Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40313786›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in sports and active living2025

Validation of the metabolic power model during three intermittent running-based exercises with emphasis on aerobic and anaerobic energy supply.

Joana Brochhagen, Matthias W Hoppe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in sports and active living, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Joana BrochhagenExercise Science, Institute of Sport Science and Motology, Philipps University Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Matthias W HoppeExercise Science, Institute of Sport Science and Motology, Philipps University Marburg, Marburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: 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. Methods: 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. Results: For total energy expenditure, there were statistically significant differences ( Discussion: 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.

Indexed as

energy costenergy equivalentexternal loadglobal positioning systemoxygen uptake kineticsPCr-LA-O2 model

Identifiers

PMID40313786
PMCPMC12043615

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.