4.6 Review

Threshold of Energy Deficit and Lower-Body Performance Declines in Military Personnel: A Meta-Regression

期刊

SPORTS MEDICINE
卷 48, 期 9, 页码 2169-2178

出版社

ADIS INT LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s40279-018-0945-x

关键词

-

资金

  1. U.S. Army Medical Research and Material Command

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Negative energy balance (EB) is common during military operations, diminishing body mass and physical performance. However, the magnitude of negative EB where performance would still be maintained is not well defined. \ Objective Our objective was to explore relationships between EB and physical performance during military operations and define an acceptable negative EB threshold where performance may be maintained. Methods A systematic search was performed for studies that measured EB and physical performance during military training. A total of 632 articles and technical reports were screened. Lower-body power and strength were the most common performance tests across investigations and were used as physical performance outcomes. Data were extracted from nine eligible studies containing 15 independent subgroups. Meta-regression assessed changes in performance in relation to study duration (days), average daily EB, and total EB (daily EB 9 duration). Results Changes in physical performance were not associated with average daily EB or training duration. Total EB was associated with changes in lower-body power (r(2) = 0.764, P < 0.001) and strength (r(2) = 0.836, P < 0.001) independently and combined (r(2) = 0.454, P = 0.002). Predictive equations generated from the metaregression indicated that, for a zero to small (2%) decline in performance, tot al EB should be limited to - 5686 to 19,109 kcal, for an entire operation, whereas total EB of 39,243 to -59,377 kcal will result in moderate (7%) to large (10%) declines in performance. Conclusion These data demonstrated that greater total negative EB is associated with declines in lower-body performance during military operations.

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