The study by Gräns et al. (Gräns et al., 2014) investigated growth performance and oxygen demand at rest and during recovery from fatiguing exercise in Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus) under simulated scenarios of ocean warming and acidification. The authors claim that their data, when used to evaluate the aerobic scope for exercise, do not explain temperature-dependent growth. They thus question the general use of the concept of 'oxygen and capacity limited thermal tolerance' (OCLTT) in explaining the onset of thermal limitation of fishes under field conditions (Pörtner and Knust, 2007;Pörtner and Farrell, 2008). There are important lessons to learn from this study about how, or how not, to investigate the concept of OCLTT and aerobic scope in thermal limitation.From a conceptual point of view, the term aerobic scope should not be constrained to use only with exercise. In the context of OCLTT, it makes sense to use the term aerobic scope for all routine performances that draw on aerobic energy such as growth, reproduction and steady-state swimming. The question is whether the chasing protocol imposed on a strictly benthic fish such as halibut provide suitable estimates of performance, of aerobic scope as used by growth and of climate sensitivity.Methodological issues invariably constrain what experimental data can say. In their paper, Gräns et al. routinely measured growth in active fish. In contrast, aerobic scope was determined in fish exercised to exhaustion and from differences between EPOC (excess post-exercise oxygen consumption) and resting metabolism. An over-riding difficulty with tests using exhaustive exercise is that performance itself is not properly quantified. The physiological state of the animals during steady-state growth clearly differs from that during the non-steady recovery state post-exercise. The latter is characterized by exponentially declining oxygen consumption, very low venous P O 2 (Farrell and Clutterham, 2003; Lee et al., 2003), release of catecholamines (Reid et al., 1998), acidosis and shifted metabolite concentrations, pathways and ion equilibria, all of which are non-steady state. Furthermore, the data analysis by Gräns et al. does not build on a clear functional background. Linear regressions are used for non-linear data. At normal water pH and the highest temperature, standard metabolic rate and EPOC indicate a clear decline in metabolic scope (their fig. 1), which is not picked up by the selected polynomial fit. Also, the post hoc statistics do not support a global effect of CO 2 . For EPOC, statistical significance is reached only at certain temperatures, rather than all test temperatures. Growth was depressed by CO 2 only on the cold side of the studied temperature range, matching predictions of synergistic effects at thermal extremes (Pörtner and Farrell, 2008). Thus, the overall CO 2 effect could be viewed as small and hardly discernible.In contrast to the authors' contention, the mechanisms influencing growth have not been investigated. The paper does not ...