| 摘要: | 本研究目的為了解高強度間歇運動 (HIIT) 與其他運動型態 (CON) 對代謝症候群指標改善效果，採統合分析方法，聚焦於居家可自行監控的指標:身體質量指數 (BMI)、血壓 (SBP、DBP) 及血糖 (FG) 檢視整合效果量及文獻年代累積趨勢。蒐集文獻資料以主題為高強度間歇訓練和代謝症候群的相關研究為主，訂定排除標準，收錄23篇研究進行統合分析，結果顯示：(一) 前測HIIT組與CON組對代謝症後群指標無顯著差異；(二) 後測HIIT組與CON組研究結果發現指標SBP (hedges’s g= -0.488,CI:-0.692~-0.285)、DBP (hedges’s g= -0.420,CI:-0.621~-0.219) 有中度效果量，具顯著差異 (I2=43%~63%；p<0.05)，在統計學上年代累積趨勢也呈現顯著差異，BMI及FG指標則無顯著差異；(三) HIIT組前後測指標BMI(hedges’s g= -0.227,CI:-0.310~-0.140)、SBP (hedges’s g= -0.447,CI:-0.557~-0.338)、DBP(hedges’s g= -0.492,CI:-0.600~-0.383)及FG (hedges’s g= -0.288,CI:-0.383~-0.367)具中低效果量，且有顯著差異 (I2=66%~87%；p<0.05)，年代累積趨勢呈現顯著差異；(四) CON組前後測指標BMI (hedges’s g= -0.129,CI:-0.229~-0.371)及 FG(hedges’s g=-0.096,CI:-0.192~-0.001) 具小量效果，有顯著差異 (I2=28%~85%；p<0.05)，年代累積趨勢也具有顯著差異。本研究結果亦支持過去相關單一研究，兩種介入各具優勢，在改善代謝症候群指標的分析中，HIIT組相對於CON組具有明顯的效果，但在CON組分析中，部分指標也具效果量。總結本研究的結果，若要建議改善代謝症候群指標，會以採取HIIT訓練為優先選項，因此不論是HIIT組或是CON組介入，對於代謝症候群指標都具有益處，證明不同型態的運動是代謝症候群先期預防及改善的策略之一。
The present study aimed to explore the improvement effect on high-intensity interval exercise (HIIT) and other sports modalities (CON) on metabolic syndrome indicators, using a meta-analysis method, focusing on the indicators that can be monitored at home: body mass index (BMI), blood pressure (SBP and DBP) and blood glucose (FG) to view the results of the integrated effect size and the cumulative effect size of the literature over the years. The literature collection is mainly related to high-intensity interval training and metabolic syndrome related research, and the exclusion criteria are set to select the literature. Finally, 23 studies are included for a unified analysis. The results show that:
(1) There was no significant difference between the pre-test HIIT group and the CON group on the post-metabolism index;(2) Post-test HIIT group and CON group had a moderate effect size for SBP (hedges’s g= -0.488,CI:-0.692~0.285) and DBP (hedges’s g= -0.420,CI:0.621~0.219), and there was a significant difference (I2=43%~63%；p<0.05) , the cumulative effect size of the years also showed significant differences in statistics, but there was no significant difference in BMI and FG;(3) The pre- and post-test in the HIIT group had a medium-low effect on BMI (hedges’s g=-0.227,CI:-0.310~0.140), SBP (hedges’s g=-0.447,CI:-0.557~0.338), DBP (hedges’s g=-0.492,CI:-0.600) and FG (hedges’s g=-0.288,CI:-0.383~0.367). Significant difference (I2=66%~87%; p<0.05), and the cumulative effect size of years showed a statistically significant difference;(4) The CON group had a small effect size in BMI (hedges’s g= -0.129,CI:-0.229~-0.371) and FG(hedges’s g=-0.096,CI:-0.192~0.001) before and after the test, and there was a significant variance (I2=28%~85%; p<0.05), and the cumulative effect size in the years was the effect of BMI and FG. On top of that, there is a statistically significant difference in the amount as the age gets closer to modern times.
In a nutshell, the results of this study also support related research in the past. The HIIT group can be used as a strategy to improve the indicators of metabolic syndrome and has a significant medium and low effect size. The CON group also has a small effect size on BMI and FG. Therefore, whether it is HIIT group or the intervention of the CON group has benefits for all metabolic syndrome indicators, indicating that exercise training can be used as one of the strategies for early prevention and improvement of metabolic syndrome indicators. |
