See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/256501348

Determining Anaerobic Capacity in Sporting Activities

Article  in  International journal of sports physiology and performance · September 2013

DOI: 10.1123/ijspp.8.5.475 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

29 2,705

3 authors, including:

Dionne A. Noordhof Jos J. de Koning

Norwegian University of Science and Technology Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
51 PUBLICATIONS   334 CITATIONS    249 PUBLICATIONS   4,086 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The underlying mechanisms of overtraining and physical and psychological markers for early detection. View project

gross efficiency in young elite cyclists View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dionne A. Noordhof on 10 January 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 2013, 8, 475-482
© 2013 Human Kinetics, Inc.
www.IJSPP-Journal.com
BRIEF REVIEW

Determining Anaerobic Capacity in Sporting Activities

Dionne A. Noordhof, Philip F. Skiba, and Jos J. de Koning

Anaerobic capacity/anaerobically attributable power is an important parameter for athletic performance, not
only for short high-intensity activities but also for breakaway efforts and end spurts during endurance events.
Unlike aerobic capacity, anaerobic capacity cannot be easily quantified. The 3 most commonly used meth-
odologies to quantify anaerobic capacity are the maximal accumulated oxygen deficit method, the critical
power concept, and the gross efficiency method. This review describes these methods, evaluates if they result
in similar estimates of anaerobic capacity, and highlights how anaerobic capacity is used during sporting
activities. All 3 methods have their own strengths and weaknesses and result in more or less similar estimates
of anaerobic capacity but cannot be used interchangeably. The method of choice depends on the research
question or practical goal.

Keywords: MAOD, critical power, efficiency, modeling, exercise performance

Human performance can be described as the sum-
mation of performance oxygen uptake (VO2) and per-
formance O2 deficit multiplied by the gross mechanical
efficiency.1 Therefore, to understand human performance,
knowledge of these 3 factors is of great importance. Per-
formance VO2 can be easily quantified using indirect calo-
rimetry and is therefore a common measure in research,
as well as in sports practice. However, it is much more
difficult to determine performance O2 deficit2 and gross
mechanical efficiency during high-intensity exercise.3
Despite methodological issues, there have been
various attempts to determine the performance O2 defi-
cit or the anaerobic contribution to performance during
several exercise modes. For example, Foster et al4 found
an anaerobic contribution of about 50% during 1500-m
cycling time trials. The relative contribution of the aerobic
and anaerobic systems during 200- to 1500-m running
events was studied by Spencer and Gastin,5 who found a
relative anaerobic contribution of 16% during the 1500-
m. To determine the anaerobic contribution to perfor-
mance, different methodologies have been used.6–8 As a
result, the first goal of this review is to discuss the 3 most
commonly used methodologies to determine anaerobic
capacity/anaerobically attributable power.
To be able to make an informed choice for the right
methodology to answer a research question or to moni-
tor athletes on a regular basis, the different methods to
determine anaerobic capacity need to be compared.
Therefore, the second goal of this review is to evaluate
Noordhof and de Koning are with the MOVE Research Inst
Amsterdam, VU University, Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands. Skiba is with the Dept of Sport and Health Sci-
ences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
the degree of agreement between the different methods
based on the existing literature.
Finally, we are interested in how anaerobic capacity
is used during exercise. Several studies have quantified
anaerobic-energy production during all-out or time-trial
exercise.4,9–11 Recently, Skiba et al12 introduced a new
model in which the use of anaerobic capacity can be
modeled during intermittent or stochastic exercise, like
a cycling road race or a marathon speed skating event,
where easy periods alternate with breakaways. A ques-
tion that arises is, is anaerobic capacity a fixed quantity
that when completely used needs a long resting period to
restore, or is it possible to use part of it and then restore
or recharge a certain amount during an easy period? Con-
sequently, the final issue that this review will address is
the use of anaerobic capacity during sporting activities.
In summary, the current review describes several
methods to determine anaerobic capacity/anaerobically
attributable power, evaluates if these different method-
ologies result in similar estimates of anaerobic capacity,
and highlights how anaerobic capacity is used during
sporting activities.
Measuring Anaerobic Capacity/
Anaerobically Attributable Power
There are several methods available to estimate anaerobic
capacity during various types of sports. The most fre-
quently used method is the maximal accumulated oxygen
deficit (MAOD). Medbø et al6 showed that the O2 deficit,
a concept introduced by Krogh and Lindhard,13 reached
maximal values when accumulated over an exercise bout
of at least 2 minutes, from which they concluded that the
MAOD is representative of anaerobic capacity. Another
method that has been used in the literature to quantify

475
476 Noordhof, Skiba, and de Koning
anaerobic capacity is the critical power (CP) concept,
introduced by Monod and Scherrer.7 The W′, one of the
parameters of the CP concept, is originally thought to rep-
resent anaerobic capacity or anaerobic work capacity.14–16
The third and final method that will be discussed in this
review is the gross efficiency (GE) method,17 which is
based on the methodology first described by Serresse et al.8
These 3 methods used to determine anaerobic capacity or
anaerobically attributable power will be briefly discussed.
MAOD Method
The MAOD method is based on an individual linear
relationship between treadmill speed or power output
(PO) and VO2.6,18,19 Extrapolation of this relationship
to supramaximal exercise intensities provides the VO2
demand corresponding to a certain supramaximal work
load (Figure 1A). The duration of the supramaximal
exercise bout (~2–3 min) times the predicted VO2 demand
results in the accumulated VO2 demand. The MAOD can
be calculated by subtracting the VO2 uptake measured
during and integrated over the duration of the supramaxi-
mal exercise bout (ie, the accumulated VO2 uptake) from
the accumulated VO2 demand (Figure 1A).6
Recently, a more comprehensive review of the
MAOD method was published.2 That review addresses
the effect of the number and duration of submaximal
exercise bouts necessary for the construction of the PO–
VO2 relationship and of different supramaximal exercise
protocols on the calculated anaerobic capacity, as well as
the reliability and validity of this method. The main con-
clusion of the review was that 10 × 4-minute submaximal
exercise bouts at intensities of 30% to 90% of maximal
oxygen uptake (VO2max) and the use of a fixed y-intercept
are preferred for the construction of the individual
PO–VO2 relationship. In addition, a supramaximal exer-
cise protocol and exercise modality that is most specific
to the athlete’s event or sport should be chosen.
CP Concept
Originally developed by Monod and Scherrer,7 the CP
concept has been used to differentiate between aerobic and
anaerobic exercise. Equation 1 describes this CP concept:
PO = (W′/t) + CP (Eq 1)
in which t is the time to exhaustion at a certain PO (Figure
1B). The parameters of the CP concept can be determined
by having subjects perform 4 or more constant PO tests
to exhaustion. Preferably, these tests are conducted on
multiple days, and the chosen POs range of ~75% to
105% of the maximum PO attained during a maximal
incremental exercise test.20 An alternative way to estimate
W′ and CP is to perform 4 or more time trials of different
length and measure average PO and performance time.21
Monod and Scherrer initially defined the CP of a
muscle or muscle group as the maximum rate it can
maintain for a very long time without fatigue.7 In modern
times, the CP is best understood as a threshold phe-
nomenon, defining the boundary between the heavy and
severe exercise-intensity domains.22–27 It represents the
highest work rate that can be sustained while maintain-
ing a physiological steady state and appears to occur at
a work rate close to the maximal lactate steady state.25,28
Exercise above the CP results in an inexorable rise in
VO2 (in the face of a constant external work rate) until
VO2max is attained and exhaustion ensues.22,24,25,29 This
combination of factors has led to sub-CP exercise being
referred to as aerobic.
The work capacity above CP is fixed; that is, the W′
(power–time integral > CP) remains constant regardless
of the rate of its discharge. Originally, it had been thought
that W′ consists of the energy produced through phos-
phocreatine hydrolysis, anaerobic glycolysis, and a small
aerobic contribution from O2 stores in the body.14–16 This
led to a popular understanding of W′ as anaerobic work
capacity. The construct itself appears robust, as the deple-
tion and reconstitution of W′ can be calculated with some
precision under a variety of circumstances.12,30–32 These
observations suggest that the power–time relationship
is a highly organized physiological process. However,
it has proven difficult to ascribe the W′ to any discrete
variable.25,31,33
GE Method
The GE method is based on calculating the aerobically
attributable mechanical power (Paer) and subtracting Paer
from the total PO produced, which results in the anaero-
bically attributable mechanical power (Pan; Figure 1C).8
Integrating Pan over time provides a measure of a subject’s
anaerobic capacity. Paer can be determined from metabolic
power input (PI) and the efficiency with which metabolic
power is converted to mechanical power. To determine
GE, a subject needs to perform steady-state submaximal
exercise,34 during which GE can be determined before
the start of the supramaximal exercise bout. GE can be
defined as the ratio between the mechanical PO and PI, in
which PI can be calculated from VO2 (expressed in L/s)
and the oxygen equivalent (Equation 2)35,36:
PI = VO2 × (4940 × RER × 16,040) (Eq 2)
where RER = respiratory exchange ratio. Anaerobically
attributable power can be estimated for different high-
intensity exercise bouts (ie, time trials4,11 and/or constant
PO bouts17), as long as PO, VO2, RER, and GE are known.
Are They the Same?
There are several studies that have compared 2 of the 3
methods just described in determining anaerobic capac-
ity/anaerobically attributable power.16,17,37 When compar-
ing these methods, it has to be taken into account that
the results of the MAOD method are expressed in terms
of O2 equivalents and that the results of the CP concept
and GE method are usually expressed in mechanical units
(joules or watts).
Figure 1 — Graphic representation of the different methodologies to determine anaerobic capacity/anaerobic attributable power
(shaded area). (A) The maximal accumulated oxygen deficit method (adapted from Noordhof et al17). (B) The critical power concept
(adapted from Vanhatalo et al.20). (C) The gross efficiency method (adapted from Noordhof et al17).

477
478 Noordhof, Skiba, and de Koning
Anaerobic capacity determined with the CP concept
has been compared with anaerobic capacity estimated
with the MAOD method, by Hill and Smith.16 They found
no significant difference in anaerobic capacity between
the 2 methods. Besides, the 2 anaerobic-capacity esti-
mates were significantly correlated (r = .77), from which
they concluded that W′ is a valid method to determine
anaerobic capacity. In that study, anaerobic capacity
estimated with the MAOD method was used as criterion
measure. However, the exact methodology used to deter-
mine the MAOD has not been reported, which makes it
difficult to interpret the findings of the study.16
Bosquet et al38 determined anaerobic capacity during
treadmill running using the MAOD method and the CP
concept. The individual velocity–VO2 relationship, nec-
essary to determine anaerobic capacity with the MAOD
method, was based on the data of a maximal incremental
exercise test performed on a treadmill. The initial velocity
was set at 2.8 m/s, and velocity increased by 0.28 m/s
every 2 minutes, from which it can be concluded that
the velocity–VO2 relationship was not based on steady-
state VO2 measurements, which makes the results of this
study questionable. W′ or anaerobic running capacity
(ARC expressed in m or in mL O2 equivalents per kg)
in the study of Bosquet et al38 was determined using
4 different models: a nonlinear 2-parameter model, 2
linear 2-parameter models, and a 3-parameter model.
The 3-parameter model resulted in an average ARC that
was about twice as high as the average ARC derived with
the 3 other models. However, the ARC derived with this
3-parameter model and the 2 linear 2-parameter models
was significantly correlated with the O2 deficit (r = .57,
r = .50, and r = .49, respectively). Bosquet et al38 con-
cluded that although the definitions of the O2 deficit (or
MAOD) and the ARC (or W′) suggest that both methods
can be used to determine anaerobic capacity, they should
not be used interchangeably.
Another study that compared anaerobic capacity
obtained with the MAOD method and the CP concept was
the study Zagatto and Gobatto.37 Hill and Smith16 made
use of cycling exercise, Bosquet et al38 studied a group
of middle- and long-distance runners on the treadmill,
and Zagatto and Gobatto determined anaerobic capacity
using both methods during a table-tennis-specific test.
The constant-intensity submaximal exercise bouts nec-
essary for the construction of the PO–VO2 relationship
were table tennis sessions of 7 minutes in duration, during
which balls were thrown at a certain constant frequency.
Thus, a frequency–VO2 relationship was established. The
individual linear relationship was based on 4 exercise
bouts and a fixed y-intercept, determined as the baseline
VO2 measured during a 10-minute rest period. The CP
was in this case a critical frequency of balls thrown to the
table tennis player. W′ was estimated using 3 different
mathematical equations (2 linear and 1 nonlinear), but
none of the W′ values were significantly correlated with
the MAOD. Zagatto and Gobatto37 concluded that W′
does not result in a valid estimate of anaerobic capacity
during a table-tennis-specific test.
Based on the results of the studies comparing the
anaerobic capacity estimated with the MAOD method
and CP concept, it must be concluded that neither method
results in significantly different estimates of anaerobic
capacity.16,37–39 However, clear individual differences
exist between the 2 methods, so it is advised to select 1
method and use that method consistently.
Noordhof et al17 compared anaerobic capacity cal-
culated with 3 different MAOD procedures and the GE
method. No significant differences in anaerobic capacity
were found between the different methods. However,
assessing the precision of these different methodolo-
gies resulted in significantly different 95% confidence
intervals. The original MAOD method makes use of at
least 10 submaximal exercise bouts with a duration of
10 minutes to establish the linear PO–VO2 relationship.6
However, in the literature this original methodology has
been adapted in different ways; for example, shorter exer-
cise bouts have been suggested, as well as the inclusion
of a fixed y-intercept.40,41 Therefore, 3 different PO–VO2
relationships were established in the study of Noordhof
et al17: 1 based on the average VO2 from minutes 8 to 10
of 10 submaximal exercise bouts, without the inclusion
of a fixed y-intercept, and 2 regression lines based on the
average VO2 during minute 4, without (4-Y) and with the
inclusion of a fixed y-intercept (4+Y). The results showed
that the 4+Y MAOD procedure and the GE method
resulted in smaller 95% confidence intervals, from which
it was concluded that the 4+Y MAOD procedure or GE
method should be used to determine anaerobic capacity.
Clear individual differences in anaerobic capacity were
found between the 2 methods, so it was advised not to
use the methods interchangeably.17
Unfortunately, there are no published studies avail-
able that compared the CP concept and the GE method
in determining anaerobic capacity. Comparing these 3
different methodologies to determine anaerobic capac-
ity/anaerobic attributable power gives us insight into
the relationship between these different measurements.
However, it remains uncertain if these indirect measure-
ments are really valid and which measurement provides
us the “real” anaerobic capacity, as direct measurements
of anaerobic capacity during whole-body exercise are
thus far not available.
The main conclusion that has to be drawn from the
presented studies is that these 3 methods result in more
or less similar estimates of anaerobic capacity when
studied during running and cycling exercise.16,17,38,39
However, the MAOD method, CP concept, and GE
method cannot be used interchangeably, as large dif-
ferences can exist between these methods. When using
the MAOD method, we advise to use 10 × 4-minute
submaximal exercise bouts at intensities between 30%
and 90% VO2max and to include a fixed y-intercept in
the PO–VO2 relationship.2 When using the CP concept
to determine anaerobic capacity, the 2-parameter model
seems to result in a more valid estimate of anaerobic
capacity than the 3-parameter model.38 The GE method
is less time-consuming, but GE needs to be estimated at

the highest possible steady-state exercise intensity with
an RER ≤1.0.3,34 Taking this into account, it seems to be
possible to get a reliable estimate of anaerobic capacity
during high-intensity exercise.
How Is Anaerobic Capacity Used
During Sporting Activities?
It is evident that to perform optimally in short-duration
activities, most of the anaerobic capacity needs to be used.
During these short-duration activities, a strategy with an
all-out anaerobic contribution to PO is often adopted.42
In contrast, middle- and long-distance events are charac-
terized by a high anaerobic contribution at the beginning
of the event and during the end spurt,4,11 without much
anaerobic contribution during the middle section of the
event. Although ultraendurance activities (eg, marathon
running, multistage cycling events like the Tour de France)
are often not associated with a high anaerobic energy con-
tribution, surges during the race and end-spurt activities
rely predominantly on the anaerobic system.43,44
Is the W′ Actually Fixed?
Can It Be Restored During Exercise?
In recent years, some light has been shed on processes
that may contribute to the W′. For example, the slow
component of pulmonary O2 uptake in the severe domain
appears to be related to the W′ during constant-work-rate,
all-out, and intermittent exercise.12,22,33,45,46 Similarly,
studies using 31P magnetic resonance spectroscopy indi-
cated that the complete depletion of the W′ is associated
with a consistently low phosphocreatine concentration
and pH.47 Although an intrinsic relationship between
the W′ and VO2 kinetics would clearly conflict with an
“anaerobic” interpretation of the W′,7,15 a recent inves-
tigation indicates that hyperoxia both increases the CP
and reduces the W′.27 This suggests that the CP and W′
are interrelated and that the basic conceptual framework
of the W′ should be reconsidered.22,25,27
Although we may be unable to consider the W′ to
be a strictly anaerobic parameter, it does indeed appear
to represent a fixed work capacity if evaluated under
consistent experimental conditions (ie, without glycogen
depletion15 or changes in oxygen tension27). For example,
the W′ appears to be robust to manipulations of work rate
within the severe domain, encompassing constant-work-
rate, all-out sprint, ramp, and self-paced exercise.48 Since
depletion of the W′ results in exhaustion, or at least the
inability to maintain a supra-CP work rate, it is important
to understand whether the W′ can be recovered during
exercise, as many sports involve periods of time spent
surging above the CP and periods of relative recovery (ie,
time spent drafting while skating or cycling).
Fortunately, several authors have sought to apply
the CP/W′ paradigm to intermittent exercise, albeit with
varying degrees of success.12,30,32,49,50 Morton and Billat32
published the first formal model that attempted to math-
Anaerobic Capacity in Sporting Activities 479
ematically codify the depletion and reconstitution of the
W′ during intermittent exercise:
n ⎡( Pw − CP ) tw − ( CP − Pr ) tr ⎤⎦
t = n ( tw + tr ) + W ′ − ⎣ − CP
Pw
(Eq 3)
where t = total endurance time, Pw and Pr are equal to
the work- and rest-interval power, and tw and tr are equal
to the work- and rest-interval time. In this model it is
assumed that the W′ is depleted at a rate of (Pw – CP)/s
and recovered at a rate of (CP – Pr)/s.
The model described by Equation 3 was recently
applied to intermittent cycling exercise by Chidnok et
al30 to good effect, clearly demonstrating W′ recovery.
However, the model assumes linear kinetics of W′ dis-
charge and recharge, which conflicts with recent obser-
vations indicating that the W′ is actually reconstituted
curvilinearly.31 This is an important practical distinction,
indicating that while a substantial portion of the W′ can
be recovered quickly, complete recovery may take 20
minutes or more.
Based in part on these data, Skiba et al12 recently
developed a novel integrating function (W′I) that suc-
cessfully accounts for the curvilinear depletion and recon-
stitution kinetics of the W′ during intermittent exercise:
−( t−u )
t
′
Wbal = W ′ − ∫ Wexp
′
⋅e ! W′
(Eq 4)
0
In Equation 4, W′exp is representative of the amount of
the starting W′ that is presently expended, while (t–u) is
equal to the time in seconds separating the portions of
the exercise session where W′ was used. The τW′ is the
time constant of the reconstitution of the W′—the time
required to recover approximately 60% of the W′exp. Thus,
the W′bal is representative of the difference between the
measured resting W′ and integral of the joules of the W′
expended before time t in a training bout or race, which
begins to be recharged exponentially any time PO falls
below the CP.12
The τW′ appears to vary exponentially as a function
of the difference (DCP) between recovery PO and the CP
(Equation 5)12.
! W′ = 546 ⋅e( −0.1⋅DCP ) + 316 (Eq 5)
In other words, the closer the athlete approaches CP, the
more slowly the outstanding W′bal is recovered. It may
be helpful to visualize the implications of this relation-
ship in terms of macroscopic phenomena. The relation-
ship described by Equation 5 is precisely what would
be observed where W′ is representative of a vessel of
water that could be emptied by a drain of variable size
(ie, depending on how far above CP exercise occurs) and
refilled by a tap with an adjustable flow (where the maxi-
mum flow rate is representative of CP). The level of water
in the vessel is the remaining part of W′ during the event.
480 Noordhof, Skiba, and de Koning
GE During Supramaximal Exercise
Aside from the fact that GE is one of the most important
factors determining performance,1 knowledge about GE
is crucial for an accurate application of the described
methods used to estimate the anaerobic capacity. All 3
methods assume a constant efficiency during the event.
The MAOD method assumes a constant efficiency by
using a linear relationship between PO or treadmill
speed and VO2, the CP concept assumes a constant
efficiency across the whole power and time domain,25
and the GE method uses GE values determined during
warm-up exercise, assumes that GE determined during
submaximal exercise is equal to GE during maximal
exercise, and assumes that GE remains constant during
the supramaximal exercise bout. Recent studies have
shown that GE increases curvilinearly with increasing
exercise intensity34,51 and decreases during submaximal52
and supramaximal exercise.3 The curvilinear increase
of GE with increasing PO has its origin in the smaller
relative contribution of maintenance metabolism in PI
when intensity increases. When GE is determined at an
intensity significantly lower than ventilatory threshold,
GE will be underestimated and, thus, anaerobic capac-
ity overestimated. The decrease in GE during prolonged
submaximal and supramaximal exercise is associated
with fatigue and appears to depend on the length and
intensity of the exercise.53 Ignoring this decrease will
result in underestimation of anaerobic capacity. Thus,
it is very important to determine GE at the highest pos-
sible exercise intensity and to gain knowledge about the
decrease in GE during exercise.
Given the preceding, it is difficult to precisely
determine the effects of stochastic exercise on GE. De
Koning et al34 have attempted to systematically evaluate
the effect of different variables on the determination
of GE. GE does appear to increase curvilinearly with
increasing PO, but this effect decreases beyond ventila-
tory threshold.34 When GE is estimated during graded
exercise it also appears that the length of the exercise
stages is extremely important; GE is significantly over-
estimated during 1-minute exercise stages compared
with GE measured during 3- or 6-minute stages.34 These
findings are important, particularly in competitive sport,
where work duration and PO cannot be controlled. More-
over, there is substantial evidence that recovery duration
affects efficiency.54,55 The recently introduced approach
to estimate GE during high-intensity exercise3 is highly
relevant for refining the accuracy of the results provided
by the GE method, because with this method the decline
in GE can be estimated and the assumption that GE is a
constant entity can be abandoned. With estimated decline
in GE during the event, the calculated contribution of Pan
to PO will be larger.
Ecological Validity
A major shortcoming of most methods of determining
anaerobic capacity is that the exercise protocols used
differ dramatically from competitive situations. Time-to-
exhaustion tests are fundamentally different from time-
trial exercise and bunch-type racing. Exercise protocols in
which PO can vary spontaneously, as seen in competition,
have higher ecological validity. The recent applications
of the CP concept to stochastic exercise by Skiba et al12
and Chidnok et al48 are promising in this respect. An
advantage of the GE method and the application of the
CP concept by Skiba et al12 and Chidnok et al48 is that one
obtains not only a measure for anaerobic work (integral
of Pan or W′, respectively) but also information about the
distribution of anaerobic work over time. Information
about the distribution of anaerobic work can be of help
for further understanding pacing strategies4,11 and the
development of fatigue during competition.
Practical Applications
and Conclusion
The 3 methods described and evaluated in this review
all have their strengths and weaknesses; therefore, the
method of choice depends on the research question or
practical goal. The MAOD and W′ are capacity values
that do not provide information about the distribution of
anaerobic energy during exercise. The GE method, on the
other hand, includes information about the distribution
of anaerobic energy, which can be valuable in under-
standing pacing. In addition, the GE method is the only
method that takes into account the decrease in efficiency
during prolonged submaximal or supramaximal exercise.
Recent applications of the CP concept are promising in
making it possible to accurately model the discharge and
recovery of W′ for both prescribed intermittent exercise
and field data.
In conclusion, when monitoring athletes’ anaerobic
capacity, the MAOD or GE method is preferred, as W′
is not a completely anaerobic measure. Questions about
the discharge and recovery of a mostly anaerobic amount
of work can best be studied with the CP concept. Finally,
to increase knowledge about pacing, we suggest use of
the GE method.
References
1. Joyner MJ, Coyle EF. Endurance exercise performance: the
physiology of champions. J Physiol. 2008;586(1):35–44.
PubMed doi:10.1113/jphysiol.2007.143834
2. Noordhof DA, de Koning JJ, Foster C. The maximal accu-
mulated oxygen deficit method: a valid and reliable mea-
sure of anaerobic capacity? Sports Med. 2010;40(4):285–
302. PubMed doi:10.2165/11530390-000000000-00000
3. de Koning JJ, Noordhof DA, Uitslag TP, Galiart RE, Dodge
C, Foster C. An approach to estimating gross efficiency
during high intensity exercise [published online ahead
of print September 2012]. Int J Sports Physiol Perform.
PubMed
4. Foster C, de Koning JJ, Hettinga F, et al. Pattern of energy
expenditure during simulated competition. Med Sci Sports

Exerc. 2003;35(5):826–831. PubMed doi:10.1249/01.
MSS.0000065001.17658.68
5. Spencer MR, Gastin PB. Energy system contribution
during 200- to 1500-m running in highly trained athletes.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2001;33(1):157–162. PubMed
6. Medbø JI, Mohn AC, Tabata I, Bahr R, Vaage O, Sejersted
OM. Anaerobic capacity determined by maximal accu-
mulated O2 deficit. J Appl Physiol. 1988;64(1):50–60.
PubMed
7. Monod H, Scherrer J. The work capacity of a syner-
gic muscular group. Ergonomics. 1965;8(3):329–338.
doi:10.1080/00140136508930810
8. Serresse O, Lortie G, Bouchard C, Boulay MR. Estima-
tion of the contribution of the various energy systems
during maximal work of short duration. Int J Sports Med.
1988;9:456–460. PubMed doi:10.1055/s-2007-1025051
9. Craig NP, Norton KI, Conyers RA, et al. Influence of
test duration and event specificity on maximal accu-
mulated oxygen deficit of high performance track
cyclists. Int J Sports Med. 1995;16(8):534–540. PubMed
doi:10.1055/s-2007-973050
10. Gastin PB, Costill DL, Lawson DL, Krzeminski K, McCo-
nell GK. Accumulated oxygen deficit during supramaximal
all-out and constant intensity exercise. Med Sci Sports
Exerc. 1995;27(2):255–263. PubMed
11. Foster C, de Koning JJ, Hettinga FJ, et al. Effect of com-
petitive distance on energy expenditure during simulated
competition. Int J Sports Med. 2004;25:198–204. PubMed
doi:10.1055/s-2003-45260
12. Skiba PF, Chidnok W, Vanhatalo A, Jones AM. Modeling
the expenditure and reconstitution of work capacity above
critical power. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012;44(8):1526–
1532. PubMed doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182517a80
13. Krogh A, Lindhard J. The changes in respiration at the tran-
sition from work to rest. J Physiol. 1920;53(6):431–439.
PubMed
14. Moritani T, Nagata A, deVries HA, Muro M. Critical power
as a measure of physical work capacity and anaerobic
threshold. Ergonomics. 1981;24(5):339–350. PubMed
doi:10.1080/00140138108924856
15. Miura A, Sato H, Sato H, Whipp BJ, Fukuba Y. The
effect of glycogen depletion on the curvature con-
stant parameter of the power-duration curve for cycle
ergometry. Ergonomics. 2000;43(1):133–141. PubMed
doi:10.1080/001401300184693
16. Hill DW, Smith JC. A comparison of methods of estimating
anaerobic work capacity. Ergonomics. 1993;36(12):1495–
1500. PubMed doi:10.1080/00140139308968017
17. Noordhof DA, Vink AMT, de Koning JJ, Foster C.
Anaerobic capacity: effect of computational method.
Int J Sports Med. 2011;32(6):422–428. PubMed
doi:10.1055/s-0031-1271676
18. Medbø JI, Tabata I. Relative importance of aerobic and
anaerobic energy release during short-lasting exhausting
bicycle exercise. J Appl Physiol. 1989;67(5):1881–1886.
PubMed
19. Medbø JI, Tabata I. Anaerobic energy release in working
muscle during 30 s to 3 min of exhausting bicycling. J
Appl Physiol. 1993;75(4):1654–1660. PubMed
Anaerobic Capacity in Sporting Activities 481
20. Vanhatalo A, Jones AM, Burnley M. Application of
critical power in sport. Int J Sports Physiol Perform.
2011;6(1):128–136. PubMed
21. Quod MJ, Martin DT, Martin JC, Laursen PB.
The power profile predicts road cycling MMP.
Int J Sports Med. 2010;31(6):397–401. PubMed
doi:10.1055/s-0030-1247528
22. Burnley M, Jones AM. Oxygen uptake kinetics as a
determinant of sports performance. Eur J Sport Sci.
2007;7(2):63–79. doi:10.1080/17461390701456148
23. Hill DW, Poole DC, Smith JC. The relationship between
power and the time to achieve.VO2max. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
2002;34(4):709–714. PubMed doi:10.1097/00005768-
200204000-00023
24. Jones AM, Burnley M. Oxygen uptake kinetics: an under-
appreciated determinant of exercise performance. Int J
Sports Physiol Perform. 2009;4(4):524–532. PubMed
25. Jones AM, Vanhatalo A, Burnley M, Morton RH,
Poole DC. Critical power: implications for determina-
tion of V˙O2max and exercise tolerance. Med Sci Sports
Exerc. 2010;42(10):1876–1890. PubMed doi:10.1249/
MSS.0b013e3181d9cf7f
26. Poole DC, Ward SA, Gardner GW, Whipp BJ. Metabolic
and respiratory profile of the upper limit for prolonged
exercise in man. Ergonomics. 1988;31(9):1265–1279.
PubMed doi:10.1080/00140138808966766
27. Vanhatalo A, Fulford J, DiMenna FJ, Jones AM. Influ-
ence of hyperoxia on muscle metabolic responses and
the power-duration relationship during severe-intensity
exercise in humans: a 31P magnetic resonance spectros-
copy study. Exp Physiol. 2010;95(4):528–540. PubMed
doi:10.1113/expphysiol.2009.050500
28. Pringle JSM, Jones AM. Maximal lactate steady state, criti-
cal power and EMG during cycling. Eur J Appl Physiol.
2002;88(3):214–226. PubMed doi:10.1007/s00421-002-
0703-4
29. Jones AM, Grassi B, Christensen PM, Krustrup P, Bangsbo
J, Poole DC. Slow component of VO2 kinetics: mecha-
nistic bases and practical applications. Med Sci Sports
Exerc. 2011;43(11):2046–2062. PubMed doi:10.1249/
MSS.0b013e31821fcfc1
30. Chidnok W, Dimenna FJ, Bailey SJ, et al. Exercise toler-
ance in intermittent cycling: application of the critical
power concept. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012;44(5):966–
976. PubMed doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e31823ea28a
31. Ferguson C, Rossiter HB, Whipp BJ, Cathcart AJ,
Murgatroyd SR, Ward SA. Effect of recovery duration
from prior exhaustive exercise on the parameters of the
power-duration relationship. J Appl Physiol. 2010;108(4):
866–874. PubMed doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.91425.
2008
32. Morton RH, Billat LV. The critical power model for
intermittent exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2004;91(2-
3):303–307. PubMed doi:10.1007/s00421-003-0987-z
33. Vanhatalo A, Poole DC, DiMenna FJ, Bailey SJ, Jones AM.
Muscle fiber recruitment and the slow component of O2
uptake: constant work rate vs. all-out sprint exercise. Am
J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2011;300(3):R700–
R707. PubMed doi:10.1152/ajpregu.00761.2010
 482 Noordhof, Skiba, and de Koning
34. de Koning JJ, Noordhof DA, Lucia A, Foster C.
Factors affecting gross efficiency in cycling.
Int J Sports Med. 2012;33(11):880–885. PubMed
doi:10.1055/s-0032-1306285
35. Garby L, Astrup A. The relationship between the respira-
tory quotient and the energy equivalent of oxygen during
simultaneous glucose and lipid oxidation and lipogenesis.
Acta Physiol Scand. 1987;129(3):443–444. PubMed
36. van Ingen Schenau GJ, Cavanagh PR. Power equations
in endurance sports. J Biomech. 1990;23(9):865–881.
PubMed doi:10.1016/0021-9290(90)90352-4
37. Zagatto AM, Gobatto C. Relationship between
anaerobic parameters provided from MAOD and
critical power model in specific table tennis test.
Int J Sports Med. 2012;33(8):613–620. PubMed
doi:10.1055/s-0032-1304648
38. Bosquet L, Delhors PR, Duchene A, Dupont G, Leger
L. Anaerobic running capacity determined from a
3-parameter systems model: relationship with other
anaerobic indices and with running performance in the 800
m-run. Int J Sports Med. 2007;28(6):495–500. PubMed
doi:10.1055/s-2006-924516
39. Leclair E, Borel B, Thevenet D, Baquet G, Mucci P, Ber-
thoin S. Assessment of child-specific aerobic fitness and
anaerobic capacity by the use of the power-time relation-
ships constants. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 2010;22(3):454–466.
PubMed
40. Bickham D, Le Rossignol P, Gibbons C, Russell AP. Re-
assessing accumulated oxygen deficit in middle-distance
runners. J Sci Med Sport. 2002;5(4):372–382. PubMed
doi:10.1016/S1440-2440(02)80026-3
41. Russell AP, Le Rossignol P, Lo SK. The precision of
estimating the total energy demand: implications for the
determination of the accumulated oxygen deficit. J Exerc
Physiol Online. 2000;3(2).
42. De Koning JJ, Bobbert MF, Foster C. Determination of
optimal pacing strategy in track cycling with an energy
flow model. J Sci Med Sport. 1999;2(3):266–277.
43. Cohen J, Reiner B, Foster C, et al. Breaking away: effects
of nonuniform pacing on power output and growth of
rating of perceived exertion. Int J Sports Physiol Perform.
2013;8(4):352–357. PubMed
44. Abbiss CR, Menaspà P, Villerius V, Martin DT. Distribution
of power output when establishing a breakaway in cycling.
Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2013;8(4):452–455. PubMed
45. Ferguson C, Whipp BJ, Cathcart AJ, Rossiter HB, Turner
AP, Ward SA. Effects of prior very-heavy intensity exercise
View publication stats
on indices of aerobic function and high-intensity exercise
tolerance. J Appl Physiol. 2007;103(3):812–822. PubMed
doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.01410.2006
46. Jones AM, Wilkerson DP, Burnley M, Koppo K. Prior
heavy exercise enhances performance during subse-
quent perimaximal exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
2003;35(12):2085–2092. PubMed doi:10.1249/01.
MSS.0000099108.55944.C4
47. Jones AM, Wilkerson DP, DiMenna F, Fulford J, Poole
DC. Muscle metabolic responses to exercise above and
below the “critical power” assessed using 31P-MRS. Am
J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2008;294(2):R585–
R593. PubMed doi:10.1152/ajpregu.00731.2007
48. Chidnok W, Dimenna FJ, Bailey SJ, Wilkerson DP, Van-
hatalo A, Jones AM. Effects of pacing strategy on work
done above critical power during high-intensity exercise.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013;45(7):1377–1385. PubMed
doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182860325
49. Buchheit M, Laursen PB, Millet GP, Pactat F, Ahmaidi
S. Predicting intermittent running performance: criti-
cal velocity versus endurance index. Int J Sports Med.
2008;29(4):307–315. PubMed doi:10.1055/s-2007-965357
50. Kachouri M, Vandewalle H, Billat V, et al. Critical veloc-
ity of continuous and intermittent running exercise: an
example of the limits of the critical power concept. Eur
J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1996;73(5):484–487.
PubMed doi:10.1007/BF00334428
51. Ettema G, Lorås HW. Efficiency in cycling: a review. Eur
J Appl Physiol. 2009;106(1):1–14. PubMed doi:10.1007/
s00421-009-1008-7
52. Passfield L, Doust JH. Changes in cycling efficiency
and performance after endurance exercise. Med Sci
Sports Exerc. 2000;32(11):1935–1941. PubMed
doi:10.1097/00005768-200011000-00018
53. Noordhof DA, Mulder RCM, Malterer KR. Changes in
gross efficiency in relation to time trial length. Med Sci
Sports Exerc. 2013;45(Suppl 5):602.
54. Burnley M, Doust JH, Jones AM. Time required for the res-
toration of normal heavy exercise VO2 kinetics following
prior heavy exercise. J Appl Physiol. 2006;101(5):1320–
1327. PubMed doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00475.2006
55. Bailey SJ, Vanhatalo A, Wilkerson DP, Dimenna FJ, Jones
AM. Optimizing the “priming” effect: influence of prior
exercise intensity and recovery duration on O2 uptake
kinetics and severe-intensity exercise tolerance. J Appl
Physiol. 2009;107(6):1743–1756. PubMed doi:10.1152/
japplphysiol.00810.2009