A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Association and Differences between Aerobic Threshold and Point of Optimal Fat Oxidation

The influence of cardiorespiratory fitness level on the relationship between work rates at the aerobic threshold (AerT) and the point of maximal fat oxidation (Fatmax) in untrained adults

Introduction

In this study, we investigated the impact of cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), quantified as peak oxygen consumption (VO2peak), on the relationship between work rates (WR) at the aerobic threshold (AerT) and the point of maximal fat oxidation rate (Fatmax).

Methods

A total of 761 untrained adults aged 41-68 completed a one-minute incremental exercise test on a cycle ergometer, using breath-by-breath gas analysis to determine VO2peak, AerT, and Fatmax. AerT was determined using automatic and visual detection methods, and Fatmax was determined using indirect calorimetry. Participants were categorized into CRF-groups: low (<25th percentile), medium (≥25th percentile and <75th percentile), and high (≥75th percentile).

Results

Fatmax was found at 43 ± 7% WRpeak, 37% ± 6% WRpeak and 35% ± 7% WRpeak in the low, medium, and high CRF-groups, respectively. In contrast, AerT was located at significantly higher relative work rates: 51% ± 8% WRpeak, 47% ± 10% WRpeak, and 47% ± 11% WRpeak in the respective CRF-groups. There was a weak agreement between Fatmax and AerT [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = .19, p < .001], and the ICC decreased from .35 to .12 to .13, while the mean bias ±95% limits of agreement increased from 8% ± 14% WRpeak to 8% ± 19% WRpeak to 12% ± 44% WRpeak from CRF-low to CRF-medium to CRF-high. The mean difference between Fatmax and AerT was significantly different among the CRF subgroups: 8% ± 7% WRpeak vs. 10% ± 10% WRpeak vs. 12% ± 11% WRpeak in low, medium, and high CRF-groups, respectively. Nonetheless, multiple regression analysis revealed only a weak positive correlation between the difference in relative work rates (% WRpeak) between Fatmax and AerT (dependent variable) and the predictor variables CRF and sex, both identified as significant (R = .19, p < .001).

Conclusion

Our study confirms substantial differences in exercise intensities between Fatmax and AerT in untrained adults (10% ± 19% WRpeak, ranging from -14% to 53% WRpeak). Importantly, this difference remains relatively consistent across varying CRF levels, emphasizing the distinct nature of Fatmax and AerT, with CRF playing a limited role in influencing their relationship in our study's untrained adults.

Toward Exercise Guidelines for Optimizing Fat Oxidation During Exercise in Obesity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Regression

BACKGROUND

Exercise training performed at maximal fat oxidation (FATmax) is an efficient non-pharmacological approach for the management of obesity and its related cardio-metabolic disorders.

OBJECTIVES

Therefore, this work aimed to provide exercise intensity guidelines and training volume recommendations for maximizing fat oxidation in patients with obesity.

METHODS

A systematic review of original articles published in English, Spanish or French languages was carried out in EBSCOhost, PubMed and Scopus by strictly following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Those studies that analyzed maximal fat oxidation (MFO) and FATmax in patients with obesity (body fat > 25% for men; > 35% for women) by calculating substrate oxidation rates through indirect calorimetry during a graded exercise test with short-duration stages (< 10 min) were selected for quantitative analysis. The accuracy of relative oxygen uptake (% peak oxygen uptake [%[Formula: see text]O2peak]) and relative heart rate (% peak heart rate [%HRpeak]) for establishing FATmax reference values was investigated by analyzing their intra-individual and inter-study variation. Moreover, cluster analysis and meta-regression were used for determining the influence of biological factors and methodological procedures on MFO and FATmax.

RESULTS

Sixty-four manuscripts were selected from 146 records; 23 studies only recruited men (n = 465), 14 studies only evaluated women (n = 575), and 27 studies included individuals from both sexes (n = 6434). The majority of the evaluated subjects were middle-aged adults (aged 40-60 y; 84%) with a poor cardiorespiratory fitness (≤ 43 mL·kg-1·min-1; 81%), and the reported MFO ranged from 0.27 to 0.33 g·min-1. The relative heart rate at FATmax (coefficient of variation [CV]: 8.8%) showed a lower intra-individual variation compared with relative oxygen uptake (CV: 17.2%). Furthermore, blood lactate levels at FATmax ranged from 1.3 to 2.7 mmol·L-1 while the speed and power output at FATmax fluctuated from 4 to 5.1 km·h-1 and 42.8-60.2 watts, respectively. Age, body mass index, cardiorespiratory fitness, FATmax, the type of ergometer and the stoichiometric equation used to calculate the MFO independently explained MFO values (R2 = 0.85; p < 0.01). The MFO in adolescents was superior in comparison with MFO observed in young and middle-aged adults. On the other hand, the MFO was higher during treadmill walking in comparison with stationary cycling. Body fat and MFO alone determined 29% of the variation in FATmax (p < 0.01), noting that individuals with body fat > 35% showed a heart rate of 61-66% HRpeak while individuals with < 35% body fat showed a heart rate between 57 and 64% HRpeak. Neither biological sex nor the analytical procedure for computing the fat oxidation kinetics were associated with MFO and FATmax.

CONCLUSION

Relative heart rate rather than relative oxygen uptake should be used for establishing FATmax reference values in patients with obesity. A heart rate of 61-66% HRpeak should be recommended to patients with > 35% body fat while a heart rate of 57-64% HRpeak should be recommended to patients with body fat < 35%. Moreover, training volume must be higher in adults to achieve a similar fat oxidation compared with adolescents whereas exercising on a treadmill requires a lower training volume to achieve significant fat oxidation in comparison with stationary cycling.

Factors Determining the Agreement between Aerobic Threshold and Point of Maximal Fat Oxidation: Follow-Up on a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Association

Regular exercise at the intensity matching maximal fat oxidation (FAT_max) has been proposed as a key element in both athletes and clinical populations when aiming to enhance the body's ability to oxidize fat. In order to allow a more standardized and tailored training approach, the connection between FAT_max and the individual aerobic thresholds (AerT) has been examined. Although recent findings strongly suggest that a relationship exists between these two intensities, correlation alone is not sufficient to confirm that the intensities necessarily coincide and that the error between the two measures is small. Thus, this systematic review and meta-analysis aim to examine the agreement levels between the exercise intensities matching FAT_max and AerT by pooling limits of agreement in a function of three parameters: (i) the average difference, (ii) the average within-study variation, and (iii) the variation in bias across studies, and to examine the influence of clinical and methodological inter- and intra-study differences on agreement levels. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021239351) and ClinicalTrials (NCT03789045). PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for studies examining FAT_max and AerT connection. Overall, 12 studies with forty-five effect sizes and a total of 774 subjects fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The ROBIS tool for risk of bias assessment was used to determine the quality of included studies. In conclusion, the overall 95% limits of agreement of the differences between FAT_max and AerT exercise intensities were larger than the a priori determined acceptable agreement due to the large variance caused by clinical and methodological differences among the studies. Therefore, we recommend that future studies follow a strict standardization of data collection and analysis of FAT_max- and AerT-related outcomes.