SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article
Front. Sports Act. Living
Sec. Exercise Physiology
Volume 7 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fspor.2025.1650741
Evaluation of methods to quantify aerobic-anaerobic energy contributions during sports and exercise – a systematic review and best-evidence synthesis
Provisionally accepted
- Philipps-Universitat Marburg, Marburg, Germany
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
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, since only the PCr-La-O2 method can distinguish between anaerobic alactic and lactic contributions, this method should be further evaluated.
Keywords: Capacity, Creatine phosphate, Lactate, performance, post-exercise oxygen consumption
Received: 20 Jun 2025; Accepted: 02 Sep 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Ambaum and Hoppe. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Christin Ambaum, Philipps-Universitat Marburg, Marburg, Germany
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.