↓ Skip to main content

A “Blood Relationship” Between the Overlooked Minimum Lactate Equivalent and Maximal Lactate Steady State in Trained Runners. Back to the Old Days?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A “Blood Relationship” Between the Overlooked Minimum Lactate Equivalent and Maximal Lactate Steady State in Trained Runners. Back to the Old Days?
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, July 2018
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2018.01034
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ibai Garcia-Tabar, Esteban M. Gorostiaga

Abstract

Maximal Lactate Steady State (MLSS) and Lactate Threshold (LT) are physiologically-related and fundamental concepts within the sports and exercise sciences. Literature supporting their relationship, however, is scarce. Among the recognized LTs, we were particularly interested in the disused "Minimum Lactate Equivalent" (LEmin), first described in the early 1980s. We hypothesized that velocity at LT, conceptually comprehended as in the old days (LEmin), could predict velocity at MLSS (VMLSS) more accurate than some other blood lactate-related thresholds (BLRTs) routinely used nowadays by many sport science practitioners. Thirteen male endurance-trained [VMLSS 15.0 ± 1.1 km·h-1; maximal oxygen uptake ( V . O 2 m a x ) 67.6 ± 4.1 ml·kg-1·min-1] homogeneous (coefficient of variation: ≈7%) runners conducted 1) a submaximal discontinuous incremental running test to determine several BLRTs followed by a maximal ramp incremental running test for V . O 2 m a x   determination, and 2) several (4-5) constant velocity running tests to determine VMLSS with a precision of 0.20 km·h-1. Determined BLRTs include LEmin and LEmin-related LEmin plus 1 (LEmin+1mM) and 1.5 mmol·L-1 (LEmin+1.5mM), along with well-established BLRTs such as conventionally-calculated LT, Dmax and fixed blood lactate concentration thresholds. LEmin did not differ from LT (P = 0.71; ES: 0.08) and was 27% lower than MLSS (P < 0.001; ES: 3.54). LEmin+1mM was not different from MLSS (P = 0.47; ES: 0.09). LEmin was the best predictor of VMLSS (r = 0.91; P < 0.001; SEE = 0.47 km·h-1), followed by LEmin+1mM (r = 0.86; P < 0.001; SEE = 0.58 km·h-1) and LEmin+1.5mM (r = 0.84; P < 0.001; SEE = 0.86 km·h-1). There was no statistical difference between MLSS and estimated MLSS using LEmin prediction formula (P = 0.99; ES: 0.001). Mean bias and limits of agreement were 0.00 ± 0.45 km·h-1 and ±0.89 km·h-1. Additionally, LEmin, LEmin+1mM and LEmin+1.5mM were the best predictors of V . O 2 m a x (r = 0.72-0.79; P < 0.001). These results support LEmin, an objective submaximal overlooked and underused BLRT, to be one of the best single MLSS predictors in endurance trained runners. Our study advocates factors controlling LEmin to be shared, at least partly, with those controlling MLSS.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 18%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Researcher 5 8%
Other 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 11 18%
Unknown 21 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 19 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Computer Science 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 23 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 July 2018.
All research outputs
#13,621,195
of 23,094,276 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#4,747
of 13,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,143
of 329,834 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#221
of 476 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,094,276 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,834 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 476 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.