↓ Skip to main content

The Lactate Minimum Test: Concept, Methodological Aspects and Insights for Future Investigations in Human and Animal Models

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
39 X users

Readers on

mendeley
133 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
The Lactate Minimum Test: Concept, Methodological Aspects and Insights for Future Investigations in Human and Animal Models
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, January 2017
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2017.00389
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leonardo H. D. Messias, Claudio A. Gobatto, Wladimir R. Beck, Fúlvia B. Manchado-Gobatto

Abstract

In 1993, Uwe Tegtbur proposed a useful physiological protocol named the lactate minimum test (LMT). This test consists of three distinct phases. Firstly, subjects must perform high intensity efforts to induce hyperlactatemia (phase 1). Subsequently, 8 min of recovery are allowed for transposition of lactate from myocytes (for instance) to the bloodstream (phase 2). Right after the recovery, subjects are submitted to an incremental test until exhaustion (phase 3). The blood lactate concentration is expected to fall during the first stages of the incremental test and as the intensity increases in subsequent stages, to rise again forming a "U" shaped blood lactate kinetic. The minimum point of this curve, named the lactate minimum intensity (LMI), provides an estimation of the intensity that represents the balance between the appearance and clearance of arterial blood lactate, known as the maximal lactate steady state intensity (iMLSS). Furthermore, in addition to the iMLSS estimation, studies have also determined anaerobic parameters (e.g., peak, mean, and minimum force/power) during phase 1 and also the maximum oxygen consumption in phase 3; therefore, the LMT is considered a robust physiological protocol. Although, encouraging reports have been published in both human and animal models, there are still some controversies regarding three main factors: (1) the influence of methodological aspects on the LMT parameters; (2) LMT effectiveness for monitoring training effects; and (3) the LMI as a valid iMLSS estimator. Therefore, the aim of this review is to provide a balanced discussion between scientific evidence of the aforementioned issues, and insights for future investigations are suggested. In summary, further analyses is necessary to determine whether these factors are worthy, since the LMT is relevant in several contexts of health sciences.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 39 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 132 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 32 24%
Student > Master 25 19%
Researcher 14 11%
Professor 8 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 6%
Other 19 14%
Unknown 27 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 64 48%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 8%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 6 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 3%
Other 9 7%
Unknown 33 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 12 December 2023.
All research outputs
#1,794,905
of 25,726,194 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#963
of 15,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,471
of 423,846 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#18
of 242 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,726,194 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,721 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 423,846 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 242 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.