AUTHOR=Ambaum Christin , Hoppe Matthias W. 

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

JOURNAL=Frontiers in Sports and Active Living

VOLUME=Volume 7 - 2025

YEAR=2025

URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sports-and-active-living/articles/10.3389/fspor.2025.1650741

DOI=10.3389/fspor.2025.1650741

ISSN=2624-9367

ABSTRACT=IntroductionEnergy 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.MethodsThe 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.ResultsOf 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.DiscussionTo 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.