Effects of various living-low and training-high modes with distinct training prescriptions on sea-level performance: A network meta-analysis.

Abstract

This study aimed to separately compare and rank the effect of various living-low and training-high (LLTH) modes on aerobic and anaerobic performances in athletes, focusing on training intensity, modality, and volume, through network meta-analysis. We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, EBSCO, and Cochrane from their inception date to June 30, 2023. Based on the hypoxic training modality and the intensity and duration of work intervals, LLTH was divided into intermittent hypoxic exposure, continuous hypoxic training, repeated sprint training in hypoxia (RSH; work interval: 5-10 s and rest interval: approximately 30 s), interval sprint training in hypoxia (ISH; work interval: 15-30 s), short-duration high-intensity interval training (s-IHT; short work interval: 1-2 min), long-duration high-intensity interval training (l-IHT; long work interval: > 5 min), and continuous and interval training under hypoxia. A meta-analysis was conducted to determine the standardized mean differences (SMDs) among the effects of various hypoxic interventions on aerobic and anaerobic performances. From 2,072 originally identified titles, 56 studies were included in the analysis. The pooled data from 53 studies showed that only l-IHT (SMDs: 0.78 [95% credible interval; CrI, 0.52-1.05]) and RSH (SMDs: 0.30 [95% CrI, 0.10-0.50]) compared with normoxic training effectively improved athletes' aerobic performance. Furthermore, the pooled data from 29 studies revealed that active intermittent hypoxic training compared with normoxic training can effectively improve anaerobic performance, with SMDs ranging from 0.97 (95% CrI, 0.12-1.81) for l-IHT to 0.32 (95% CrI, 0.05-0.59) for RSH. When adopting a program for LLTH, sufficient duration and work intensity intervals are key to achieving optimal improvements in athletes' overall performance, regardless of the potential improvement in aerobic or anaerobic performance. Nevertheless, it is essential to acknowledge that this study incorporated merely one study on the improvement of anaerobic performance by l-IHT, undermining the credibility of the results. Accordingly, more related studies are needed in the future to provide evidence-based support. It seems difficult to achieve beneficial adaptive changes in performance with intermittent passive hypoxic exposure and continuous low-intensity hypoxic training.