Comparative efficacy of various hypoxic training paradigms on maximal oxygen consumption: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Background: Enhancement in maximal oxygen consumption (VO) induced by hypoxic training is important for both athletes and non-athletes. However, the lack of comparison of multiple paradigms and the exploration of related modulating factors leads to the inability to recommend the optimal regimen in different situations. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of seven common hypoxic training paradigms on VO and associated moderators.

Methods: Electronic (i.e., five databases) and manual searches were performed, and 42 studies involving 1246 healthy adults were included. Pairwise meta-analyses were conducted to compare different hypoxic training paradigms and hypoxic training and control conditions. The Bayesian network meta-analysis model was applied to calculate the standardised mean differences (SMDs) of pre-post VO alteration among hypoxic training paradigms in overall, athlete, and non-athlete populations, while meta-regression analyses were employed to explore the relationships between covariates and SMDs.

Results: All seven hypoxic training paradigms were effective to varying degrees, with SMDs ranging from 1.45 to 7.10. Intermittent hypoxia interval training (IHIT) had the highest probability of being the most efficient hypoxic training paradigm in the overall population and athlete subgroup (42%, 44%), whereas intermittent hypoxic training (IHT) was the most promising hypoxic training paradigm among non-athletes (66%). Meta-regression analysis revealed that saturation hours (coefficient, 0.004;  = 0.038; 95% CI [0.0002, 0.0085]) accounted for variations of VO improvement induced by IHT.

Conclusion: Efficient hypoxic training paradigms for VO gains differed between athletes and non-athletes, with IHIT ranking best for athletes and IHT for non-athletes. The practicability of saturation hours is confirmed with respect to dose-response issues in the future hypoxic training and associated scientific research.

Registration: This study was registered in the PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42022333548).