PurposeThe use of oxygen cost (dot{O}aero) parameters to predict endurance performance has recently been criticized. Instead, it is suggested that aerobic energy cost (dot{E}_{text{aero}}) provides greater validity; however, a comparison of these quantification methods has not previously been made.MethodsFifty-six male (n = 34) and female (n = 22) competitive adolescent (17 ± 1 years) middle-distance runners participated in a sub-maximal and maximal incremental treadmill test. Running economy (RE) was measured at the speed corresponding to lactate turnpoint, and the three speeds prior. Maximal oxygen uptake (dot{V}O2max), speed at dot{V}O2max and fraction of dot{V}O2max utilized across a range of intensities, and speeds from 0.8, 1.5 and 3 km races were also quantified. RE and fractional utilization were calculated in units of dot{O}aero and dot{E}aero.ResultsMultiple linear regression models demonstrated no discernible difference in the predictive capability of RE, fractional utilization and dot{V}O2max when expressed as dot{O}aero or dot{E}aero in both sexes. When plotted as a function of running speed, dot{O}aero displayed a stepwise decrease (F = 11.59, p < 0.001) whereas dot{E}aero exhibited a curvilinear response (F = 4.74, p = 0.015). Differences were also evident in the slopes plotted for %dot{V}O2max and %dot{E}aeromax against running speed (F = 5.38, p = 0.021).ConclusionsQuantifying aerobic determinants of performance in units of dot{E}aero provides no greater validity compared to dot{O}aero-based measurement. Although both dot{E}aero and dot{O}aero are sensitive to changes in speed, dot{E}aero provides the more valid reflection of the underlying metabolic cost of running. Physiologists should also be aware of the potential differences between expression of aerobic running intensity based upon %dot{V}O2max compared to %dot{E}aeromax.