Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30761194›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of exercise science2019

Agreement among Six Methods of Predicting the Anaerobic Lactate Threshold in Elite Cross-Country Skiers.

Sean L Carter, Ian Newhouse

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of exercise science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Validation of portable electronic equipment (AccutrendJournal of advanced veterinary and animal research · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Sean L CarterSchool of Kinesiology, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, ONTARIO, CANADA.
Ian NewhouseSchool of Kinesiology, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, ONTARIO, CANADA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The anaerobic lactate threshold (LTan) is used to prescribe training intensity and measure endurance capacity. The LTan identifies a critical point where small increases in workload result in large increases in blood lactate concentration. LTan is usually predicted through visual inspection of a blood lactate (bLa) vs workload plot. Numerous other methods for predicting LTan exist, and the literature lacks a consensus regarding validity of prediction methods. The purpose of this study was to assess the agreement among visual inspection (VI), maximum distance (Dmax) and modified maximum distance (Dmod) from the lactate curve, Baldari & Guidetti (BG), Dickhuth & Heck (DH) and Keul (K) methods for predicting the LTan. Blood lactate data was gathered from 8 male elite cross country skiers across two treadmill running incremental exercise tests. The above methods were used to predict LTan. Bland-Altman limits of agreement and Lin's Concordance Correlation Coefficient analyses were used to compare methods. Agreement was defined as 95% limits of agreement falling within a maximum allowed difference of ± 0.5 mM bLa between methods. No agreement was found among any of the prediction methods. Mean LTan calculated with the Dmax method was significantly different (p < 0.05) from mean LTan calculated using each other method. We conclude that the six methods for predicting LTan used in this study are not in agreement and should not be considered equivalent for exercise testing purposes. Future studies should compare agreement between LTan methods and the maximal lactate steady state to determine the most valid LTan prediction method.

Indexed as

agreementconcordanceCorrelationexercisemeasurementphysiologyreliabilitysportsport sciencestatistical methods

Identifiers

PMID30761194
PMCPMC6355128

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.