Home > Journals > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness > Past Issues > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2011 March;51(1) > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2011 March;51(1):42-9

CURRENT ISSUE
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Reprints

THE JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE AND PHYSICAL FITNESS

A Journal on Applied Physiology, Biomechanics, Preventive Medicine,
Sports Medicine and Traumatology, Sports Psychology


Indexed/Abstracted in: Chemical Abstracts, CINAHL, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 1,111


eTOC

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLES  PHYSIOLOGY AND BIOMECHANICS


The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2011 March;51(1):42-9

language: English

Reliability and validity of the lactate-minimum test. A revisit

Dotan R. 1, Zigel L. 2, Rotstein A. 3, Greenberg T. 2, Benyamini Y. 2, Falk B. 1,4

1 Faculty of Applied Health Sciences, Brock University, St Catharines, ON, Canada;
2 Ribstein Centre for Sports Medicine and Research,, Wingate Institute, Netanya, Israel;
3 Zinman College, Wingate Institute, Netanya, Israel;
4 Department of Physical Education and Kinesiology, Brock University, St Catharines, ON, Canada


PDF  


AIM: The Lactate-Minimum Test (LMT) is a high-resolution, physiologically elegant test for estimating the anaerobic threshold (AnT), or the Maximal Lactate Steady-State (MLSS). Nevertheless, it has not gained the acceptance level of typical progressive lactate-response tests (PLRT). Aim of this study was to compare LMT’s validity and reviewer reliability vs. a PLRT-type test and re-evaluate the justification for LMT’s dismissal.
METHODS: Sixteen male distance trained runners (37.1±11.6 yrs) were included in the study. MLSS, LMT, and PLRT tests were performed in separate sessions. Two reviewers, blind to the subjects’ identity, independently determined LMT and PLRT’s threshold velocities (VLMT, VPLRT) twice. Additionally, VLMT was determined objectively, using best-fit polynomial regressions (VLMTP).
RESULTS: VPLRT, VLMT and VLMTP correlated well with VMLSS (r=0.92, 0.90, 0.93, resp.). VPLRT was identical to VMLSS (13.54 km·h-1), but VLMT and VLMTP were 0.33 and 0.46 km·h-1 lower, respectively. Inter-reviewer reliability was higher for VLMT than VPLRT (ICC=0.96 vs. 0.57, resp.). Intra-reviewer reliability showed a similar pattern.
CONCLUSION: LMT’s underestimation of MLSS appears corrigible. The validity of corrected LMT appears comparable to that of PLRT, while its reliability, objectivity and resolution are superior. Although neither test is a perfect MLSS-substitute, the corrected LMT is not inferior to PLRT-type testing and cannot be dismissed.

top of page

Publication History

Cite this article as

Corresponding author e-mail

rdotan@brocku.ca