Тип публикации: статья из журнала
Год издания: 2023
Идентификатор DOI: 10.17223/15617793/489/19
Ключевые слова: anaerobic threshold, lactate threshold, MLSS, Maximal lactate steady state, лактатный порог, анаэробный порог, порог анаэробного обмена, ПанО
Аннотация: Представлены общие сведения о лактатных порогах, включая современный взгляд на причину их возникновения. Приведены сведения о широко используемых методах определения второго лактатного (анаэробного) порога в табличном и графическом виде. На основании объединения данных из отобранных за последние 10 лет экспериментальных исследованиПоказать полностьюй произведен выбор метода определения второго лактатного порога, оптимального, по нашему мнению, для процесса спортивной подготовки в циклических видах спорта на выносливость. The most well-known metabolic threshold, mentioned in the Russian-language literature, is the threshold of anaerobic metabolism (TAM). At the same time, in the English-language literature, the names used are aerobic (AeT) and anaerobic (AnT) thresholds. The generally accepted reference method for determining LT2, called maximal lactate steady state (MLSS), is too difficult to use in the training process because it requires three to six tests. As the analysis of the literature shows, the widely used method for determinin g LT2 by a fixed lactate concentration of 4 mmol/l in trained subjects does not provide adequate accuracy in individual cases. The research objective is to identify a method for determining the inten sity of LT2 on trained subjects, on average closest in terms of intensity of LT2 to the MLSS method. The method chosen should determine LT2 from a single incremental test. The research methods consist of analysis of data from experimental studies selected according to the following criteria: the study must be conducted on trained subjects with the determination of LT2 values, obtained by various methods, including the MLSS method. We searched the PubMed database for relevant studies for the last 10 years in February 2023. From the data extracted from the selected studies, we calculated the standardized mean difference (SMD) between the LT2 values determined by the various methods and the LT2 values determined by the MLSS method. The keyword search query made it possible to identify 2313 publications. After reading the titles and abstracts of these publications, we determined seven publications that corresponded to the selection criteria: J.G. Pallares et al. (2016), I. Garcia-Tabar et al. (2018), I. Arratibel-Imaz et al. (2015), V. Cerezuela-Espejo et al. (2018), K. Ploszczyca et al. (2020), N.A. Jamnick et al. (2018), L. Zwingmann et al. (2018). A total of 131 subjects participated in these studies. According to the SMD calculation, when combining data from selected studies, the Dmod method is closest to the MLSS method in terms of SMD (the SMD value is closer to zero among all the methods considered). In our opinion, in cyclic endurance sports, it is optimal to use the Dmod method to determine LT2 on trained subjects, since this method does not require repeated testing and allows you to get the result, on average, the closest (of the methods considered in the study) to the reference MLSS method.
Журнал: Вестник Томского государственного университета
Выпуск журнала: №489
Номера страниц: 193-200
ISSN журнала: 15617793
Место издания: Томск
Издатель: Национальный исследовательский Томский государственный университет