Brochhagen Joana, Hoppe Matthias W
Exercise Science, Institute of Sport Science and Motology, Philipps University Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Movement and Training Science, Faculty of Sport Science, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany.
Front Sports Act Living. 2025 Apr 17;7:1583313. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2025.1583313. eCollection 2025.
In intermittent sports, available internal load measurements like capillary blood techniques and portable respiratory gas analyzers are considered as gold standards in controlled laboratory environments, but are impractical for daily use in training and matches. A newer approach, the metabolic power model, allows to extrapolate from speed and acceleration data to the metabolic power, simulated oxygen uptake, and aerobic and anaerobic energy supply. The aim of this study was to validate the metabolic power model against the established 3-component model to allow direct comparison of variables including energy expenditure and supplies during intermittent running-based exercises.
Twelve male athletes (24 ± 3 years) performed three different running-based exercises consisting of continuous shuttle runs and repeated accelerations and sprints with change of direction. Each exercise condition intended to primarily stress the aerobic, anaerobic alactic, and lactic energy supply. One-way repeated measures ANOVA or Friedman test and corresponding effect sizes were applied for statistical analyses. Additionally, absolute and relative biases and Bland-Altman plots were generated.
For total energy expenditure, there were statistically significant differences ( ≤ .002, ≥ .882, large) and biases of -13.5 ± 11.8% for the continuous shuttle runs and up to 352.2 ± 115.9% for repeated accelerations and sprints. Concerning aerobic energy supply, there were statistically significant differences ( < .001, ≥ 1.937, large effect sizes) and biases of up to -38.1 ± 11.7%. For anaerobic energy supply, there were statistically significant differences ( < .001, ≥ 5.465, large) and biases of up to 1,849.9 ± 831.8%.
In conclusion, the metabolic power model significantly under- or overestimates total energy expenditure and supplies with large effect sizes during intermittent running-based exercises. Future studies should optimize the model before it can be used on a daily basis for scientific and practical purposes.
在间歇性运动中,诸如毛细血管血液技术和便携式呼吸气体分析仪等现有的内部负荷测量方法在受控实验室环境中被视为金标准,但在训练和比赛的日常使用中并不实用。一种更新的方法,即代谢功率模型,允许从速度和加速度数据推断出代谢功率、模拟摄氧量以及有氧和无氧能量供应。本研究的目的是针对已确立的三成分模型验证代谢功率模型,以便在基于间歇性跑步的运动中直接比较包括能量消耗和供应在内的变量。
12名男性运动员(24±3岁)进行了三种不同的基于跑步的运动,包括连续穿梭跑以及伴有方向变化的重复加速和冲刺跑。每种运动条件旨在主要刺激有氧、无氧非乳酸和乳酸能量供应。采用单向重复测量方差分析或弗里德曼检验以及相应的效应大小进行统计分析。此外,还生成了绝对和相对偏差以及布兰德-奥特曼图。
对于总能量消耗,连续穿梭跑存在统计学显著差异(≤.002,≥.882,大),偏差为-13.5±11.8%,重复加速和冲刺跑的偏差高达352.2±115.9%。关于有氧能量供应,存在统计学显著差异(<.001,≥1.937,大效应大小),偏差高达-38.1±11.7%。对于无氧能量供应,存在统计学显著差异(<.001,≥5.465,大),偏差高达1,849.9±831.8%。
总之,在基于间歇性跑步的运动中,代谢功率模型显著低估或高估了总能量消耗和供应,效应大小较大。未来的研究应在该模型可用于日常科学和实际目的之前对其进行优化。