4.6 Review

Magnitude and duration of excess of post-exercise oxygen consumption between high-intensity interval and moderate-intensity continuous exercise: A systematic review

期刊

OBESITY REVIEWS
卷 22, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/obr.13099

关键词

energy cost; oxygen absorption; resting metabolic rate; sprint intermittent exercise

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This systematic review found that the EPOC of high-intensity interval exercise and sprint interval exercise is significantly higher than moderate-intensity continuous exercise, with long-duration evaluation showing higher EPOC for high-intensity interval exercise compared to moderate-intensity continuous exercise. However, more standardized methodologies are needed to determine the effective EPOC time.
The present systematic review examined the effect of exercise intensity (high-intensity interval exercise [HIIE] vs. moderate-intensity continuous exercise [MICE] vs. sprint interval exercise [SIE]) on excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC). Twenty-two studies were included in the final evaluation. The retrieved investigations were split into studies that analysed short-duration (until 3 h) and long-duration (more than 3 h) EPOC. Studies that subtracted the baseline energy expenditure (EE) were analysed separately from those that did not. Most short-duration evaluations that subtracted baseline EE reported higher EPOC for HIIE (average of ~136 kJ) compared with MICE (average of ~101 kJ) and higher values for SIE (average of ~241 kJ) compared with MICE (average of ~151 kJ). The long-duration evaluations resulted in greater EPOC for HIIE (average of ~289 kJ) compared with MICE (average of ~159 kJ), while no studies comparing SIE versus MICE provided appropriate values. EE from EPOC seems to be greater following HIIE and SIE compared with MICE, and long-duration evaluations seem to present higher values than short-duration evaluations. Additionally, more standardized methodologies are needed in order to determine the effective EPOC time following these protocols.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据