Published online: 2020-08-25

Training & Testing Thieme

Predicting Maximal Lactate Steady State from Carminatti’s Shuttle

Run Test in Soccer Players

Authors
Lorival José Carminatti1, Bruna Nunes Batista1, Juliano Fernandes da Silva2, Artur Ferreira Tramontin1,
Vitor Pereira Costa1 , Ricardo Dantas de Lucas3, Fernando Klitzke Borszcz3

Affiliations
1 Center for Health and Sport Sciences, University of Santa
Catarina State, Florianópolis, Brazil
2 Research Group for Development of Football and Futsal,
Sports Center, Federal University of Santa Catarina,
Florianópolis, Brazil
3 Physical Effort Laboratory, Sports Centre, Federal
University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil
Key words
Abstract
The objective of the present study was to determine the valid-
ity of Carminatti’s shuttle run incremental test–T-Car derived
parameters in estimating the maximal lactate steady state
determined in shuttle run format. Eighteen soccer players per-
formed a T-Car test, and several trials to determine the maximal
lactate steady state. From T-Car were derived the heart rate
deflection point, peak speed, maximal heart rate and param-
eters resulting from percentage of peak measures. The validity
was accessed by Bland-Altman plots, linear regressions, and

Downloaded by: Cornell. Copyrighted material.

validity, soccer, field test two one-sided tests of equivalence analysis. The results showed
the speed at 80.4 % of T-Car peak speed, the heart rate deflec-
accepted 07.07.2020 tion point and the 91.4 % of maximal heart rate were equivalent
to maximal lactate steady state (Mean difference; ± 90 % com-
Bibliography patibility interval; − 0.8; ± 1.5 %, − 0.4; ± 1.1 %, and 0.0; ± 2.7 %,
Int J Sports Med respectively). Additionally, peak speed during the T-Car test
DOI 10.1055/a-1224-3985 was a stronger predictor of maximal lactate steady state (MLSS
Published online: 2020 [km/h] = 2.57 + 0.65 × sPeak; r = 0.82 [90 % CI; 0.62–0.92],
ISSN 0172-4622 standard error of the estimate = 3.6 %; 90 % CI × / ÷ 1.4). There-
© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved. fore, soccer players can use the T-Car derived parameters as a
Georg Thieme Verlag KG, Rüdigerstraße 14, noninvasive and practical alternative to estimate the specific
70469 Stuttgart, Germany maximal lactate steady state for soccer.

Correspondence
Fernando Klitzke Borszcz
Sports Centre, Federal University of Santa Catarina,
Rua Dep. Antônio Edu Vieira
88040-970 Florianópoli
Brazil
Tel.: + 55 048 3664-8600, Fax: + 55 048 3664-8600
fernandoborszcz@gmail.com

Introduction ing a match, depending on their position, at an average intensity

Since the introduction of the 20-m incremental shuttle run test [1],
other different shuttle run protocols has been developed to assess
aerobic and partial anaerobic fitness in team sports, such as YoYo
[2], 30–15 intermittent fitness test [3], and Carminatti’s test
(T-Car) [4]. Interestingly, most of these tests are used to evaluate
the peak speed (sPeak) and estimate the maximal oxygen uptake
(V̇ O2max) (e. g. YoYo: r = 0.70 [2]; 30–15: r = 0.68 [3]; T-Car: r = 0.51
and 0.52 [4, 5]).
Soccer is characterized as an intermittent high-intensity team
sport. Where a soccer player covers approximately 10–13 km dur-
of ~70 % of V̇O2max [6]. Traditionally, aerobic fitness was deter-
mined by the measurement of the V̇O2max. Therefore, Edwards
et al. [7] demonstrated that oxygen uptake at lactate and ventila-
tory thresholds was improved following a period of training in elite
soccer players, but there was no improvement in the V̇O2max. This
suggests that physiological thresholds were more sensitive to mod-
ifications of training status. Additionally, da Silva et al. [8] showed
moderate to large correlations between the repeated-sprint abili-
ties, such as the mean time of sprints (r =  − 0.49) and decrement of
sprint speed (r =  − 0.54) with the lactate threshold (fixed blood lac-

Carminatti LJ et al. Predicting Maximal Lactate Steady … Int J Sports Med | © 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.
 Training & Testing
tate concentration [La − ] at 3.5 mmol · L − 1). This association was
higher when compared to repeated-sprint abilities with V̇O2max
(r =  − 0.38 and − 0.49, respectively) [8]. In this regard, it seems im-
portant to assess the physiological thresholds in soccer players dur-
ing the competitive season.
The continuous maximal lactate steady state (MLSS) is defined
as the highest intensity of exercise that can be maintained for a
longer period without the increase in the [La − ], and it is the gold
standard for aerobic evaluation [9–11]. In short, the continuous
MLSS determination is based on several 30-min trials performed
on different days, including blood [La − ] samples [10], which makes
it more impractical and not widely accessible. In an attempt to
make it easier to determine MLSS with 1-day tests and/or without
any invasive procedures, studies of MLSS prediction in soccer play-
ers have focused on critical speed [12], [La − ] minimum test [13],
[La − ]-derived thresholds [12, 14, 15], and use of field incremental
test parameters [16]. However, those studies determined the MLSS
during continuous exercise models (pauses only for [La–] sample)
[12–16], which is not in accordance with the specificity regarding
the intermittent character of soccer.
The T-Car test is an incremental discontinuous test designed for
intermittent sport modalities such as soccer and futsal. The test
consists of repeated bouts of 5 × 12 s shuttle runs separated by in-
tervals of 6 s at progressively faster speeds until volitional exhaus-
tion [4]. The characteristics of T-Car closely resemble the stop-start
characteristics of a soccer game, and include a range of distances
associated with displacement of players during a competitive
match [4]. Previously, the physiological thresholds from the T-Car
test was determined by anaerobic thresholds (AnT) using the heart-
rate deflection point (HRDP) [5]. However, the HRDPs determined
during the T-Car test were previously compared to the [La–] thresh-
olds from the incremental treadmill testing [5] but not with the
gold standard (i. e. MLSS).
A very specific protocol for AnT evaluation could be useful for
training prescription, and the evaluation of aerobic fitness altera-
tions in soccer players. Additionally, the validation of the AnT in the
soccer context could be specific to the nature of the modality. Thus,
the aim of this study was to verify the validity of parameters deter-
mined during the T-Car test to predict the intermittent MLSS per-
formed in the same pattern of T-Car test, i. e. 12 s shuttle runs sep-
arated by rest intervals of 6 s.
Materials and Methods
Study design
To test the validity of specific AnT determination in soccer players
from the T-Car test, the present study was designed as an experi-
mental cross-sectional study. We aimed to analyze the validity of
T-Car derived predictors of the intermittent MLSS. Thus, an incre-
mental exercise test (i. e. T-Car) and a series of MLSS trials were car-
ried out. Participants were required to abstain from any exhaustive
exercises during the 48 hours before each test day. Also, they were
instructed to follow a similar diet during test days. All experimen-
tal testing procedures were performed in an outdoor tartan track,
and were performed at the same hour of the day (temperature:
19–25 º C; relative humidity: 45–52 %).
Carminatti LJ et al. Predicting Maximal Lactate Steady … Int J Sports Med | © 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.
Thieme
Subjects
Eighteen male college soccer players (mean ± standard deviation
[SD]: age = 21.5 ± 3.1 [range: 18–28] years, weight = 68.5 ± 9.5 kg,
and height = 1.76 ± 0.05 m) participated in the present study. After
verbal and written explanations of the procedures, all participants
signed an informed consent form, approved by the institutional
ethics committee and conforming to the Declaration of Helsinki.
This study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards
of the International Journal of Sports Medicine [17].
Procedures
Carminatti’s test (T-Car)
During the T-Car test the participants performed repeated bouts
(five per stage) of 12 s shuttle runs at progressively faster speeds
(0.6 km/h per stage) until volitional exhaustion. The 12 s bouts
were separated by 6 s of recovery periods, totaling 90 s per stage.
The initial distance was set at 15 m (average speed of 9 km/h) and
was increased by 1 m at each stage [4]. Then the test protocol start-
ed with a running distance of 30 m before the short rest of 6 s (15 m
out and back). Summarizing, each stage consisted of five shuttle
repetitions and between repetitions the participants had 6 s of re-
covery [4]. The speed was dictated by prerecorded audio cues, i. e.
Downloaded by: Cornell. Copyrighted material.
beeps (D-BH1101, Grasep), which defined the running speed to be
performed between the two lines/cones. During the whole test,
the heart rate (HR) was continuously recorded using a chest strap
(Polar, Kempele, Finland).
The maximal HR (HRmax) was defined as the highest individual
value reached. The sPeak was determined as the speed of the last
stage completed; if the stage was not completed, it was determined
as: sPeak = s + (ns ÷ 10) × 0.6; where, s is speed of the last fully com-
pleted stage and ns is the number of repetitions completed in the
partially completed stage.
The submaximal estimates of MLSS derived from T-Car incre-
mental test were: a) Heart rate deflection point (HRDP): defined as
the intensity of transition of a linear (or quasi-linear) increase of HR
to an non-linear increase in the HR, the point of deflection was de-
fined by visual inspection [18]; b) Heart rate deflection point Dmax
method (HRDPDmax): calculated by a third order polynomial re-
gression, from the HR versus speed values. The two endpoints of
the curve were connected by a straight line, and the most distant
point of the curve to the line was considered as the HRDPDmax,
only values of HR ≥ 140 bpm were used in this analysis [19]; c) Fixed
percentage of 80.4 % of sPeak (80.4 %sPeak): determined by linear
interpolation between two stages at speed equivalent to 80.4 % of
T-Car sPeak [5]; d) Fixed percentage of HRmax of 90 % (90 %HRmax):
determined by interpolation between two stages at HR equivalent
to 90 % of HRmax [16, 20]; and e) Fixed percentage of HRmax of
91.4 % (91.4 %HRmax): determined by interpolation between two
stages at HR equivalent to 91.4 % of HRmax [21]. Originally, the
80.4 %sPeak and 91.4%HRmax were derived from a large sample
size (n = 112) as the percentages of sPeak and HRmax, respective-
ly, equivalent to HRDPDmax using the T-Car test [21], and the
90 %HRmax was used in previous studies [16, 20]. The speed and
HR were determined for each intensity.

6 s forth 17 × 12 s: 6 s
6s
rest
6 s back
Distance (m)
0 300
Time (s)
Heart rate
Blood [La–]
Exercise
6 × 5 min: 1 min
0 6 12 18 24 30 36
Time (min)
▶Fig. 1 Methodological aspects of maximal lactate steady state
determined in the T-Car like format.
Maximal lactate steady state (MLSS)
For the determination of MLSS, several submaximal tests with du-
ration of 35 min were performed. The three first MLSS trials were
performed at an interval of 7 days from each other, and in the soc-
cer players where a fourth trial was necessary, it was performed
with an interval of at least 48 h from the third trial. The MLSS trials
were performed using intermittent bouts in the same pattern of
T-Car test (i. e. 12 s running bouts with 6 s recovery periods), but
using the same speed during the entire trial. Additionally, at every
5 min of exercise, a pause of 1 min was applied. ▶Figure 1 provides
details of MLSS determination. Prior to each test, a warm-up run-
ning of 5 min was performed at 9 km/h. The speed at MLSS trials
was controlled by the beep (D-BH1101, Grasep) emitted every 6 s;
thus, in groups of nine players, cones were placed with individual-
ized distances, so every soccer player could cover in 12 s (6 s
forth + 6 s back) the distance at the required speed (▶Fig. 1). MLSS
was considered the highest exercise intensity in which [La − ] did not
show an increase of ≥ 1 mmol/L during the last 20 min of the net
working time of exercise (i. e. excluding the 1 min pauses; account-
ing the pauses between 12th and 36th minutes ▶ Fig 1) [10]. The
intensity of the first MLSS trial corresponded to the 80.4 % of sPeak,
based on a previous study with futsal players [22]. If during this
trial, a steady state or decrease in [La − ] was observed, the intensi-
ties of the subsequent trials were increased by 0.6 km/h until the
steady state of [La − ] could not be observed. If the [La − ] during the
first MLSS trial did not show a steady state and/or the exhaustion
of the participant occurred before the end of the 36 min period,
the subsequent intensities were decreased by 0.6 km/h. Then the
MLSS was determined with a precision of 0.6 km/h (mean ± SD;
4.5 ± 0.3 %). Blood samples of 25 μL from the earlobe were collect-
ed before each exercise and every 10 min during the MLSS testing
for further determination of [La − ] (YSI 2700 Stat Plus, Yellow
Springs, OH, USA). For HR relative to MLSS determination, the HR
measured in the last shuttle (between 294 and 300 s ▶Fig. 1) of each
Carminatti LJ et al. Predicting Maximal Lactate Steady … Int J Sports Med | © 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.
six series of 5 min was averaged. So the HR at MLSS was considered
the mean of HR measured at the finish of the six series of 5 min.
Statistical analysis
The descriptive statistics are presented as means ± SD and compat-
ibility (aka confidence) intervals (CI) of 90 %. To determine the sys-
tematic error of predictions between MLSS and T-Car outcomes,
we used the two one-sided test (TOST) procedure, to test equiva-
lence between them [23]. We specified our smallest effect size of
interest (SESOI) as ± 3 %, based in the test-retest reliability of con-
tinuous MLSS [24]. An estimate was deemed “equivalent” to MLSS
when the full 90 % CIs are within the SESOI equivalence boundaries.
Conversely, when the CI overlaps one boundary of the SESOI, this
indicates that the data are “inconclusive” [25].
Additionally, the standard error of the estimate (SEE) in percent
units, derived by linear regression analysis, and Bland Altmann anal-
ysis with bias and limits of agreement (LoA) of 95 % were used to
determine the validity. The association between the measures were
determined by using Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r).
The analysis were made in a spreadsheet that was used for anal-
ysis of concurrent validity [26], and the TOST analysis were made
on software R (Core Team, R Foundation for Statistical Computing,
Downloaded by: Cornell. Copyrighted material.
Vienna, Austria) using the TOSTER package [23].
Results
Descriptive results of T-Car derived and MLSS parameters are
shown in the ▶ Table 1. Time course of [La–] and HR % of HRmax
during the exercise bouts performed to MLSS determination are
shown in ▶ Figs 1a and b, respectively. The mean ± SD change in
the [La –] from 10th to 30th min was 0.27 ± 0.37, 0.08 ± 0.73, and
2.56 ± 1.34 mmol · L − 1 at, below and above the MLSS, respectively.
The mean ± SD [La–] at MLSS was 4.4 ± 1.2 mmol · L − 1.
For speed measurement, the TOST analysis revealed that speeds
at HRDP, 80.4 %sPeak, and 91.4 %HRmax were highly compatible
with MLSS (i. e. full 90 % CI within SESOI of ± 3 %); however, for
speeds at HRDPDmax and 90 %Hrmax, the equivalence was incon-
clusive, assuming a region of equivalence of ± 3 % (▶Fig. 3a). For
heart rates associated with the parameters derived from the T-Car
incremental test, HRDP and 91.4 %HRmax are deemed equivalent
to HR at MLSS, assuming a region of equivalence of ± 3 % (▶Fig. 3b).
▶Figures 4 and ▶5 present the linear regression and Bland-Alt-
man analysis between MLSS and T-Car derived parameters. For
speed measurements, the lowest error of prediction of MLSS was
by sPeak and 80.4 %sPeak (both; SEE = 3.6 %; 90 % CI × / ÷ 1.35), and
the highest error was by 90 %HRmax and 91.4 %HRmax (both;
SEE = 4.8 %; 90 % CI × / ÷ 1.35). For HR associated with T-Car param-
eters, the lowest error of prediction of HR at MLSS was by
90 %HRmax and 91.4 %HRmax (both; SEE = 2.7 %; 90 % CI × / ÷ 1.35),
and the highest error by 80.4 %sPeak (SEE = 4.6 %; 90 % CI × / ÷ 1.35).
Discussion
The main finding of the current study was that the intermittent run-
ning speed related to MLSS could be estimated based on different
parameters derived from the T-Car incremental test in soccer play-
ers with a reasonable accuracy.
 Training & Testing Thieme

▶Table 1 Mean ± SD [minimum – maximum] of parameters derived on T-Car incremental test and MLSS.

Measures Speed (km/h) % of sPeak % of speed at Heart rate % of HRmax % of HR at MLSS

MLSS (bpm)
MLSS 13.3 ± 0.8 81.1 ± 3.0 100.0 ± NA 179 ± 9 92.0 ± 2.4 100.0 ± NA
[11.7–15.0] [76.9–86.5] [NA] [163–201] [87.6–95.9] [NA]
HRDP 13.3 ± 1.0 80.8 ± 2.6 99.6 ± 5.4 178 ± 9 91.8 ± 2.8 99.5 ± 3.7
[12.0–15.0] [75.9–85.2] [93.0–110.0] [160–194] [87.0–96.2] [93.5–107.1]
HRDPDmax 13.1 ± 0.9 79.6 ± 2.9 98.2 ± 5.1 176 ± 8 90.4 ± 2.7 103.1 ± 4.7
[11.4–15.2] [75.3–86.4] [90.4–107.8] [160–188] [85.7–95.2] [92.9–105.0]
80.4 % 13.2 ± 0.8 80.4 ± NA 99.2 ± 3.6 177 ± 9 91.0 ± 2.8 98.8 ± 5.3
[11.7–14.3] [NA] [94.2–104.4] [159–184] [86.5–96.6] [87.9–110.5]
90 % HRmax 13.0 ± 1.1 79.1 ± 4.1 97.6 ± 5.6 175 ± 8 90.0 ± NA 97.9 ± 2.6
[11.2–15.0] [72.0–86.5] [85.9–106.8] [161–195] [NA] [93.9–102.7]
91.4 % HRmax 13.3 ± 1.2 80.9 ± 4.3 100.2 ± 6.4 178 ± 8 91.4 ± [NA] 99.5 ± 2.7
[11.4–15.5] [73.9–88.5] [88.1–110.5] [164–198] [NA] [95.4–104.3]
Peak 16.4 ± 1.0a 100.0 ± NA 123.4 ± 4.5 194 ± 9b 100.0 ± NA 118.8 ± 2.8
[14.5–17.8] [NA] [117.4–130.0] [179–217] [NA] [104.3–114.1]

a sPeak, b maximal heart rate, bpm beats per minute, NA not applicable.

Downloaded by: Cornell. Copyrighted material.

a a
12 – 0.4 (– 2.3 to 1.5)
HRDP Equivalent
10 – 1.9 (– 3.8 to 0.0)
HRDPDmax Inconclusive
8
Blood [La–]

– 0.8 (– 2.3 to 0.7)

80.4 %sPeak Equivalent
6
– 2.5 (– 5.1 to 0.1)
90 %HRmax Inconclusive
4
0.0 (– 2.7 to 2.7)
91.4 %HRmax Equivalent
2
– 6.0 – 3.0 0.0 3.0 6.0
0 Difference ± 90 % CI to speed at MLSS (%)
Rest WU 12 24 36
Time (min) b
– 0.5 (– 2.0 to 1.0)
b HRDP Equivalent
100
– 1.9 (– 3.4 to – 0.4)
HRDPDmax Inconclusive

90 80.4 %sPeak
– 1.9 (– 3.3 to 1.0)
Inconclusive
HR (% HRmax)

– 2.1 (– 3.1 to – 1.1)

90 %HRmax Inconclusive
80
– 0.5 (1.6 to 0.5)
91.4 %HRmax Equivalent
70
– 6.0 – 3.0 0.0 3.0 6.0
Difference ± 90 % CI to HR at MLSS (%)
60
WU 5 11 17 23 29 35 ▶Fig. 3 Analysis of equivalence between MLSS and predictors
Time (min) derived from speed a and heart rate b measures during the T-Car
MLSS – 4.5 % MLSS MLSS + 4.5 % test. Square points are the mean difference to MLSS with 90 % com-
patibility intervals (CI). The gray shaded area represents the smallest
effect size of interest (SESOI). The inferences about the differences in
▶Fig. 2 Time course of [La–] during the bouts at, below and above relation to SESOI were: Inconclusive when the CI overlaps one bound-
the MLSS a, and the heart rate response as percent of maximal heart ary of SESOI, Equivalent when the 90 % CI are full within the SESOI.
rate at MLSS. Data are shown as mean ± SD. The dashed vertical lines
represent the 1-minute pauses between the series. WU: warm-up.

Carminatti LJ et al. Predicting Maximal Lactate Steady … Int J Sports Med | © 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.
 The MLSS is not a practical and accessible measure, especially results, Llodio et al. [16] showed a SEE = 3.5 %, and r = 0.74, between
in team sports such as soccer, because it involves several bouts at sPeak and MLSS, in soccer players. Interestingly, the sPeak (or peak
different speeds on different days, and this modality involves a high power output depending on exercise mode), is highly associated
number of athletes [9, 10]. Previously, the prediction of MLSS was with MLSS in several modes of exercise, such as running [16, 20],
conducted in soccer players by using invasive procedures or multi- cycling [30], rowing [30] and speed skating [30] (r = 0.71–0.95).
ple trials procedures [12–16]. Additionally, the determination of Therefore, the sPeak could be used as practical measure to estimate
MLSS in the current study was derived from a very specific pattern the MLSS using the following equation: MLSS = 2.57 + sPeak × 0.65
of exercise, similar in nature to soccer. Previously, Barbieri et al. [13] (▶ Fig. 3[f1]). Additionally, the reliability of sPeak in the T-Car
used a circuit with ball driving in futsal; Loures et al. [14] used the showed a low test-retest typical error of the measurement
Hoff Circuit designed for soccer, and in other studies, the MLSS and (CV = 1.4 %) in soccer players [4]. Originally, the 80.4 %sPeak was
estimates were determined using continuous running on a tread- derived from a large sample size (n = 112) as the percentage of
mill or outdoor track [12, 15, 16]. It is important to note that in the sPeak equivalent to HRDPDmax [21]. In the present study, the
present study, as the MLSS was determined using the intermittent speed at 80.4 %sPeak was demonstrated to be equivalent to MLSS
model, the exercise intensity at MLSS is higher than in the MLSS de- (▶Fig 2a). Additionally, in a previous study the 80.4 %sPeak dem-
termined using the continuous model [27, 28]. This is due to the onstrated good concordance with [La–] thresholds [5], despite the
pauses during the trial that favor the removal of [La–], allowing the previous criticism regarding the use of percentages of maximum
steady state of [La–] to be reached at higher speeds [28]. The ad- variables (e. g. sPeak) to describe physiological thresholds [31].
vantages of the MLSS format determined in the current study refer On the other hand, the worst prediction and correlation for
to the similarity with the exercise mode of soccer, which involve MLSS speed were presented by speed associated with % of HRmax
non-continuous running associated with accelerations/decelera- (i. e. 90 %HRmax and 91.4 %HRmax) (both; SEE = 4.8 %; r = 0.65); this
tions, as well as changes in direction [29]. error was greater than that between MLSS and speed at 80 % of
The smallest random prediction error and the highest correla- HRmax (SEE = 3.2 %) found in another study of soccer players [16].

Downloaded by: Cornell. Copyrighted material.

tion to speed at MLSS were presented by sPeak and 80.4 %sPeak The HR at 91.4 %HRmax and HDP derived from T-Car were
(both; SEE = 3.6 %; r = 0.82, respectively). In accordance with these deemed equivalent to HR at MLSS (▶Fig. 3b). In the present study,

a1 a2 b1 b2
16 16
SEE = 0.52 (3.9 %) 20 SEE = 0.55 km/h (4.1 %) 20

MLSS - HRDPDmax (%)

r = 0.78 (0.56 – 0.90) 15 r = 0.76 (0.52 – 0.89)
15 15 15
MLSS - HRDP (%)

MLSS (km/h)

10
MLSS (km/h)

10
Difference

Difference
14 5 14 5
0 0
13
–5 13
–5
12 – 10 12 – 10
– 15 Bias = – 0.5 % – 15
Bias = – 2.0 %
11 MLSS = 4.93 + 0.63 × HRDP – 20 LoA = 8.9 % 11 MLSS = 5.13 + 0.63 × HRDPDmax – 20 LoA = 9.1 %

11 12 13 14 15 16 10 12 14 16 11 12 13 14 15 16 10 12 14 16
HRDP (km/h) Mean MLSS - HRDP (km/h) HRDPDmax (km/h) Mean MLSS - HRDPDmax (km/h)

c1 c2 d1 d2
16 16
SEE = 0.48 km/h (3.6 %) 20 SEE = 0.64 km/h (4.8 %) 20
MLSS - 90 %HRmax (%)
MLSS - 80.4 %sPeak (%)

r = 0.82 (0.62 – 0.92) 15 r = 0.65 (0.34 – 0.84) 15

15 15
MLSS (km/h)

MLSS (km/h)

10 10
Difference

14 14
Difference

5 5
0 0
13 13
–5 –5
12 – 10 12 – 10
– 15 – 15 Bias = – 2.3 %
Bias = – 0.5 % 11
11 MLSS = 2.57 + 0.81 × 80.4 %sPeak – 20 LoA = 6.1 % MLSS = 7.13 + 0.48 × 90 %HRmax – 20 LoA = 11.4 %

11 12 13 14 15 16 10 12 14 16 11 12 13 14 15 16 10 12 14 16
80.4 %sPeak (km/h) Mean MLSS - 80.4 %sPeak (km/h) 90%HRmax (km/h) Mean MLSS - 90 %HRmax (km/h)

e1 e2 f1 f2
16 18
SEE = 0.64 km/h (4.8 %) 20 SEE = 0.48 km/h (3.6 %) 40
MLSS - 91.4 %HRmax (%)

r = 0.65 (0.34 – 0.84) 15 17 r = 0.82 (0.62 – 0.92) 35

15
MLSS - sPeak (%)

16
MLSS (km/h)

MLSS (km/h)

10 30
Difference
Difference

14 5 15 25
0 14 20
13
–5 15
13
12 – 10 10 Bias = 20.9 %
– 15 12 5 LoA = 7.1 %
Bias = 0.0 %
11 MLS = 7.0 + 0.47 × 91.4 %HRmax – 20 LoA = 12.4 % 11 MLSS = 2.57 + 0.65 × sPeak 0

11 12 13 14 15 16 10 12 14 16 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 12 13 14 15 16 17
91.4 %HRmax (km/h) Mean MLSS - 91.4 %HRmax (km/h) sPeak (km/h) Mean MLSS - sPeak (km/h)

▶Fig. 4 Regression and Bland Altmann analyses between speed at MLSS and speed associated to HRDP (Panels a1, a2), HRDPDmax (Panels
b1, b2), 80.4 % sPeak (Panels c1, c2), 90 % HRmax (Panels d1, d2), 91.4 % HRmax (Panels e1, e2), and sPeak (Panels f1, f2), respectively. To obtain
the upper and lower 90 % compatibility interval (CI) boundaries of SEE in raw and % units, multiply and divide by 1.35 ( × / ÷ 1.35). The r values are
shown with 90 % CI. The gray shaded area represents the smallest effect size of interest (SESOI) of ± 3 %. LoA: limits of agreement; r: Pearson’s coef-
ficient of correlation; SEE: standard error of the estimate.

Carminatti LJ et al. Predicting Maximal Lactate Steady … Int J Sports Med | © 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.
 Training & Testing Thieme

the HR at intermittent MLSS was (mean ± SD) 92.0 ± 2.4 % of HRmax. Recently, Garcia-Tabar et al. [15] evaluated the predictive valid-
Another study using continuous exercise for MLSS determination ity of several [La–] derived thresholds in soccer players, and found
(pauses only for [La –] sampling) reported the HR as the average the lowest error of MLSS prediction by minimum [La–] equivalent
value for the last 20 min of exercise, found values of 88.6 ± 3.0 % threshold method (SEE = 4.5 %). However, the present study dem-
[16], and 90.0 ± 2.0 % [15] of HRmax at MLSS. A likely reason that onstrated a slightly better accuracy in the MLSS prediction using
the HR at MLSS was higher than continuous MLSS can be attribut- sPeak, 80.4 %, HRDP and HRDPDmax (SEE = 3.6 % to 4.1 %). In soc-
ed to the pauses that improve [La –] removal, and as a result the cer players, other studies demonstrated the LoA against MLSS
MLSS was reached at higher intensity. Additionally, the percentag- of ± 7.5 % using the [La–] minimum test [13], ± 8 % [14], ± 13 % [12],
es of HRmax at AnT methods derived from the T-Car test (see and ± 16 % [14] using fixed [La–] thresholds, ± 22 % with individual
▶ Table 1) are consistent with other studies, as well as 91.4 % [21] [La–] threshold [14], and ± 8 % using the critical speed assessment [12].
and 91.6 % [5] at HRDPDmax, and 91.8 % at HRDP [5]. Those values The current study showed the LoA between ± 6.1– ± 12.4 %. There-
were greater than ~90 % of HRmax observed at [La –] threshold fore, with errors near or in some cases lower than reported in the
methods [5, 15]. literature. So, the parameters reported in this study could be used
Caution must be taken when interpreting the results of the TOST to estimate MLSS without any expensive testing, multiple trials, in-
analysis, since the 90 % CI is a range of values that should be 90 % vasive procedures and/or laboratory conditions.
certain to contain the true mean of the population. On the other To test the equivalence of the parameters determined during
hand, the 95 % LoA should contain the difference between T-Car the T-Car, we used the TOST analysis. However, the selection of
parameters and MLSS for 95 % of future measurement pairs. There- SESOI is one of the most difficult aspects of the TOST analysis [32].
fore, for the 80.4 %sPeak and 91.4 %HRmax that showed the best A common practice in sports science is to use a standardized mean
agreement with the MLSS speed and HR, respectively, with the full difference (e. g. Cohen’s d) of 0.2 (i. e. 0.2 × between subjects SD)
90 % interval within SESOI. At individual level, 95 % (i. e. 95 % LoA) to define the SESOI, which is known as a “trivial” effect [33]. Using
of soccer players may have differences between − 6.6 to 5.6 % (for this standardized mean difference of 0.2, the SESOI is ± 1.2 %

Downloaded by: Cornell. Copyrighted material.

speed) and − 5.6 to 4.6 % (for HR) at MLSS speed and HR, respec- or ± 0.16 km/h in the data of the present study. This provides thus
tively (▶ Figs 4c2. ▶ 5e2). More caution should be taken with the a more conservative SESOI to demonstrate the equivalence to
other estimates, as they presented greater LoA ranges. MLSS. Another practice to define the SESOI is based on statistical

a1 a2 b1 b2
200 200
SEE = 6 bpm (3.5 %) 15 SEE = 7 bpm (3.7 %) 15
MLSS - HRDPDmax (%)
r = 0.73 (0.47 – 0.88) r = 0.68 (0.38 – 0.85)
190 10 190
MLSS - HRDP (%)

10
MLSS (bpm)

MLSS (bpm)
Difference

5
Difference

180 180 5
0 0
170 170
–5 –5
160 – 10 160
– 10
Bias = – 0.6 % Bias = – 1.9 %
150 MLSS = 51.13 + 0.72 × HRDP – 15 LoA = 7.2 % 150 MLSS = 48.32 + 0.74 × HRDPDmax – 15 LoA = 7.4 %

150 160 170 180 190 200 150 160 170 180 190 200 150 160 170 180 190 200 160 170 180 190 200
HRDP (bpm) Mean MLSS - HRDP (bpm) HRDPDmax (bpm) Mean MLSS - HRDPDmax (bpm)

c1 c2 d1 d2
210 210
SEE = 8 bpm (4.6 %) 15 SEE = 5 bpm (2.7 %) 15
MLSS - 80.4 %sPeak (%)

MLSS - 90 %HRmax (%)

200 r = 0.45 (0.06 – 0.72) 200 r = 0.85 (0.68 – 0.93)

10 10
MLSS (bpm)

MLSS (bpm)

190 190
Difference

5
Difference

5
180 0 180 0
170 –5 170 –5
160 – 10 160 – 10
150 Bias = 1.3 % 150 Bias = 2.1 %
MLSS = 98.96 + 0.45 × 80.4 %sPeak – 15 LoA = 10.3 % MLSS = 11.09 + 0.96 × 90 %HRmax – 15 LoA = 5.1 %

150 160 170 180 190 200 210 160 170 180 190 200 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 160 170 180 190 200
80.4 %sPeak (bpm) Mean MLSS - 80.4 %sPeak (bpm) 90 %HRmax (bpm) Mean MLSS - 90 %HRmax (bpm)

e1 e2 f1 f2
210 220
MLSS - 91.4 %HRmax (%)

SEE = 5 bpm (2.7 %) 15 SEE = 6 bpm (3.4 %) 20

200 r = 0.85 (0.68 – 0.93) 210 r = 0.75 (0.50 – 0.89)
MLSS - HRmax (%)

10 15
200
MLSS (bpm)

MLSS (bpm)

190
Difference

5
Difference

190 10
180 0 5
180
170 –5 170 0
160 – 10 160 –5
Bias = – 0.6 % Bias = 8.2 %
150 – 15 LoA = 5.1 % 150 MLSS = 34.43 + 0.74 × HRmax
– 10 LoA = 6.6 %
MLSS = 11.09 + 0.94 × 91.4 %HRmax
150 160 170 180 190 200 210 160 170 180 190 200 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 170 180 190 200 210
91.4 %HRmax (bpm) Mean MLSS - 91.4 %HRmax (bpm) HRmax (bpm) Mean MLSS - HRmax (bpm)

▶Fig. 5 Regression and Bland Altmann analyses between heart rate at MLSS and heart rate associated to HRDP (Panels a1, a2), HRDPDmax (Panels
b1, b2), 80.4 % sPeak (Panels c1, c2), 90 % HRmax (Panels d1, d2), 91.4 % HRmax (Panels e1, e2), and HRmax (Panels f1, f2), respectively. To obtain
the upper and lower 90 % compatibility interval (CI) boundaries of SEE in raw and % units, multiply and divide by 1.35 ( × / ÷ 1.35). The r values are
shown with 90 % CI. The gray shaded area represents the smallest effect size of interest (SESOI) of ± 3 %. LoA: limits of agreement; r: Pearson’s coef-
ficient of correlation; SEE: standard error of the estimate.

Carminatti LJ et al. Predicting Maximal Lactate Steady … Int J Sports Med | © 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.
power analysis. In this regard, using the SD of differences to MLSS,
and a statistical power of 80 % resulted in a SESOI between ± 2.6 %
( ± 0.35 km/h) to ± 4.7 % ( ± 0.63 km/h) in the parameters derived
in the T-Car test. Therefore, a SESOI of ± 3.0 % appears reasonable
to demonstrate an equivalence to MLSS, based on the fact that this
SESOI is equivalent to (mean ± SD) 0.40 ± 0.02 km/h in the sample
of this study. So lower than MLSS precision (i. e. 0.60 km/h; 4.5 %)
and the stages' speed increments during T-Car test (i. e. 0.60 km/h).
The intensity for prescribing interval training has been suggest-
ed to reach > 85 % of HRmax during training sessions [34]. Interest-
ingly, for MLSS and all derived parameters during the T-Car test, HR
values were above 85 % of HRmax (▶ Table 1). Likewise, a previous
study showed that interval sessions in shuttle run mode, at sub-
maximal intensities (86 and 89 % of sPeak), were an effective strat-
egy for improving maximum and submaximal indices in elite futsal
athletes [35]. However, that study [35] used another intermittent
incremental test (i. e. FIET) and not T-Car; therefore, investigations
are necessary regarding the use of submaximal variables derived
from T-Car for training prescription.
The limitations of the present study refer to the maximum ef-
fort feature of T-Car, which should be avoided during a congested
schedule. Considering this, submaximal parameters, such as, [La–]
thresholds appear to be more attractive, despite even presenting
a slightly higher error compared to T-Car derived parameters. Ad-
ditionally, the prediction equations presented in ▶ Figs 4 and ▶ 5
and all other inferences from other analyses, are valid for soccer
players who have MLSS and T-Car derived variables within the range
values presented in ▶Table 1 (e. g. MLSS 11.7 to 15.0 km/h). As a
result, future studies should investigate the relation between T-Car
and MLSS in soccer players with better fitness levels.
Practical applications
The main practical application of the present study is the possibil-
ity of predicting MLSS without the use of any expensive or invasive
procedures using predictive equations or the fixed percent of sPeak
based on running speed assessment. Moreover, the T-Car allows
the evaluation of several athletes at the same time. In addition, the
T-Car provides a feasible way to prescribe and control training in-
tensity in several athletes at the same time.
Conclusion
The present study demonstrates that running speed and HR at
HRDP, and 91.4 %HRmax were compatible with speed and HR at
MLSS In addition, the speed at 80.4 %sPeak was compatible with
the speed at MLSS, based on a region of equivalence of ± 3 %. Ad-
ditionally, the present study showed a range of equations that
should be used to predict the speed and HR at MLSS determined in
the shuttle running pattern. Soccer players might thus use the
T-Car derived parameters as a noninvasive and practical alternative
for estimating the intermittent MLSS.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Professor Fernando Roberto de
­Oliveira (in memoriam) for the important contributions to this
study.
Carminatti LJ et al. Predicting Maximal Lactate Steady … Int J Sports Med | © 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.
Funding
This work was financialy supported by Programa de Excelência
Acadêmica of Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de
Nível Superior (CAPES/PROEX).
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest
References
[1] Léger LA, Mercier D, Gadoury C et al. The multistage 20 metre shuttle
run test for aerobic fitness. J Sports Sci 1988; 6: 93–101
[2] Bangsbo J, Iaia FM, Krustrup P. The Yo-Yo intermittent recovery test: A
useful tool for evaluation of physical performance in intermittent
sports. Sports Med 2008; 1: 37–51
[3] Buchheit M. The 30-15 intermittent fitness test: Accuracy for
individualizing interval training of young intermittent sport players. J
Strength Cond Res 2008; 22: 365–374
[4] da Silva JF, Guglielmo LGA, Carminatti LJ et al. Validity and reliability of
a new field test (Carminatti’s test) for soccer players compared with
Downloaded by: Cornell. Copyrighted material.
laboratory-based measures. J Sports Sci 2011; 29: 1621–1628
[5] Dittrich N, da Silva JF, Castagna C et al. Validity of Carminatti’s test to
determine physiological indices of aerobic power and capacity in
soccer and futsal players. J Strength Cond Res 2011; 25: 3099–3106
[6] Bangsbo J. Energy demands in competitive soccer. J Sports Sci 1994;
12: S5–S12
[7] Edwards AM, Clark N, Macfadyen AM. Lactate and ventilatory
thresholds reflect the training status of professional soccer players
where maximum aerobic power is unchanged. J Sports Sci Med 2003;
2: 23–29
[8] da Silva JF, Guglielmo LGA, Bishop D. Relationship between different
measures of aerobic fitness and repeated-sprint ability in elite soccer
players. J Strength Cond Res 2010; 24: 2115–2121
[9] Faude O, Kindermann W, Meyer T. Lactate threshold concepts: How
valid are they? Sports Med 2009; 39: 469–490
[10] Beneke R. Methodological aspects of maximal lactate steady state—
implications for performance testing. Eur J Appl Physiol 2003; 89:
95–99
[11] Beneke R, Leithäuser RM, Ochentel O. Blood lactate diagnostics in
exercise testing and training. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2011; 6:
8–24
[12] Denadai BS, Gomide EBG, Greco CC. The relationship between onset of
blood lactate accumulation, critical velocity, and maximal lactate
steady state in soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 2005; 19: 364–368
[13] Barbieri R, Barbieri F, Milioni F et al. Reliability and validity of a new
specific field test of aerobic capacity with the ball for futsal players. Int
J Sports Med 2017; 38: 233–340
[14] Loures J, Chamari K, Ferreira E et al. Specific determination of maximal
lactate steady state in soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 2015; 29:
101–106
[15] Garcia-Tabar I, Rampinini E, Gorostiaga EM. Lactate equivalent for
maximal lactate steady state determination in soccer. Res Q Exerc
Sport 2019; 90: 678–689
[16] Llodio I, Garcia-Tabar I, Sanchez-Medina L et al. Estimation of the
maximal lactate steady state in junior soccer players. Int J Sports Med
2015; 36: 1142–1148
 Training & Testing
[17] Harriss DJ, MacSween A, Atkinson G. Ethical standards in sport and
exercise science research: 2020 update. Int J Sports Med 2019; 40:
813–817
[18] Conconi F, Ferrari M, Ziglio PG et al. Determination of the anaerobic
threshold by a noninvasive field test in runners. J Appl Physiol Respir
Environ Exerc Physiol 1982; 52: 869–873
[19] Kara M, Gökbel H, Bedìz C et al. Determination of the heart rate
deflection point by the Dmax method. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 1996;
36: 31–34
[20] Garcia-Tabar I, Gorostiaga EM. A “blood relationship” between the
overlooked minimum lactate equivalent and maximal lactate steady
state in trained runners. Back to the old days? Front Physiol 2018; 9:
1034
[21] Carminatti LJ, Lima-Silva AE, De-Oliveira FR. Dmáx em teste inter-
mitente de campo: Estimativa por % fixo da freqüência cardíaca
máxima e pico de velocidade. Rev Bras Ci Mov 2005; 44: 13
[22] Carminatti LJ. Validade de Limiares Anaeróbios Derivados do Teste
Incremental de Corrida Intermitente (TCar) como Preditores do
Máximo Steady-state de Lactato em Jogadores de Futsal. Dissertação
de Mestrado, Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina 2006
[23] Lakens D. Equivalence tests: A practical primer for t tests, correlations,
and meta-analyses. Soc Psychol Personal Sci 2017; 8: 355–362
[24] Hauser T, Bartsch D, Baumgärtel L et al. Reliability of maximal
lactate-steady-state. Int J Sports Med 2013; 34: 196–199
[25] Ialongo C. The logic of equivalence testing and its use in laboratory
medicine. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2017; 27: 5–13
[26] Hopkins WG. Spreadsheets for analysis of validity and reliability.
Sportscience 2015; 19: 36–42
Carminatti LJ et al. Predicting Maximal Lactate Steady … Int J Sports Med | © 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.
Thieme
[27] de Lucas RD, Dittrich N, Junior RB et al. Is the critical running speed
related to the intermittent maximal lactate steady state? J Sports Sci
Med 2012; 11: 89–94
[28] Beneke R, Hütler M, Von Duvillard SP et al. Effect of test interruptions
on blood lactate during constant workload testing. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 2003; 35: 1626–1630
[29] Bangsbo J, Mohr M, Krustrup P. Physical and metabolic demands of
training and match-play in the elite football player. J Sports Sci 2006;
24: 665–674
[30] Beneke R, von Duvillard SP. Determination of maximal lactate steady
state response in selected sports events. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1996;
28: 241–246
[31] Scharhag-Rosenberger F, Meyer T, Gäßler N et al. Exercise at given
percentages of VO2max: Heterogeneous metabolic responses
between individuals. J Sci Med Sport 2010; 13: 74–79
[32] Dixon PM, Saint-Maurice PF, Kim Y et al. A Primer on the use of
equivalence testing for evaluating measurement agreement. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 2018; 50: 837–845
[33] Hopkins WG, Marshall SW, Batterham AM et al. Progressive statistics
for studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 2009; 41: 3–13
[34] Buchheit M, Laursen PB. High-intensity interval training, solutions to
the programming puzzle: Part I: Cardiopulmonary emphasis. Sports
Med 2013; 43: 313–338
Downloaded by: Cornell. Copyrighted material.
[35] Teixeira AS, Arins FB, de Lucas RD et al. Comparative effects of two
interval shuttle-run training modes on physiological and performance
adaptations in female professional futsal players. J Strength Cond Res
2019; 33: 1416–1428