Evaluation of methods to quantify aerobic-anaerobic energy contributions during sports and exercise - a systematic review and best-evidence synthesis

(Bewertung von Methoden zur Quantifizierung der aeroben und anaeroben Energiebereitstellung im Sport und bei körperlicher Betätigung - eine systematische Übersicht und Synthese der besten Evidenz)

Introduction: Energy metabolism during sports and exercise involves both aerobic and anaerobic pathways, with anaerobic contribution playing a key role in various decisive moments during competition. However, unlike the aerobic contribution, quantifying the anaerobic contribution remains challenging due to the lack of a gold standard. This review aims to systematically assess the reliability and validity of different methods to quantify the aerobic-anaerobic energy contributions during sports and exercise, thereby clarifying the level of evidence supporting each method. Methods: The search was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines, including the databases PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and BISp-surf on June 11, 2024. Studies quantifying and evaluating the aerobic-anaerobic energy contributions during sports and exercise in humans without diseases, injuries, or disabilities were deemed eligible. Methodological quality was assessed using the COSMIN checklist rating reliability, measurement error, and validity, whereby the overall score was determined using the worst-score-count method. A best-evidence synthesis was also performed to define the direction and level of evidence. Results: Of the 2,120 studies identified, 34 met the eligibility criteria. Overall, five different methods to quantify aerobic-anaerobic energy contributions during sports and exercise were identified: (i) maximal accumulated oxygen deficit (MAOD), (ii) PCr-La-O2, (iii) critical power (CP), (iv) gross efficiency (GE), and (v) the bioenergetic model. Regarding their reliability and validity, the best-evidence synthesis demonstrated that evidence was strong for MAOD and limited to strong for CP and PCr-La-O2, and limited to conflicting for GE and the bioenergetic model. Additionally, the validation studies revealed, that the methods differ in terms of their applicability and precision to quantify the anaerobic alactic and lactic contribution. Discussion: To quantify the aerobic-anaerobic energy contributions during sports and exercise, the MAOD emerged as the most evaluated method and the only one with strong evidence for both reliability and validity. However, as the PCr-La-O2 method is the only approach that can distinguish between anaerobic alactic and lactic contributions using direct physiological measures, it should be further evaluated.
© Copyright 2025 Frontiers in Sports and Active Living. Frontiers Media. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.

Bibliographische Detailangaben
Schlagworte:
Notationen:Biowissenschaften und Sportmedizin
Tagging:Quantifizierung Bioenergetik
Veröffentlicht in:Frontiers in Sports and Active Living
Sprache:Englisch
Veröffentlicht: 2025
Online-Zugang:https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2025.1650741
Jahrgang:7
Seiten:1650741
Dokumentenarten:Artikel
Level:hoch