Search

The reliability and accuracy of five portable blood lactate (BLa) analysers (Lactate Pro, Lactate Pro2, Lactate Scout+, Xpress™, and Edge) and one handheld point-of-care analyser (i-STAT) were compared to a criterion (Radiometer ABL90). Two devices of each brand of analyser were assessed using 22 x 6 mL blood samples taken from five subjects at rest and during exercise who generated lactate ranging ~1-23 mM. Each sample was measured simultaneously ~6 times on each device. Reliability was assessed as the within-sample standard deviation (wsSD) of the six replicates; accuracy as the bias compared with the ABL90; and overall error (the root mean squared error (√MSE)) was calculated as the square root of (wsSD2 and bias2). The √MSE indicated that both the Edge and Xpress had low total error (~0-2 mM) for lactate concentrations 15 mM. In all cases, bias (negative) was the major contribution to the √MSE. In conclusion, in a clinical setting where BLa is generally

Three portable blood lactate analysers, Lactate Pro (LP), Lactate Scout (LS) and Lactate Plus (L(+)), were evaluated. Analyser reliability and accuracy was assessed. For reliability, intra- and inter-analyser comparisons demonstrated that the LP (intra-TE = 0.5 mM, inter-TE = 0.4 mM) and L(+) (intra-TE = 0.4, inter-TE = 0.4 mM) displayed greater overall reliability than the LS (intra-TE = 1.0, inter-TE = 0.8 mM). At BLa4.0 mM, the LP (intra-TE = 0.1 mM) demonstrated greater reliability than the LS (intra-TE = 0.5 mM) and L(+) (intra-TE = 0.4 mM). At BLa8.0 mM, the LP (intra-TE = 0.5 mM, inter-TE = 0.4 mM) and L(+) (intra- and inter-TE = 0.4 mM) displayed greater reliability than the LS (intra-TE = 1.1 mM, inter-TE = 0.9 mM). For accuracy, the L(+) (SEE = 0.6 mM) compared more favourably to the LP than the LS (SEE = 1.1 mM). At BLa approximately 1.0-18.0 mM, the LS produced values that were up to 0.9 mM higher than the LP; the L(+) produced BLa that were within +/-0.1 mM. All portable analysers tended to under-read the ABL 700 analyser. The suitability of the LP and L(+) as accurate analysers is supported by strong correlations (r = 0.91 and r = 0.94) and limits of agreementor=2.1 mM. This study showed that the LP and L(+), compared well to each other, displayed good reliability and accuracy when compared to a laboratory-based analyser. Although the LS also displayed relatively good reliability, it was not as reliable or accurate as the LP or L(+).

Purpose: The present study was conducted to examine the impact of acute weight loss on repeat 2000-m rowing ergometer performance during a simulated multiday regatta. and to compare two different body mass management strategies between races. Methods: Competitive rowers (N = 16) were assigned to either a control (CON), partial recovery (RECpartial), or complete recovery (RECcomplete) group. Volunteers completed four trials, each separated by 48 h. No weight restrictions were imposed for the first trial. Thereafter, athletes in RECpartial and RECcomplete were required to reduce their body mass by 4% in the 24 h before trial 2, again reaching this body mass before the final two trials. No weight restrictions were imposed on CON. Aggressive nutritional recovery strategies were used in the 2 h following weigh-in for all athletes. These strategies were maintained for the 12-16 h following racing for RECcomplete with the aim of restoring at least three quarters of the original 4% body mass loss. Postrace recovery strategies were less aggressive in RECpartial; volunteers were encouraged to restore no more than half of their initial 4% body mass loss. Results: Acute weight loss increased time to complete the first at-weight performance trial by a small margin (mean 3.0, 95% CI -0.3 to 6.3 s, P = 0.07) when compared with the CON response. This effect decreased when sustained for several day,. Aggressive postrace recovery strategies tended to eliminate the effect of acute Weight loss on subsequent performance. Conclusion: Acute weight loss resulted in a small performance compromise that was reduced or eliminated when repeated over several days. Athletes should be encouraged to maximize recovery in the 12-16 h following racing when attempting to optimize subsequent performance.