MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

'Reverse Lactate Threshold‘ - A Novel Approach To High-resolution, Single-session Determination Of The Anaerobic-threshold

2009· article· en· W2087839205 on OpenAlexaff
Raffy Dotan

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnaerobic exerciseLactate thresholdReliability (semiconductor)MathematicsBlood lactateMedicinePhysical therapyPhysicsPower (physics)Internal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Existing single-session tests for estimating of the Anaerobic-Threshold (AnT) or Maximal Lactate Steady-State (MLSS) show unsatisfactory validity, reliability, or resolution. The main shortcomings of the accepted 'Gold Standard‘, the multi-session MLSS test, are prohibitive impracticality and unproven reliability. PURPOSE: To introduce the proposed single-session 'Reverse Lactate Threshold‘ test (RLT) for AnT/MLSS determination, validate it against the accepted 'Gold Standard‘ (MLSS test), and test its reliability. METHODS: The RLT consists of 2 contiguous series of continuous 4-min stages. A 3-5-stage series is progressively incremented from a mild work load to 5-20% above the presumed MLSS intensity. It is followed by a 3-6-load reverse series decremented in small steps. Capillary blood is sampled at the end of each stage for lactate concentration ([La]). [La] is then plotted against load and the power output at peak [La] during the reverse series is taken as the RLT-determined AnT. Four athletes of different training levels and disciplines (rowing, cycling, running) served for RLT validation and completed all RLT and MLSS-verification tests. Accepted MLSS-determination criterion was used for verification ([La] rise of ≤1.0mM in the last 20 min of the 30-min MLSS test). One athlete was retested, following a 2.5-month endurance-training period, to gauge RLT‘s sensitivity to fitness changes. Additional 10 trained and untrained cyclists were tested twice, 2-5 days apart, to evaluate the RLT‘s test-retest reliability. RESULTS: RLT-MLSS agreement within 1W (<0.5%) or <0.1 mph (∼0.5%) was shown in all 4 'validation‘ subjects. Post-training, both RLT-determined AnT and MLSS increased by 15W and were in complete agreement. The test-retest coefficient in the reliability testing was 0.998. CONCLUSIONS: The RLT precisely predicted MLSS intensity in all subjects. Its single-session attribute makes it highly practical for routine testing of trained and untrained individuals. Based on the present data, the RLT appears to at least match the MLSS test‘s accuracy and exceed its resolution in estimating true AnT exercise intensity and in reflecting training-induced AnT changes. The observed level of reliability is higher than any reported for any existing test.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicHemodynamic Monitoring and TherapyFrench-language works237,207