Page 32 - 《运动与健康科学》(英文)2024年第2期

TaggedAPTARAEnd154 P.R.P. Nunes et al.
TaggedAPTARAPThe HVRT (n = 201 females) presented the following varia- metabolic or inflammatory outcomes (Table 1) due to insuffi-
bles in mean § SD: 8.6 § 0.7 exercises performed with 10.5 § cient data.TaggedAPTARAEnd
1.6 repetitions/exercise, 3.1 § 0.8 sets/exercise, 1.3 § 0.2 min
recovery, 2.8 § 0.3 times/week, for 14.4 § 4.0 weeks. The
TaggedAPTARAH14. DiscussionTaggedAPTARAEnd
number of total sets/week was 77.0 § 23.9. The intensity was
reported as %1RM (moderate-to-high and high), and RMs TaggedAPTARAH24.1. Main findingsTaggedAPTARAEnd
(moderate-to-high and high) in 3 and 8 HVRT groups, respec- TaggedAPTARAPTo the best of our knowledge, this paper is the first to
tively. All HVRT groups performed RT with machines and summarize the evidence comparing low and high RT volume
free weights, except 1 HVRT study group that used a combina- in overweight/obese postmenopausal and older females. More
tion of machines, and free weights with elastic bands. Adher- specifically, to date, this is the first systematic review with
ence to HVRT was 85% and was reported by most of the meta-analysis that sought to explore the efficacy of RT volume
on body adiposity, metabolic risk, and inflammation outcomes.
studies. No potential harm from HVRT was reported.TaggedAPTARAEnd
TaggedAPTARAPIn general, all CG were instructed to maintain their usual The main finding of our study was that both RT volume groups
lifestyle (i.e., maintenance of daily physical activity) and not (LVRT and HVRT) presented reduced total body adiposity and
to perform any type of structured exercise program that could abdominal adiposity, glucose, and CRP when compared to CG.
affect the outcomes (e.g., RT), although 2 studies 52,67 reported Furthermore, only the LVRT presented reduced TC and LDL-c
when compared to CG, whereas only the HVRT presented
stretching activities (placebo intervention) in CG.TaggedAPTARAEnd
increased HDL-c when compared to CG. However, HVRT
TaggedAPTARAH23.4. LVRT effects on body adiposity, metabolic risk, and demonstrated higher effect sizes than LVRT for glucose and
CRP when compared to CG. Thus, collectively, despite the
inflammationTaggedAPTARAEnd
TaggedAPTARAPThe effects of LVRT on body adiposity, metabolic risk, and positive adaptations induced by RT in the outcomes analyzed
inflammation included in the systematic review with meta- in this meta-analysis of RCTs, the higher-volume protocols
analysis are presented in Table 3. LVRT reduced total body elicited greater improvements in metabolic and inflammatory
adiposity and abdominal adiposity when compared to CG, outcomes than the lower-volume protocols.TaggedAPTARAEnd
with small effect sizes. Regarding serum metabolic risk,
LVRT reduced TC, LDL-c, and glucose when compared to TaggedAPTARAH24.2. Body adiposityTaggedAPTARAEnd
CG, with small, moderate and moderate effect sizes, respec- 2
TaggedAPTARAPObesity (i.e., body mass index 30 kg/m and body fat
tively. For inflammatory outcomes, LVRT reduced CRP, with
40%) and abdominal obesity (i.e., waist circumference
a small effect size when compared to CG. In the sensitivity > 88 cm for females) 79,80 are common in postmenopausal and
analysis (heterogeneity removed), Fritz et al. 71 study group 1,2
older females. Moreover, this condition has been associated
was removed from the abdominal adiposity outcome (Supple- 1719
with premature mortality. In this sense, the public health
mentary Fig. 2).TaggedAPTARAEnd
guidelines recommending exercise interventions against
TaggedAPTARAPNo effect was observed for TG and HDL-c. No meta-analysis
obesity often focus on moderate-to-high intensity aerobic
was performed for the remaining metabolic and inflammatory
training as the first option instead of moderate-to-high inten-
outcomes (Table 1) due to insufficient data.TaggedAPTARAEnd
sity RT, which is more commonly recommended as a comple-
mentary intervention. 2023 These recommendations are based
TaggedAPTARAH23.5. HVRT effects on body adiposity, metabolic risk, and
on previous studies on the management of overweight and
inflammationTaggedAPTARAEnd
obese patients, which mainly focus on body weight loss rather
TaggedAPTARAPThe HVRT effects on body adiposity, metabolic risk, than overall body composition (i.e., lean-soft tissue and fat
81
and inflammation included in the systematic review with mass) and, therefore, limit the effectiveness of RT. Indeed
meta-analysis are presented in Table 4. We observed a reduc- the position of the American College of Sports Medicine on
tion in total body fat adiposity and abdominal adiposity when physical activity for weight loss and prevention of weight
compared to CG, with small effect sizes. Regarding serum regain is that RT will not reduce body weight. 81 However, this
metabolic risk, HVRT reduced glucose when compared to CG, body weight loss approach may be misleading since RT is typi-
with large effect size. Moreover, HVRT increased HDL-c cally associated with body recomposition aspects, 82 such as an
when compared to CG, with a small effect size. For inflamma- increase in lean-soft tissue mass (»0.8 kg) and a decrease in
tory outcomes, HVRT reduced CRP, with a large effect size fat body mass (»1 kg), which may not reflect meaningful
when compared to CG. In the sensitivity analysis (heteroge- body weight loss. 34 Indeed, in the present study, both RT
neity removed), the study by Tomeleri et al. 77 was removed groups (LVRT and HVRT) presented slightly reduced total
body adiposity (»1 kg and 1.3%, data not shown), with small
for the glucose outcome (Supplementary Fig. 3).TaggedAPTARAEnd
TaggedAPTARAPNo effect was observed for TC, LDL-c, or TG. In the sensitivity effect sizes (Tables 3 and 4) in overweight/obese postmeno-
66
analysis (heterogeneity removed), the study by Cunha et al. was pausal and older females. Our data are in accordance with
removed for the TC outcome, and the study by Tomeleri et recent studies on the effects of RT on total body adiposity
al. 75 was removed for the LDL-c outcome (Supplementary reduction (0.551.00 kg and 1.4%1.6%). 34,83 In addition,
Fig. 3), and no effect was observed after the sensitivity anal- our results are similar to those of recent studies on the effects
ysis. No meta-analysis was performed for the remaining of aerobic and combined training (aerobic plus RT) on total