4.7 Article

Estimation of maximal lactate steady state using the sweat lactate sensor

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-36983-8

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A study was conducted to estimate the maximal lactate steady state (MLSS) using the sweat lactate threshold (sLT) in healthy adults. It was found that trained individuals had a higher MLSS based on sLT compared to untrained individuals. Trained participants were able to continue exercising even with a decrease in tissue oxygenation index (TOI) in the skeletal muscles.
A simple, non-invasive algorithm for maximal lactate steady state (MLSS) assessment has not been developed. We examined whether MLSS can be estimated from the sweat lactate threshold (sLT) using a novel sweat lactate sensor for healthy adults, with consideration of their exercise habits. Fifteen adults representing diverse fitness levels were recruited. Participants with/without exercise habits were defined as trained/untrained, respectively. Constant-load testing for 30 min at 110%, 115%, 120%, and 125% of sLT intensity was performed to determine MLSS. The tissue oxygenation index (TOI) of the thigh was also monitored. MLSS was not fully estimated from sLT, with 110%, 115%, 120%, and 125% of sLT in one, four, three, and seven participants, respectively. The MLSS based on sLT was higher in the trained group as compared to the untrained group. A total of 80% of trained participants had an MLSS of 120% or higher, while 75% of untrained participants had an MLSS of 115% or lower based on sLT. Furthermore, compared to untrained participants, trained participants continued constant-load exercise even if their TOI decreased below the resting baseline (P<0.01). MLSS was successfully estimated using sLT, with 120% or more in trained participants and 115% or less in untrained participants. This suggests that trained individuals can continue exercising despite decreases in oxygen saturation in lower extremity skeletal muscles.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据