the effects of active recovery on physical fitness and physiological responses in youth.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this systematic review show that interval training interspersed with active or passive recovery regimes have the potential to improve measures of physical fitness and physiology outcomes in trained and untrained adults and trained youth. That is, the applied recovery type seems not to affect the outcomes. Nonetheless, more research is needed on the effects of recovery type on measures of physical fitness and physiological adaptations in youth.