MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3124894579 · doi:10.1113/jp281262

In support of the continued use of the term anaerobic threshold

2021· letter· en· W3124894579 sur OpenAlexaff
Brian R. MacIntosh, Keenan B. MacDougall, Tara M. Falconer, Robert John Holash

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Journal of Physiology · 2021
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueSports Performance and Training
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Calgary
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésKinesiologyLibrary scienceSociologyGerontologyMedicineMedical educationComputer science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

'Anaerobic threshold' is a commonly used term, but its meaning seems to depend as much on the user as on any convention. The recent review by Poole and colleagues (2021) in The Journal of Physiology provides an interesting and timely discourse on the fascinating history of lactate and the anaerobic threshold concept, including some very important ideas regarding the lactate shuttle. However, the reader is left confused about what is actually the anaerobic threshold. In fact, these authors propose that we dispose of the term altogether! We believe the term is useful, but there needs to be consensus on the meaning. We would like to suggest that the appropriate meaning of the term 'anaerobic threshold' is the highest intensity that can be sustained exclusively by aerobic metabolism, as suggested previously (Svedahl & MacIntosh, 2003). Above this intensity there is a sustained contribution of energy from glycolysis, leading to accumulation of lactate for as long as the exercise is continued. This intensity is clearly a threshold, according to the definition found in the Oxford English Dictionary and endorsed by Poole and colleagues (2021): 'the magnitude or intensity that must be exceeded for a certain reaction, phenomenon, result, or condition to be manifested'. The primary concern seems to be how we use the term 'anaerobic'. Historically, it has been thought that lactate production is evidence for an inadequate supply of oxygen. However, the review under consideration (Poole et al. 2021) makes it clear that lactate production commonly proceeds in muscle while adequate oxygen is available. Can we then continue to use 'anaerobic' to refer to metabolic production of ATP without the use of oxygen? We conclude that this is necessary if we want to be able to interpret the volumes of literature referring to anaerobic glycolysis in living muscle. Hence, we believe the anaerobic threshold is an important concept and should be held onto. In the review (Poole et al. 2021), it is pointed out that D. B. Dill thought it was possible that Wasserman and McIlroy (1964) had identified the '… threshold of anaerobic metabolism'. If we consider the continuous accumulation of lactate during sustained exercise at a constant intensity to be the phenomenon or condition that manifests, then the anaerobic threshold should be the highest intensity of exercise which can be sustained by aerobic metabolism. Above this intensity, exercise can only be sustained with continued accumulation of lactate. This was apparently the intent when the term was first introduced, as uncovered by Poole and colleagues. Wasserman and McIlroy (1964) identified an intensity of exercise above which ventilation increased disproportionately to oxygen uptake while CO2 excretion was still in proportion to the ventilation. They surmised that metabolic acidosis due to increasing lactate production was stimulating the ventilation. However, as pointed out by Poole and colleagues (2021), increased blood lactate does not necessarily mean increased anaerobic metabolism. As long as the rate of formation of lactate from active muscle is balanced by oxidation of lactate in the same or other tissues, then lactate will not accumulate and there is no net anaerobic metabolism. Having identified this discrepancy, would it not seem logical to find a threshold above which there is sustained anaerobic contribution to the energy requirement of the exercise and recommend using the term 'anaerobic threshold' to refer to that intensity? There are apparently at least two important thresholds. The lower threshold, corresponding with what Wasserman and McIlroy (1964) called the anaerobic threshold, is now recognized as ventilatory threshold 1 or the gas exchange threshold. Sometimes, this threshold is identified as the intensity during an incremental test when blood lactate is first measurably above resting values, called the lactate threshold. Detection of this intensity of exercise may still have clinical relevance (Myers & Ashley, 1997), but there is no justification for calling this the anaerobic threshold. We recognize that it is difficult to identify the precise exercise intensity that is the highest that can be sustained with steady state oxygen uptake and no accumulation of lactate. However, there are several techniques that are recognized to identify an intensity of exercise which is not much different from this threshold. This includes the ventilatory threshold 2 or respiratory compensation point. This intensity is also sometimes identified during an incremental test by a substantial increase in blood lactate, another lactate threshold. Furthermore, constant intensity tests have been used to identify a threshold that may be synonymous with the anaerobic threshold as we have defined it. For example, critical speed or power (Dekerle et al. 2003) and the maximal lactate steady state (Haverty et al. 1988; MacIntosh et al. 2002) have considerable support for being valued proxies for the threshold of anaerobic metabolism. It seems far more appropriate to use the term 'anaerobic threshold' in the way it was intended – to refer to the threshold for sustained anaerobic contribution to exercise – than to continue using the term for an intensity that is well below that critical threshold. None. All authors have read and approved the final version of this manuscript and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. All persons designated as authors qualify for authorship, and all those who qualify for authorship are listed. None.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,027
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,069
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,027
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,142

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0270,069
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,002
Bibliométrie0,0030,005
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,016
Communication savante0,0090,016
Science ouverte0,0060,006
Intégrité de la recherche0,0110,028
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0150,011

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,040
Tête enseignante GPT0,275
Écart entre enseignants0,236 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations5
Publié2021
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Journal of PhysiologyMême sujetSports Performance and TrainingTravaux en français237 207