REF-1005 · Londeree, 1997 · Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, Vol. · Paper · PubMed

Effect of training on lactate/ventilatory thresholds: a meta-analysis

A-fairly strong evidenceMeasured on non-to trained athletesWritten before October 2026, being re-checked

This meta-analysis asked how training intensity affects the lactate and ventilatory thresholds in sedentary versus active people, drawing on 85 study groups from 34 studies in the original analyses.

The outcome was oxygen consumption at the threshold in question; the predictors were training intensity (a control plus four levels, from below threshold up to near maximum) and fitness level (sedentary or conditioned). Sedentary subjects improved significantly compared with controls, while the gains of conditioned subjects were not significant.

Within each fitness category the intensities did not differ significantly, though conditioned subjects showed a trend toward bigger responses to high-intensity training.

Participants

85 study groups from 34 studies; sedentary and conditioned subjects. Numbers of participants, sex and age are not given in the abstract.

Protocol

Dependent variable: oxygen consumption at the specified threshold (lactate or ventilatory).
Independent variables: fitness level (sedentary or conditioned) and training intensity (a control condition plus four levels, from below threshold up to near maximum).
Effect sizes analysed with the methods of Hedges and Olkin.

Key Results

Sedentary subjects improved significantly more than controls (effect size (ES) = 2.32 vs ES = 0.15).
Conditioned subjects (ES = 0.63) showed nonsignificant gains.
Within each fitness category, the training intensities did not differ significantly (sedentary ES = 1.6 - 3.1; conditioned ES = 0.3 - 1.1).
Among conditioned subjects, high-intensity training tended to work better (ES of 1.1 vs 0.4).
Detraining will reduce lactate and ventilatory thresholds.
Authors' conclusion: for sedentary subjects, training close to the lactate or ventilatory threshold is enough of a stimulus to improve the thresholds, whereas conditioned subjects may need a higher intensity.

Practical Application

"Does threshold training raise my threshold?" In a meta-analysis of 85 study groups from 34 studies (between-group effect sizes; sedentary vs conditioned subjects), sedentary people improved oxygen consumption at the threshold at every training intensity (ES = 2.32 vs 0.15 in controls), whereas the gains of conditioned subjects were not significant (ES = 0.63), with a trend toward larger responses to high-intensity training (ES of 1.1 vs 0.4). Before a base exists almost any intensity moves the threshold; once conditioned, the gain is smaller and uncertain, and the authors suggest a higher intensity may be needed.
The intensity difference in conditioned subjects is a tendency, not a significant result.
What was measured: oxygen consumption at the threshold. What was not: power or speed at the threshold, performance, or athletes classified by today's tiers.
Inference, not tested here: for a trained athlete, more work at threshold intensity is not guaranteed to move the threshold; the abstract supports trying a higher intensity, weakly.
Not from this paper; the base's own practice: how to test a threshold and read a change is SYNTH-53.

Limitations

1997; the included studies predate current threshold definitions and training classifications.
"Conditioned" is not defined in the abstract; it is not shown to mean trained athletes.
Outcome is oxygen consumption at the threshold, not workload at the threshold.
No systematic search or quality assessment is described in the abstract; number of conditioned groups per intensity not given.
Written from the abstract and record metadata only (full text not read).
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level

meta-analysis, but from 1997, with few conditioned-subject groups implied by non-significant results and wide effect-size ranges