Running, cycling, and jumping represent fundamental movement types facilitated by the contractions of the large muscle groups in the lower body (Millet et al., 2009; Scott et al., 2006; Zagatto et al., 2017). The anaerobic capacity, defined as the maximal ATP supply through the phosphagen and glycolytic energy pathways over a specific period, is predominantly evaluated within these basic movement patterns (Chamari & Padulo, 2015; Hargreaves & Spriet, 2020; Sands et al., 2004). While the Wingate Anaerobic Test (WAnT) (Dotan & Inbar, 1977) and the Bosco Continuous Jumping Test (CJ30) (Bosco et al., 1983), both based on 30-second all-out efforts, are frequently utilized to assess anaerobic power and capacity, running-based anaerobic performance has traditionally been measured in terms of distance rather than time (Clermont et al., 2019; Duffield et al., 2004; Herzog, 2022). Nevertheless, gaining further insight into the energetics of 30-second all-out running is essential.
Previous research has predominantly focused on the energetics of the Wingate Anaerobic Test (WAnT) and the Continuous Jumping Test (CJ30), leaving a gap in our understanding of running's unique bioenergetic demands (Beneke et al., 2002; Franchini et al., 2016; Kaufmann et al., 2021). Running, as one of the most fundamental movement patterns, plays a critical role in high-intensity exercise performance across popular sports such as football, basketball, and rugby (Abdelkrim et al., 2010; Mohr et al., 2003; Varley et al., 2014). This necessitates tailored training and testing protocols for athletes to match these specific performance demands (Muller et al., 2000). Notably, a comprehensive review has highlighted that runners exhibit a greater VO2max on treadmills compared to cyclists, who show similar VO2max levels in cycle ergometry and treadmill tests (Millet et al., 2009). This could be attributed to running's involvement of a broader muscle mass through both concentric and partially eccentric contractions, unlike cycling, which predominantly requires concentric contractions of the main muscle groups (Bijker et al., 2002). Furthermore, the glycolytic activity's maximal energy turnover rate may not be fully realized during vertical jumping due to the energy release in the stretch-shortening cycle during ground contact (Gastin, 2001; Kaufmann et al., 2021). The significance of locomotion type on anaerobic energy contribution is underscored by recent findings, demonstrating substantial differences between 30-second all-out jumping and cycling (Kaufmann et al., 2021).
Although the metabolic profiles of the WAnT and CJ30 have been effectively modeled using physiological parameters through the PCr-La-O2 method (Beneke et al., 2002; Franchini et al., 2016; Kaufmann et al., 2021), the application of this comprehensive modeling to 30-second all-out running tests has not been as extensively documented. Current research into running energetics primarily employs regression estimates, the Maximal Accumulated Oxygen Deficit (MAOD), or direct measurements of metabolites, which tend to focus on distinguishing between aerobic and anaerobic contributions (Gastin, 2001). In contrast, the PCr-La-O2 method offers a nuanced approach by enabling the distinction between energy distributions from aerobic (EAER), anaerobic-lactic (EBLC), and anaerobic-alactic (EPCr) systems (Artioli et al., 2012; Beneke et al., 2002; Milioni et al., 2017), providing both detailed (Li et al., 2017) and reliable (Kaufmann et al., 2022) results. This distinction is particularly crucial for analyzing the energetics of short, high-intensity exercises, where the relative contribution of anaerobic pathways (alactic and lactic) is predominant for up to approximately 60 seconds of activity (Čular et al., 2018; de Poli et al., 2021; Gastin, 2001). Our study seeks to extend the use of the PCr-La-O2 method to running, thereby filling a gap in the existing research landscape by incorporating a detailed analysis of all three energetic pathways in 30-second all-out running tests.
Importantly, the stretch-shortening cycle (SSC), a fundamental mechanism whereby elastic energy is stored in tendons and titin filaments during eccentric contraction and released during concentric contraction, plays a critical role not only in jumping but also in running and cycling (Ishikawa et al., 2005; Nicol et al., 2006). This process contributes significantly to performance efficiency in these activities by enhancing force production and energy efficiency. While the energetic contributions of the WAnT and CJ30 have been extensively studied, highlighting the importance of the EPCr and EBLC pathways alongside a notable contribution from the EAER system, it is essential to recognize that the differences in muscle recruitment patterns inherent to each type of locomotion may lead to distinct aerobic and anaerobic energy contributions during exercises of the same duration (Gastin, 2001; Hargreaves & Spriet, 2020). Therefore, understanding the SSC's role across different locomotion types offers valuable insights into optimizing training and performance strategies for athletes, underscoring the need for a comprehensive analysis that encompasses all three energetic pathways in activities like 30-second all-out running (Kaufmann et al., 2021; Sands et al., 2004).
Due to complex physiological mechanisms, precisely delineating the metabolic contributions of bioenergetic pathways during an exercise might not always be feasible. Exercise physiologists often estimate the relative contributions of ATP-generating pathways to an exercise task by considering its duration and intensity. However, the impact of locomotion type on metabolic outputs, when duration and intensity are held constant, has yet to be thoroughly explored. While considerable research has been conducted on the physiological differences between cycling and running, the inclusion of jumping—in terms of its role in evaluating athletic performance—has been less common in these comparisons, despite its utility in certain sports contexts. Similarly, although studies have frequently assessed the performance outputs of the WAnT and CJ30 for measuring anaerobic power, the detailed examination of energy pathway contributions across these activities remains limited.
Precisely separating the metabolic contributions of bioenergetic pathways during an exercise might not be possible due to complex physiological mechanisms (Chamari & Padulo, 2015). Exercise physiologists often estimate the relative contributions of ATP-generating pathways to an exercise task by considering its duration and intensity (Gastin, 2001; Hargreaves & Spriet, 2020). However, the impact of locomotion type on metabolic outputs, when duration and intensity are held constant, has yet to be thoroughly explored (Kaufmann et al., 2021; Millet et al., 2009). While considerable research has been conducted on the physiological differences between cycling and running (Bijker et al., 2002; Millet et al., 2009; Redkva et al., 2018; van Schenau et al., 1994), the inclusion of jumping—in terms of its role in evaluating athletic performance—has been less common in these comparisons, despite its utility in certain sports contexts (Jovanovic et al., 2011; Slinde et al., 2008). Similarly, although studies have frequently assessed the performance outputs of the WAnT and CJ30 for measuring anaerobic power, the detailed examination of energy pathway contributions across these activities remains limited (Nikolaidis et al., 2016; Sands et al., 2004). This study, therefore, aims to calculate the metabolic profiles of 30-second all-out running, cycling, and jumping to analyze and compare the energy contributions to each form of locomotion. Our hypothesis is that (I) due to the use of elastic energy in addition to metabolic energy, total energy expenditure will exhibit differences between CJ30, WAnT, and RUN30, reflecting the unique energy demands of each locomotion type. We also hypothesize that (II) our results will confirm the metabolic profiles of WAnT and CJ30, aligning with established research findings. Furthermore, we acknowledge that (III) the influence of the SSC on energy contributions may vary depending on the nature and mechanics of each activity, and we aim to explore these nuances in detail.