Mitochondrial Resilience: Why Cellular Energy Is More Than ATP

A battery can be judged by the charge it holds. A living cell cannot. Its energy demand can change within seconds, and the real test is not how much energy is present at one instant. It is whether supply can accelerate, slow, shift with the task and recover when the demand passes.

ATP complicates the picture. This molecule sits at the center of cellular energy transfer, yet its resting concentration can remain remarkably stable while production and consumption are changing rapidly underneath it. The same snapshot can therefore conceal very different rates of energy turnover, different amounts of reserve and very different capacities to recover after a challenge (Mookerjee et al., 2017).

Mitochondria are central to that response, but they are not isolated batteries and they are not the only source of ATP when demand changes. Phosphocreatine buffering and glycolysis also help stabilize ATP supply, especially during rapid transitions. Mitochondria contribute oxidative ATP production while also participating in substrate handling, redox communication, calcium-related regulation, biosynthesis, quality control and stress responses (Spinelli & Haigis, 2018; Kemp et al., 2015).

Here, mitochondrial resilience is an explanatory framework, not a diagnosis, a validated clinical score or a single measurable trait. It describes the capacity of a cell or tissue to meet changing energy demand, keep metabolic and redox disturbances within a repairable range, maintain a functional mitochondrial network and recover sufficient function after stress.

That definition replaces a weak question with a better one. Mitochondrial health is not a contest to produce the most ATP or the fewest reactive oxygen species. It is a problem of fit. Can the system deliver enough energy for the task while keeping the cost of that work contained, repairable and recoverable?

Cellular Energy Is a Moving Target

ATP concentration is not ATP flux

ATP is indispensable. But the amount present at rest captures only one dimension of energy biology. Cells spend ATP continuously to maintain ion gradients, move, synthesize proteins, repair structures and transmit signals. Keeping ATP concentration within a narrow range requires ATP-producing pathways and short-term buffering systems to adjust as use changes.

This is why concentration and flux cannot be used interchangeably. Concentration is the amount measured at a moment. Flux is the rate at which ATP is produced and consumed under a defined condition. As work rises, a cell can preserve a similar ATP concentration because supply and buffering rise with demand, even though the relative contributions of oxidative phosphorylation, glycolysis and phosphocreatine vary with the tissue and task (Mookerjee et al., 2017; Kemp et al., 2015).

The same distinction applies to mitochondrial content and respiratory capacity. More mitochondrial material may increase potential capacity, but quantity alone does not show how well the network uses substrates, responds to a sudden workload or recovers afterward. Human training studies show that mitochondrial content and respiratory function can change by different amounts and do not always move together (Granata et al., 2018).

Even the word efficiency needs context. Tighter coupling between substrate oxidation and ATP synthesis may sound universally desirable, yet regulated proton conductance and uncoupling have defined roles in thermogenesis and can influence mitochondrial ROS generation. That does not make uncoupling broadly beneficial. It means maximum coupling is not a universal definition of healthy function across tissues and conditions (Divakaruni & Brand, 2011).

Energy must arrive at the right rate and in the right place

Energy demand also has an address. A contracting muscle fiber, a firing neuron and an activated immune cell do not ask for energy in the same pattern. Their mitochondria differ in organization, substrate use and relationship to other cellular structures.

In mouse skeletal muscle, advanced imaging has revealed a connected mitochondrial reticulum rather than a collection of identical organelles working alone. This network can conduct proton-motive force across the cell and connect sites of energy conversion with areas of ATP use (Glancy et al., 2015). The result cannot be generalized to every human tissue, but it makes a broader principle visible: mitochondrial architecture helps determine where energetic capacity is available.

A useful definition of mitochondrial function must therefore begin with the task. The relevant output is not the largest possible number. It is adequate ATP supply and metabolic support at the required rate, time and location, without creating a disturbance the cell cannot contain.

From a Battery Model to an Adaptive-System Model

Weak shortcut	More useful biological question
How much ATP is there?	Can ATP supply, buffering and use rise or fall with demand?
How many mitochondria are present?	Does the network provide adequate capacity, quality and recovery for the tissue’s task?
How low are reactive oxygen species?	Are redox signals controlled, localized, reversible and matched by repair?
How much mitophagy or biogenesis is occurring?	Are turnover and rebuilding preserving a functional network in context?
Did one biomarker improve?	Did the measured tissue improve the specific capacity, function or recovery outcome that was tested?

Demand Reveals Capacity

Baseline output can hide reserve

A system can look adequate at rest because rest asks little of it. Capacity becomes visible when demand rises.

In laboratory assays, researchers may estimate spare respiratory capacity by comparing basal respiration with a stimulated maximum. The difference can reveal a margin that was not being used at baseline. It is a useful way to think about energetic reserve, but the result remains specific to the tested cells, tissue preparation and protocol. It cannot be carried from one assay to the whole person as a universal score (Nicholls, 2009; Chacko et al., 2014).

The same logic applies in intact human physiology. A resting measure shows what the system is doing under a low-demand condition. A stress test asks whether it can scale. Skeletal muscle and exercise are especially valuable because muscle demand can change dramatically, allowing researchers to examine oxygen use, respiratory function, mitochondrial proteins and recovery after the work ends.

Exercise makes adaptation visible in humans

During exercise, ATP use accelerates. Substrate delivery, oxygen consumption, calcium signaling, glycolytic flux and oxidative metabolism must adjust together. The challenge is acute, measurable and, under appropriate conditions, recoverable.

Repeated training can increase mitochondrial proteins, enzyme activity, content estimates and respiratory capacity in human skeletal muscle. The response depends on exercise mode, intensity, baseline fitness, sampling time and the method used to assess mitochondria. A rise in mitochondrial content does not guarantee an equal rise in respiration, and a laboratory change does not automatically translate into more subjective energy in daily life (Granata et al., 2018; MacInnis & Gibala, 2017).

Exercise matters here as a biological stress test, not as a universal prescription. It reveals reserve and triggers remodeling. It also exposes the weakness of the phrase boosting mitochondria. An acute session does not simply add energy. It disrupts energy balance, changes signaling and creates work that must later be repaired or integrated.

Training adaptation emerges from the cycle, not from the disturbance alone. The challenge must be large enough to require a response while remaining compatible with recovery. Training status, age, illness, dose and the interval between challenges can all move that boundary (Oliveira et al., 2021).

Once demand is understood as a test of capacity, the next step becomes unavoidable. The cell must do more than supply energy. It must interpret the fact that its usual state has been disturbed.

---

A Recoverable Disturbance Can Become a Signal

Redox signals are information in context

Mitochondrial energy production depends on electron transfer. Under specific substrate and energetic conditions, several mitochondrial sites can generate superoxide and related reactive species. ROS is therefore not one substance with one effect. Superoxide, hydrogen peroxide and downstream oxidative modifications differ in chemistry, location, lifetime and biological targets (Murphy, 2009).

Hydrogen peroxide, for example, can reversibly modify sensitive proteins and influence signaling pathways. In the right compartment and time window, those changes can communicate that energy demand has shifted or that repair and adaptation are needed. Persistent or poorly localized oxidant production can instead damage proteins, lipids and nucleic acids or distort the signaling system itself (Sies & Jones, 2020; Sies et al., 2017).

The familiar choice between ROS are bad and ROS are good fails for the same reason. The meaning of a redox disturbance depends on its species, source, magnitude, duration, frequency and the cell's capacity to neutralize, repair and replace what was affected. A transient signal and unresolved oxidative stress can involve related chemistry while leading to very different outcomes.

Direct measurement remains a major constraint. Identifying mitochondrial ROS species, their precise source and their kinetics in living humans is difficult. Many markers are indirect, nonspecific or unable to reveal the compartment in which the signal arose. Human interpretation therefore relies partly on exercise physiology and intervention studies, supported by stronger biochemical and cellular evidence (Murphy et al., 2022).

Stress is not the benefit by itself

Antioxidant supplementation shows why indiscriminate suppression is not a clean solution. Some human trials using high doses of vitamins C and E reported blunting of selected exercise-induced signals or adaptations. Other outcomes were unchanged, and the findings do not support a blanket claim that antioxidants are harmful (Ristow et al., 2009; Paulsen et al., 2014).

The more defensible conclusion is narrower and more useful. Redox biology is not improved simply by pushing every marker downward. Compound, dose, timing, tissue and objective matter. Preventing damaging oxidation in one setting is not the same as erasing transient signals involved in adaptation in another (Forman & Zhang, 2021).

A disturbance becomes useful only when the cell can read it and respond appropriately. Signaling is not enough. The mitochondrial network must also redistribute work, contain local problems and renew components that can no longer contribute safely.

The Network Remodels to Preserve Function

Mitochondria operate as a maintained population

Mitochondria do not preserve function by staying still. They divide, join, move, exchange components and alter their architecture as cellular needs change. These shifts are often summarized as fission and fusion, but neither process is simply good or bad.

Fusion can support mixing and communication within the network. Fission can help redistribute mitochondria or separate a poorly functioning region from the rest. Excessive fragmentation can be harmful, but so can excessive connectivity when damaged regions are not isolated effectively. Timing and tissue context determine what the change means (Youle & van der Bliek, 2012).

Maintenance also includes protein import and turnover, proteostasis, biogenesis and mitophagy. Biogenesis adds new mitochondrial material. Mitophagy contributes to the selective removal of mitochondria or mitochondrial components that should not remain within the cell or network. Proteostasis systems fold, repair or degrade proteins before dysfunction spreads.

These processes are not independent dials to turn upward. More biogenesis without adequate quality control can add material without correcting the underlying problem. More mitophagy is not automatically beneficial if removal outpaces replacement or if pathway markers rise without demonstrating completed turnover. The aim is not maximum renewal. It is preservation of a functional population (Pickles et al., 2018; Palikaras et al., 2018).

Strong mechanism, less direct human control

The network model is well supported by cell biology, imaging and experimental muscle studies. Much of the causal detail about individual quality-control pathways, however, comes from cells and animals. Human studies often infer remodeling from morphology, protein expression, exercise responses or measurements made in tissue outside the body rather than by directly manipulating one pathway inside a person (Hood et al., 2019).

That limitation does not make the mechanism unimportant. It defines the claim the evidence can carry. The biology supports a coordinated maintenance system. It does not support consumer promises that increasing one mitophagy marker, one biogenesis regulator or one supplement-responsive pathway will improve whole-body resilience.

A living network cannot preserve function by defending every component forever. It must repair what can be repaired, isolate what should not spread, remove material that cannot be restored and integrate replacement capacity. The decisive question comes next: did those responses restore enough function for the system to face another demand?

---

Recovery Decides Whether Challenge Becomes Adaptation

Recovery is an active biological phase

Recovery is often treated as the quiet period after the interesting biology has ended. In mitochondrial adaptation, it is the phase that reveals what the challenge meant.

After exercise, muscle must restore energetic balance. Phosphocreatine, or PCr, acts as a rapidly available buffer that helps regenerate ATP during changing demand. With dynamic 31P magnetic resonance spectroscopy, researchers can follow PCr depletion during work and its resynthesis afterward. Under appropriate conditions, those recovery kinetics are used to estimate oxidative capacity in the tested muscle (Kemp et al., 2015).

The strength of this measure is its movement through time. It asks how the system restores energetic capacity after a defined disturbance rather than measuring an amount at rest. It is still not a complete or mitochondria-only score. PCr recovery depends on which muscle was recruited, oxygen delivery and blood flow, pH, the exercise protocol, modeling assumptions and data quality (Meyerspeer et al., 2021).

Recovery also extends beyond one energetic variable. Cells may repair proteins and membranes, remove poorly functioning components, reorganize the mitochondrial network and change gene expression. Acute exercise can trigger transient transcriptional responses, while repeated bouts can produce longer-term changes in mitochondrial content and respiratory function (Pilegaard et al., 2003; Oliveira et al., 2021).

Repeated challenge plus recovery can build capacity

Adaptation does not require an exact return to the previous state. A system may recover by rebuilding toward a new state with greater capacity for a familiar demand. That is why training can make the same workload less disruptive over time.

Every step matters. Demand without sufficient energy supply produces strain. Signaling without an effective maintenance response cannot complete adaptation. Removal without rebuilding can reduce available capacity. Repeated challenge without adequate recovery can allow disturbances to accumulate faster than the system can resolve them.

There is no single threshold separating useful stress from overload. The boundary shifts with tissue, age, training status, illness, nutrition, sleep and the nature of the challenge. A workload that stimulates adaptation in one person, or at one stage of training, may exceed recovery capacity in another.

When recovery falls behind

When energetic demand remains mismatched to repair, related processes can move from adaptation toward dysfunction. Persistent redox disturbance, damaged proteins, altered membrane function and incomplete turnover may erode functional reserve. Later challenges can then consume a larger share of what remains. This is an integrative mechanistic interpretation rather than a single validated clinical endpoint (Sies & Jones, 2020; Pickles et al., 2018; Hood et al., 2019).

This is the central tension in mitochondrial resilience. Stress is neither the enemy nor the benefit by itself. A challenge can become information when it is limited, interpretable and followed by effective recovery. The same challenge can become unresolved load when it is excessive, repeated too soon, badly localized or combined with reduced repair capacity.

A resilient system is not one that never leaves equilibrium. It is one that can leave equilibrium, respond and recover enough function before the next demand arrives.

Mitochondrial Function Has More Than One Dimension

The phrase mitochondrial health often does too much work. A study may report more mitochondrial protein, a higher respiration rate or faster recovery, and the result is translated into better mitochondria. The measurement may be valid while the translation is far too broad.

What Common Mitochondrial Measures Can and Cannot Tell Us

Measure	What it can tell us	What it cannot establish alone
Resting ATP concentration	The amount present at a measured moment.	Production rate, turnover, reserve or recovery.
ATP production rate or flux	How rapidly ATP is generated and used under defined conditions.	A universal score of health or daily energy.
Mitochondrial content proxy	Approximate amount of mitochondrial material in a sample.	Respiratory quality, spatial delivery or recovery.
Respiratory capacity or reserve	How respiration responds to a defined laboratory challenge.	Whole-body resilience outside that assay and tissue.
Post-exercise phosphocreatine recovery	Recovery kinetics used to estimate oxidative capacity in a tested muscle under defined conditions.	A direct mitochondria-only measurement or a complete measure of all tissues and quality-control pathways.
Blood-cell bioenergetics	Respiration and reserve in the sampled blood-cell population.	Equivalent function in muscle, brain, liver or heart.

Content, flux, capacity, reserve and recovery answer different questions. A muscle biopsy with high-resolution respirometry can examine substrate-supported respiration in sampled fibers. Dynamic 31P-MRS can estimate oxidative recovery in a working muscle. Exercise testing reflects integrated oxygen delivery and use across the cardiovascular, pulmonary and muscular systems. Blood-cell bioenergetics describes the respiration of the sampled cell population (Pesta & Gnaiger, 2012; Chacko et al., 2014).

None of these methods is useless, and none captures the whole system. Interpretation depends on tissue, protocol, timing and the biological question. A blood-cell result cannot automatically be generalized to muscle, brain, liver or heart. A proxy for mitochondrial content does not directly measure ATP flux, reserve or completed quality control. Even a sophisticated tissue-specific method answers only the dimension it was designed to test.

The contrast between a snapshot and a stress test is especially useful. A snapshot describes the state of a marker at one time. A stress test reveals how a system responds to demand and how rapidly it recovers. Resilience is more likely to appear in that response pattern than in an isolated resting value, but no single challenge currently produces a validated whole-body score.

These questions do not dismiss mitochondrial research. They make it more informative. They separate a genuine result from a total-health conclusion the experiment was never designed to support.

---

What This Framework Clarifies Across Energy, Aging, and Health Claims

Once the framework is clear, several common claims become easier to place. Mitochondrial resilience connects to important areas of biology, but it should not absorb them into one universal explanation.

Metabolic flexibility is the ability to change substrate use and metabolic state according to feeding, fasting, insulin, exercise and energy demand. Mitochondria participate in those shifts, but resilience is broader. It also includes the handling of stress signals, maintenance of the network and recovery after perturbation (Goodpaster & Sparks, 2017; Smith et al., 2018).

Aging provides another connection. Older adults often show lower oxidative capacity, slower recovery or reduced adaptive plasticity in skeletal muscle at the group level. Those patterns vary with physical activity, disease burden, muscle phenotype and the method used. Exercise studies also show that at least some age-associated mitochondrial changes remain modifiable, which argues against a simple story of inevitable mitochondrial collapse (Distefano & Goodpaster, 2018; Lanza et al., 2008).

Fatigue demands even more precision. Low energy is a real symptom, but it is not a mitochondrial diagnosis. Fatigue has a broad differential that includes sleep disruption, anemia, infection, endocrine conditions, medication effects, deconditioning, cardiopulmonary disease and many other contributors. Nonspecific does not mean imaginary or psychogenic. It means the symptom cannot identify its own mechanism (Latimer et al., 2023).

Primary mitochondrial diseases belong to a separate clinical category. They are heterogeneous disorders that require specialized clinical, biochemical and genetic evaluation. They should not become the implicit model for ordinary tiredness or for broad wellness claims about mitochondrial failure (Parikh et al., 2015; Gorman et al., 2016).

The same discipline applies to ingredient and consumer-test claims. An ingredient may influence a substrate, cofactor, pathway or biomarker without restoring the entire system. A change in mitochondrial content, respiration or redox markers does not by itself prove more daily energy, better health or slower aging.

The framework does not make every mitochondrial claim false. It asks the claim to name the dimension that changed, the tissue in which it changed and why that result matters under real biological demand.

Resilience Means Enough Energy With Room to Recover

ATP remains essential. Without continuous energy transfer, cells cannot maintain gradients, move, synthesize, repair or signal. But ATP amount alone cannot show whether the system has reserve, whether energetic support can reach the right place or whether function can be restored after a challenge.

The stronger model follows the entire sequence. Demand changes. ATP-producing and buffering systems adjust. Metabolic and redox disturbances communicate that the usual state has shifted. Cells redistribute metabolic work, remodel the mitochondrial network, repair what can be repaired, remove material that cannot be restored and integrate replacement capacity. Recovery reveals whether the challenge remained manageable.

This model also keeps stress in proportion. Trying to eliminate every perturbation would suppress signals that participate in adaptation. Seeking more stress would ignore the fact that adaptation depends on dose, context and repair. The useful boundary is not stress versus no stress. It is recoverable disturbance versus unresolved load.

Mitochondrial resilience is not a permanently optimized state. It is room to respond. It is the capacity to meet one task without consuming so much reserve that the next task becomes harder to absorb.

The goal is not maximum ATP at all times. It is enough energy, in the right place, with stress that remains recoverable.

---

Frequently Asked Questions

Open each question for a concise answer.

What does mitochondrial resilience mean?

Mitochondrial resilience is a framework for how a cell or tissue meets changing energy demand, keeps metabolic and redox disturbances within a repairable range, maintains mitochondrial quality and recovers after stress. It is not a standardized diagnosis or score.

Does more ATP mean healthier mitochondria?

No. ATP is essential, but a resting amount does not reveal production rate, reserve, spatial delivery or recovery. Healthy function depends on whether energy supply can match the tissue’s demand.

Are reactive oxygen species always harmful?

No. Some reactive species participate in signaling, while persistent or poorly localized production can contribute to damage. Species, location, magnitude, duration and repair capacity change the biological meaning.

Is mitochondrial resilience the same as metabolic flexibility?

No. Metabolic flexibility focuses mainly on switching fuels and metabolic states. Mitochondrial resilience also includes stress signaling, network maintenance, quality control and recovery.

Does fatigue prove mitochondrial dysfunction?

No. Fatigue is real but nonspecific and can arise from many conditions. Persistent, marked or unexplained fatigue deserves appropriate clinical evaluation rather than a self-diagnosis of mitochondrial failure.

Can one test measure mitochondrial health?

No single consumer test measures whole-body mitochondrial resilience. Different methods assess dimensions such as content, respiration, reserve, redox state or recovery in a particular tissue or experimental system.

---

References

1. Spinelli, J. B., & Haigis, M. C. (2018). The multifaceted contributions of mitochondria to cellular metabolism. Nature Cell Biology, 20, 745-754. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41556-018-0124-1
2. Mookerjee, S. A., Gerencser, A. A., Nicholls, D. G., & Brand, M. D. (2017). Quantifying intracellular rates of glycolytic and oxidative ATP production and consumption using extracellular flux measurements. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 292(17), 7189-7207. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M116.774471
3. Glancy, B., Hartnell, L. M., Malide, D., et al. (2015). Mitochondrial reticulum for cellular energy distribution in muscle. Nature, 523, 617-620. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14614
4. Granata, C., Jamnick, N. A., & Bishop, D. J. (2018). Training-induced changes in mitochondrial content and respiratory function in human skeletal muscle. Sports Medicine, 48, 1809-1828. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-018-0936-y
5. Divakaruni, A. S., & Brand, M. D. (2011). The regulation and physiology of mitochondrial proton leak. Physiology, 26(3), 192-205. https://doi.org/10.1152/physiol.00046.2010
6. Nicholls, D. G. (2009). Spare respiratory capacity, oxidative stress and excitotoxicity. Biochemical Society Transactions, 37(Pt 6), 1385-1388. https://doi.org/10.1042/BST0371385
7. Chacko, B. K., Kramer, P. A., Ravi, S., et al. (2014). The Bioenergetic Health Index: A new concept in mitochondrial translational research. Clinical Science, 127(6), 367-373. https://doi.org/10.1042/CS20140101
8. MacInnis, M. J., & Gibala, M. J. (2017). Physiological adaptations to interval training and the role of exercise intensity. The Journal of Physiology, 595(9), 2915-2930. https://doi.org/10.1113/JP273196
9. Oliveira, A. N., Richards, B. J., Slavin, M., & Hood, D. A. (2021). Exercise is muscle mitochondrial medicine. Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews, 49(2), 67-76. https://doi.org/10.1249/JES.0000000000000250
10. Murphy, M. P. (2009). How mitochondria produce reactive oxygen species. Biochemical Journal, 417(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1042/BJ20081386
11. Sies, H., & Jones, D. P. (2020). Reactive oxygen species as pleiotropic physiological signalling agents. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, 21, 363-383. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41580-020-0230-3
12. Sies, H., Berndt, C., & Jones, D. P. (2017). Oxidative stress. Annual Review of Biochemistry, 86, 715-748. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-biochem-061516-045037
13. Murphy, M. P., Bayir, H., Belousov, V., et al. (2022). Guidelines for measuring reactive oxygen species and oxidative damage in cells and in vivo. Nature Metabolism, 4, 651-662. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42255-022-00591-z
14. Ristow, M., Zarse, K., Oberbach, A., et al. (2009). Antioxidants prevent health-promoting effects of physical exercise in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(21), 8665-8670. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903485106
15. Paulsen, G., Cumming, K. T., Holden, G., et al. (2014). Vitamin C and E supplementation hampers cellular adaptation to endurance training in humans: A double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. The Journal of Physiology, 592(8), 1887-1901. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.2013.267419
16. Forman, H. J., & Zhang, H. (2021). Targeting oxidative stress in disease: Promise and limitations of antioxidant therapy. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 20, 689-709. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41573-021-00233-1
17. Youle, R. J., & van der Bliek, A. M. (2012). Mitochondrial fission, fusion, and stress. Science, 337(6098), 1062-1065. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1219855
18. Pickles, S., Vigié, P., & Youle, R. J. (2018). Mitophagy and quality control mechanisms in mitochondrial maintenance. Current Biology, 28(4), R170-R185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2018.01.004
19. Palikaras, K., Lionaki, E., & Tavernarakis, N. (2018). Mechanisms of mitophagy in cellular homeostasis, physiology and pathology. Nature Cell Biology, 20, 1013-1022. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41556-018-0176-2
20. Hood, D. A., Memme, J. M., Oliveira, A. N., & Triolo, M. (2019). Maintenance of skeletal muscle mitochondria in health, exercise, and aging. Annual Review of Physiology, 81, 19-41. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-physiol-020518-114310
21. Kemp, G. J., Ahmad, R. E., Nicolay, K., & Prompers, J. J. (2015). Quantification of skeletal muscle mitochondrial function by 31P magnetic resonance spectroscopy techniques: A quantitative review. Acta Physiologica, 213(1), 107-144. https://doi.org/10.1111/apha.12307
22. Meyerspeer, M., Boesch, C., Cameron, D., et al. (2021). 31P magnetic resonance spectroscopy in skeletal muscle: Experts’ consensus recommendations. NMR in Biomedicine, 34(5), e4246. https://doi.org/10.1002/nbm.4246
23. Pilegaard, H., Saltin, B., & Neufer, P. D. (2003). Exercise induces transient transcriptional activation of the PGC-1alpha gene in human skeletal muscle. The Journal of Physiology, 546(Pt 3), 851-858. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.2002.034850
24. Pesta, D., & Gnaiger, E. (2012). High-resolution respirometry: OXPHOS protocols for human cells and permeabilized fibers from small biopsies of human muscle. Methods in Molecular Biology, 810, 25-58. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-61779-382-0_3
25. Goodpaster, B. H., & Sparks, L. M. (2017). Metabolic flexibility in health and disease. Cell Metabolism, 25(5), 1027-1036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2017.04.015
26. Smith, R. L., Soeters, M. R., Wüst, R. C. I., & Houtkooper, R. H. (2018). Metabolic flexibility as an adaptation to energy resources and requirements in health and disease. Endocrine Reviews, 39(4), 489-517. https://doi.org/10.1210/er.2017-00211
27. Distefano, G., & Goodpaster, B. H. (2018). Effects of exercise and aging on skeletal muscle. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine, 8(3), a029785. https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a029785
28. Lanza, I. R., Short, D. K., Short, K. R., et al. (2008). Endurance exercise as a countermeasure for aging-related mitochondrial dysfunction. Diabetes, 57(11), 2933-2942. https://doi.org/10.2337/db08-0349
29. Latimer, K. M., Gunther, A., & Kopec, M. (2023). Fatigue in adults: Evaluation and management. American Family Physician, 108(1), 58-69. PMID: 37440739.
30. Parikh, S., Goldstein, A., Koenig, M. K., et al. (2015). Diagnosis and management of mitochondrial disease: A consensus statement from the Mitochondrial Medicine Society. Genetics in Medicine, 17(9), 689-701. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2014.177
31. Gorman, G. S., Chinnery, P. F., DiMauro, S., et al. (2016). Mitochondrial diseases. Nature Reviews Disease Primers, 2, 16080. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrdp.2016.80