ArticleJournal of sports science & medicine2013
Indirect determination of lactate minimum speed from a single maximal performance in young swimmers.
Article in Journal of sports science & medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Physical performance determinants in competitive youth swimmers: a systematic review.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2024Article
- Differences in iron intake during pregnancy influence in trainability response of male rat offspring.Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2020Article
- The Lactate Minimum Test: Concept, Methodological Aspects and Insights for Future Investigations in Human and Animal Models.Frontiers in physiology · 2017Review
- Relationship of aerobic and anaerobic parameters with 400 m front crawl swimming performance.Biology of sport · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to generate equations for the indirect determination of lactate minimum (LM) intensity from short-distance maximal performances in 10- to 17-year-old swimmers. Seventy-one male (n = 41) and female (n = 30) competitive swimmers were divided into subgroups: one to generate predictive equations for LM (~70% of the sample), and the second to cross-validate the proposed equations (~30% of the sample). All participants swam maximally short-distance using front crawl stroke, and mean speed of the 100 (S100), 200 (S200), and 400 m (S400) performances were calculated in m·s(-1). The LM protocol was measured after an 8 min of passive recovery from the S200, consisting of five progressive 200 m performances (~80%, 84%, 88%, 92%, and 96% of S200). Multiple linear regressions generated predictive equations for LM from single performances (S100, S200, and S400), also considering as independent variables age, pubic hair index, body mass, height, and body fat. The relationships between variables were examined using standard error of estimate (SEE). Nevertheless, age, biological maturation and anthropometric variables did not contribute to explain LM. Further, for both genders, S200 was the best predictor for LM, contributing to 95% of LM variation in males and 81% in females. The generated equations were: "LM = 0.24 + 0.67 × S200" (adjusted R(2) = 0.95; SEE = 0.03 m·s(-1)) for boys and "LM = 0.13 + 0.79 × S200" (adjusted R(2) = 0.81; SEE = 0.03 m·s(-1)) for girls. The predicted LM did not differ from the measured LM during cross-validation analysis. A single performance was found to be a valid LM predictor in 10- to 17-year-old swimmers regardless of gender, age and biological maturation. Thus, this is a practical, non-invasive, and economical alternative to estimate the aerobic capacity in young swimmers. Key PointsLM can be estimated from a single maximal swimming performance for boys and girls, regardless age, sexual maturity, anthropometrical and body composition parameters.For boys, S200 was the best LM predictor (LM = 0.24 + 0.67 x S200), explaining 95% of LM variation with great cross validation parameters.For girls, S200 was also the best LM predictor (LM = 0.13 + 0.79 x S200), explaining 81% of LM variation with great cross validation parameters.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24421724PMC3873655What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.