In recent years, the understanding of fat metabolism during exercise has surged as researchers aim to unravel the complexities behind obesity and metabolic health. Among the critical biomarkers in this field are maximal fat oxidation (MFO) and its corresponding exercise intensity known as FATmax. These parameters not only reflect an individual’s capacity to utilize fat as a fuel during physical exertion but also have profound implications for metabolic diseases, including obesity and insulin resistance. However, emerging research has highlighted challenges related to the reproducibility and measurement accuracy of these biomarkers, raising questions that extend beyond physiology and delve into methodological intricacies.
The reproducibility of MFO and FATmax has become a pivotal concern, especially considering their reduced levels observed in individuals suffering from obesity and cardio-metabolic ailments. This decrease correlates strongly with metabolic dysfunctions such as insulin resistance and diminished muscle oxidative capacity, suggesting that these biomarkers could serve as valuable indicators of metabolic health. Yet, despite their clinical relevance, standardization issues complicate their assessment. Variability in how these parameters are measured—affected by factors like pre-test nutrition and physical activity—may obscure true physiological changes, a predicament that researchers are actively trying to resolve.
A comprehensive narrative review by Chávez Guevara and Amaro-Gahete critically examines these methodological challenges, compiling data from 11 pivotal studies centered on the reproducibility of MFO and FATmax. Their investigation reveals a complex interplay between biological variation and measurement inconsistency. For instance, the pre-test macronutrient composition consumed by subjects prior to testing has been shown to significantly impact fat oxidation rates. Similarly, differences in physical activity levels, even within short periods before testing, can cause fluctuations in substrate utilization, ultimately influencing the reproducibility of these metrics across repeated measures.
This review draws attention to a crucial, yet often underestimated issue: the selection and calibration of gas analyzers used during exercise testing to assess substrate oxidation. Not all devices offer the same precision, and the day-to-day variation in MFO and FATmax reported in the literature may partially stem from measurement error inherent in these instruments. Such technical variability complicates the interpretation of fat oxidation data and challenges the validity of associating these biomarkers with long-term metabolic outcomes without rigorous methodological controls.
To mitigate these confounding factors, the authors advocate for harmonized protocols encompassing not only exercise testing parameters but also pre-test conditions. A standardized diet controlling for carbohydrate and fat intake, along with prescribed physical activity restrictions prior to testing, can reduce biological noise. Additionally, refining exercise protocols to optimally expound fat metabolism—such as carefully selecting the duration and intensity increments—will enhance the reliability of MFO and FATmax estimates. These recommendations emphasize the transition from disparate methodologies to unified standards, critical for the integration of research findings across laboratories and clinical settings.
The implications of this work transcend research reproducibility and touch upon exercise prescription. FATmax-guided training has shown promise in optimizing fat oxidation and improving metabolic health. However, if the reproducibility of FATmax is compromised, exercise recommendations based on these values risk being ineffectual or misleading. Hence, improving measurement accuracy is not merely an academic exercise but a necessary step to develop personalized interventions that capitalize on individual fat oxidation capacities.
Moreover, the authors explore the ramifications of gas analyzer accuracy, comparing various commercially available devices. The subtle discrepancies in assessing respiratory exchange ratios (RER) and oxygen consumption translate into notable variations in calculated substrate oxidation rates. This variability again emphasizes the need for systematic cross-validation studies and inter-device calibration to ensure consistency. The research community must remain cautious when interpreting small differences in fat oxidation metrics that may be indistinguishable from the measurement error alone.
Addressing the reproducibility of MFO and FATmax also propels forward the understanding of metabolic flexibility—the capacity to adapt fuel utilization under varying physiological conditions. Standardized measurement approaches enable researchers to dissect how pathological states like obesity impair this flexibility. Furthermore, they provide ground truths to evaluate the efficacy of interventions, whether nutritional, pharmacological, or exercise-based, aimed at restoring metabolic health.
The review further delves into exercise protocol design and analytical methods, dissecting their roles in measurement variability. Differences in the incremental stages of exercise testing (length, intensity increments), participant familiarization, and test-retest intervals all contribute to heterogeneity in results. The authors posit that longer stage durations may facilitate metabolic steady states, improving fat oxidation measurement accuracy. Conversely, shorter protocols might increase day-to-day variability. Choosing analytical procedures that adequately process gas exchange data while filtering noise is equally essential for enhancing reproducibility.
These methodological insights carry direct implications for clinicians and researchers employing substrate oxidation metrics in practice. Without rigorously standardized methods, data may present confusing or contradictory results, undermining confidence in interventions targeting mitochondrial function and fat metabolism. Enhanced reproducibility fosters more robust conclusions about the links between lowered MFO/FATmax and poor metabolic health, solidifying these parameters’ roles as biomarkers or therapeutic targets.
Intriguingly, the review discusses whether the observed daily variability in MFO and FATmax represents biological fluctuations or merely artifacts introduced by measurement instruments. This distinction is vital; if variation resides predominantly in measurement error, repeated testing protocols might require refinement or complementary assessments to verify biological significance. Alternatively, true physiological variability would necessitate accounting for dynamic metabolic regulation, complicating longitudinal monitoring but providing richer data on metabolic health status.
The practical applications of understanding and improving the reproducibility of fat oxidation metrics extend into exercise science and metabolic medicine. Among the benefits are the prevention of biased hypotheses or flawed theoretical models that might inaccurately attribute changes in fat oxidation capacity solely to pathology or intervention. Instead, a clearer picture emerges where both biology and technology interplay to determine observed metrics. Such clarity empowers the design of more targeted and interpretable research studies.
In conclusion, this narrative review by Chávez Guevara and Amaro-Gahete urges the scientific community to recognize the profound influence of methodological variables on maximal fat oxidation and FATmax reproducibility. It proposes a roadmap toward standardization encompassing nutritional controls, exercise testing design, and equipment calibration. This approach promises to elevate the reliability and applicability of fat oxidation biomarkers in metabolic research and personalized exercise prescription, thereby advancing efforts to combat obesity and related cardio-metabolic diseases.
Embracing these methodological refinements may transform how we assess fat metabolism, ultimately leading to more nuanced and effective interventions for improving metabolic health. The intersection of rigorous protocols, precise instrumentation, and physiological insight stands as the frontier for future research in fat oxidation and metabolic biomarker development.
Subject of Research: Maximal fat oxidation (MFO), FATmax reproducibility, and their methodological considerations in metabolic health research.
Article Title: Methodological issues related to maximal fat oxidation and FATmax reproducibility: a narrative review
Article References:
Chávez Guevara, I.A., Amaro-Gahete, F.J. Methodological issues related to maximal fat oxidation and FATmax reproducibility: a narrative review. Int J Obes (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41366-025-01861-y
Image Credits: AI Generated
