Key words
anaerobic threshold - lactate threshold - ventilatory breakpoint - McArdle’s disease
In 1973 Wasserman, Whipp, Koyal, and Beaver published a groundbreaking study titled
“Anaerobic threshold and respiratory gas analysis during exercise”
[2]. The objective of the present paper is to
provide the history, context, and outcomes associated with this single exercise
physiology phenomenon - the “anaerobic threshold”.
Historical Background
Lactate has long been known to be a critical metabolic molecule, initially because
of
its role in fermentation. Later its involvement in metabolism was elucidated and in
1808 lactate levels in the muscles of hunted stags that had been running were shown
to be elevated [3]. Subsequently, increased blood
lactate levels during and after exercise were demonstrated in humans in a number of
19th century studies. In a classic 1930 study, W. Harding Owles
measured blood lactate levels after acute exercise of various intensities and
durations, mainly in himself, concluding that “there seems to be ….
some critical rate of walk, above which only did an increase in blood lactate follow
the exercise” [4] – perhaps the first
hint at a lactate or anaerobic threshold?
From the early 1800’s until ~1950 exercise physiology research
generally focused on human performance and basic exercise physiology concepts. For
example, in 1913 Krogh and Lindhard published a landmark paper addressing
“The regulation of respiration and circulation during the initial stages of
muscular work” [5] – a prelude to
Krogh’s muscle capillary studies that resulted in his 1920 Nobel Prize. In
1923 AV Hill (another Nobel Prize awardee) and Lupton published one of the first
studies addressing VO2max titled “Muscular exercise, lactic acid
and the supply and utilization of oxygen” [6].
Margaria, Edwards and Dill in 1933 also published a classic paper describing the
alactacid and lactacid O2 debts following a range of work rates [7]. In 1938 Robinson published his Harvard Fatigue Lab
dissertation assessing the responses of 93 males 6–91 yrs old to
progressive exercise in one of the first aging exercise physiology studies [8]. In 1939 Christensen and Hansen published perhaps
the classic human performance study as a series of five papers in the Skandinavian
Archives of Physiology showing that the substrates used during exercise were
dependent on work rate, work duration, previous diet, and state of training [9].
Although hardly a clear delineation, around ~1950 substantial research began
to focus on clinical exercise physiology. For example, in the 1940’s
exercise testing was used to assess cardiovascular (CV) function and physical work
capacity in patients with various CV diseases. In the late 1950’s and early
1960’s research began to document the benefits of exercise training for
individuals with a wide range of CV diseases [10]
[11]. A similar progression also occurred relative to
pulmonary testing and diseases, with exercise spirometry testing to assess lung
diseases first appearing in the 1950’s [12]
[13]
[14]
[15] and the benefits of exercise
training for a number of pulmonary pathologies being documented beginning in the
1960’s [16].
Thus, the evolution of exercise physiology research resulted in an environment in
the
late 1960’s/early 1970’s where it had begun to address the
spectrum from basic exercise physiology to human performance to clinical exercise
physiology. Also, at the same time, there were rapid advances in respiratory gas
analyzers and laboratory computers, both of which contributed to a dramatically
expanded capacity to assess a wider range of exercise physiology variables.
Evolution of Respiratory Gas Analyses
Evolution of Respiratory Gas Analyses
Analysis of the respiratory gases has received substantial attention since the early
1800’s as a result of their involvement in mammalian metabolism. In 1898
John Haldane described improvements on a previous respiratory gas analysis method
[17]. The apparatus consisted of a series of
calibrated glass components to quantify fractions of O2 and
CO2 in an unknown sample. Essentially, the volume of the total gas
sample was assessed at baseline. The CO2 was then removed in a closed
environment via reaction with potassium hydroxide and the new volume was used to
calculate the CO2 fraction. Similar procedures were then employed using
potassium pyrogallate to absorb the O2 and the new volume was used to
calculate the O2 fraction in the sample. In 1948, Scholander published a
micro-method using a much smaller device to accurately assess gas fractions in
samples as small as 0.5 ml using similar volumetric methods [18]. BB Lloyd in 1958 developed the Lloyd-Gallenkamp
device, a new volumetric respiratory gas analyzer that improved upon the Haldane
analyzer. When reading the exercise physiology literature, you will find that many
papers up until the late 1980’s indicated that commercial O2 and
CO2 mix gas tanks were first validated versus the Lloyd-Gallenkamp or
Scholander methods prior to their use in calibrating the new electronic respiratory
gas analyzers.
These chemical volumetric methods all required 4–6 minutes for the
analysis of an unknown sample, with duplicate analyses requiring
~10–15 min, with consecutive respiratory gas samples also
needing to be “stored” in some way without leakage or diffusion
while samples were analyzed.These methods also required a high degree of technical
proficiency and they all required the use of mercury, a chemical now known to have
severe toxic effects.
In the 1950’s, the age of electronics ushered in a new era of dramatically
enhanced respiratory gas analysis methods. The first two major developments were the
nondispersive infrared LB-1 and LB-2 CO2 analyzers and the polarimetric
OM-11 O2 analyzer from Beckman Instruments, which rather rapidly became
the gold standard in exercise physiology labs. Interestingly, this CO2
analyzer was initially developed to monitor CO2 levels on submarines .
The O2 analyzer was based on a World War II design by Linus Pauling and
was later used in American spaceflights. The primary benefit of these analyzers was
that they had very short delay times and very fast response times. Thus, they were
DRAMATICALLY faster than the previous respiratory gas analyzers, which opened
entirely new opportunities for physiologists in terms of measuring O2 and
CO2 fractions. Another marked advance in respiratory gas analysis
occurred in the 1970’s when Perkin-Elmer introduced its mass spectrometer
medical gas analyzer which gave very rapid and stable results and also could measure
a wider range of gases.
Thus, the evolution of respiratory gas analyzers over the last
~100 yrs was also at a point by the 1960’s where they could
assess gas fractions very rapidly and accurately. This represented a huge
advancement, but initially these benefits couldn’t be fully utilized because
these analyzers were still being used to simply measure gas fractions in mixed
expired gases collected over 30–60 sec periods or the values were
recorded on graphical recorders to later identify the end tidal fractions for each
breath. At roughly the same time, dramatic advances were also made in computer
technology, especially in terms of incorporating them into labs where substantial
amounts of data could then be “collected”, analyzed, and utilized to
their full extent.
Evolution of Laboratory Computers
Evolution of Laboratory Computers
To put history in context a bit, the “computer” age actually
“began” in 1801 when a French inventor developed a weaving loom that
was run by a type of punched cards. Then from 1833–1871 Charles Babbage
designed the Babbage Differential Engine which could calculate tables of data,
although he realized that it could eventually be “programmed” to
perform a wide range of calculations. Later the US government realized it had a
major problem because, as a result of population expansion, the 1880 Census took
7 yrs to analyze by hand! They then hired Herman Hollerith, an American
statistician and inventor, who developed an electromechanical device based on punch
cards to tabulate the ever-expanding census data much more rapidly. Hollerith went
on to found IBM and is still memorialized in programming circles by Hollerith
strings and constants. In 1936 Alan Turing invented the Turing Machine – a
device “capable of computing anything that is computable”. In 1943
researchers at the University of Pennsylvania developed what many call the first
“true” programmable computer – the Electronic Numerical
Integrator and Calculator (ENIAC), a device that filled a 20 ft by
40 ft room.
Obviously, these initial computers were very large, which provided the impetus to
develop a smaller “mini-computer” – which rather than
meaning a miniature computer actually meant a minimal computer, i. e. - that
it contained the minimal components to be considered a computer. One key initial
step in this process was the 1957 formation of the Digital Equipment Corporation
(DEC) with a goal to develop “interactive computing” devices which
individuals could program and interact with to generate input and output. DEC
delivered their initial PDP-1 (Programmed Data Processor-1) in late 1959. The PDP
computers went through numerous advancements over time with the PDP-16 released in
1972. At one time in the late 1960’s DEC computers were second only to IBM
in terms of computer sales. These devices were also useful as laboratory computers
as they could accept input from various devices through analog to digital convertors
and because at ~4.5 ft long × 7 ft high ×
3 ft deep they could fit in a lab setting. The Varian Corporation also
shipped their first 620/i mini-computer in 1967, which was the device Whipp
and Wasserman used for their breath-by-breath VO2 system [19]
[20].
Intersection of the Evolution of Exercise Physiology and Technology
Developments
Intersection of the Evolution of Exercise Physiology and Technology
Developments
Thus, by the late 1960’s and early 1970’s respiratory gas analysis
systems and laboratory computer technology had developed to the point where the
physiological questions raised by basic and clinical exercise physiologists could
be
extended to much more precise and rapid analyses of respiratory gases and laboratory
computers also become available to truly capitalize on the amount of data this new
generation of respiratory gas analyzers could generate.
Initial Anaerobic Threshold Publications
Initial Anaerobic Threshold Publications
Karlman Wasserman, the senior author on the initial seminal AT publication [2], published ~360 manuscripts over his career
as a pre-eminent respiratory physiologist and physician (total citations
~33 000, ISI h-index 85). He already had ~50 publications
prior to his his seminal 1973 AT publication [2]. Dr.
Wasserman published 89 manuscripts in collaboration with Brian Whipp starting in
1969 and Dr. Whipp published another 137 manuscripts over the course of his
distinguished career (total citations ~24 000, ISI h-index 74). Dr.
Wasserman began the line of research that led to the AT paper with a 1964
publication titled “Continuous measurement of ventilatory exchange ratio
during exercise” to detect “when oxygen supply is
inadequate” [20]. In this study ventilatory
exchange ratio was quantified based on the end-tidal gas fractions determined from
graphical records. They concluded that “the level of work at which the RER
increases appreciably above its resting level corresponds to the level at which
arterial lactate increases and plasma bicarbonate falls.” They noted that at
low levels of work the delta R/VO2 was almost constant or
increased only slightly. “The curve then rose steeply as the workload
increased” [20]. In this paper no mention was
made of a “threshold” or an “anaerobic threshold”.
They also concluded that “the usefulness of R as an indication of anaerobic
metabolism is a result of oxygen deficiency and NO OTHER FACTORS” (capitals
mine) – already defining the phenomenon based on a proposed, yet still
unstudied, underlying mechanism. To be complete and perhaps a bit more fair, they
were basing their “conclusion” on substantial evidence showing that
low oxygen levels (i. e., hypoxia, altitude, etc.) led to increased blood
lactate concentrations.
Others had previously investigated the possibility that gas exchange measures might
provide additional insights into aerobic as well as anaerobic metabolism during
exercise. Nearly a century ago now, Hill, Long, and Lupton indicated that “a
study of the respiratory quotient, if undertaken with sufficient caution, may throw
light, not so much on the bodies being oxidized as on the acid-base changes
occurring as a result of exercise and recovery” [21].
Also in 1964 Wasserman and McIlroy published “Detecting the threshold of
anaerobic metabolism in cardiac patients during exercise” [22] in which they sought to determine if assessing the
onset of anaerobic metabolism during progressive exercise could quantify the CV
fitness of this population without requiring a maximal exercise test. They used the
same methods as in their previous 1964 paper described above and concluded that
“the measurement of the ventilatory gas exchange ratio during exercise is a
useful test of cardiovascular function. It answers the question of how much work a
subject can do before the heart fails to meet the tissue oxygen
requirements” [22]. In the paper the authors
consistently called this critical point “the threshold of anaerobic
metabolism” or “the onset of anaerobic metabolism”. However,
they did use the term “anaerobic threshold” in the text in
describing the results of their Case Studies 2 and 3 and also in the captions of
their original [Figs. 2] and 7.
Fig. 2 Blood lactate responses to progressive exercise in
McArdle’s disease patients (diamonds, dashed line) and healthy
control participants (closed squares, solid line) [33].
Fig. 3 Venous [H+] responses to progressive exercise in
McArdle’s disease patients (diamonds, dashed line) and healthy
control participants (closed squares, solid line) [33].
Fig. 4 Citation histories of the key anaerobic threshold
publications.
Fig. 5 Publications per year identified via PubMed searches on the
term “anaerobic threshold”.
In 1973 Beaver, Wasserman, and Whipp published another critical paper titled
“On-line computer analysis and breath-by-breath graphical display of
exercise function tests” [19]. Based on their
previous work, they believed it would be useful to make “continuous
calculations of respiratory variables over the duration of extended physiological
studies” which they clearly indicated was now made possible with the new
generation of respiratory gas analyzers and the lab computers [19]. In this paper they described and validated the
first breath-by-breath VO2 system based on a Beckman LB-1 CO2
analyzer, a Westinghouse Model 211 O2 analyzer, and a Fleisch
pneumotachograph. But the key was that they were linked via analog inputs to a
Varian 620/i computer that had 12 000 (yes – 12k, not
12 mb or 12gb) 16-bit words of memory in which to run the actual program and
store the data. And the sampling was done at 50 Hz, when previously only one
sample could be determined per breath! Clearly this system represented a quantum
leap forward in the assessment of respiratory variables during exercise.
Later in that same year Wasserman et al. published the seminal AT paper titled
“Anaerobic threshold and respiratory gas exchange during exercise”
[2], wherein they stated that they were able to
take advantage of “the development of rapidly responding gas analyzers and
automated data processing computers” [2].
Their goal was to describe and validate an exercise test to assess the AT –
which they defined as “the level of work or O2 consumption just
below that at which metabolic acidosis and the associated changes in gas exchange
occur”. They again used the Beckman CO2 analyzer and a
Westinghouse M211 O2 analyzer, but they indicated that later in their
study they used a Perkin-Elmer mass spectrometer for their gas analyses. From these
data they generated the classic AT detection criteria during progressive exercise
of
1) a nonlinear increase in VE, 2) a nonlinear increase in
VCO2, 3) an increase in end-tidal pO2 without a decrease in
end-tidal pCO2, and 4) an increase in R, although they did indicate that
the increase in R was the least sensitive of these criteria. They concluded that
“The anaerobic threshold is a useful concept. Its application during
exercise testing should considerably increase the information gained regarding
cardiovascular function in health and disease” [2].
In 1986 Beaver, Wasserman, and Whipp published a follow-up paper titled “A
new method for detecting anaerobic threshold by gas exchange” with the goal
to “study the changes in respiratory gas exchange during an incremental
exercise test to derive an objective mathematical method …. to reliably
locate the anaerobic threshold” [23]. In this
paper they developed and validated the V-slope method to detect the AT, by
mathematically quantifying the point at which VCO2 increased out of
proportion to VO2 during progressive exercise. They found that their new
method yielded the same results as those from the visual inspection of the same data
by 6 reviewers experienced with these assessments. However, they noted that the
V-slope method yielded a coefficient of variation for the AT VO2 that was
~20% that of the panel average. Thus, they concluded that “
..the V-slope analysis, which detects the increased CO2 production from
buffering metabolic acid, addresses the central mechanism of the anaerobic threshold
and is therefore more widely applicable” [23].
The Author’s Personal Side of the Anaerobic Threshold
The Author’s Personal Side of the Anaerobic Threshold
In 1972 I began graduate school at the University of Wisconsin with Drs. Fran Nagle,
John Mullin, and Bruno Balke. In that same year Whipp and Wasserman became the first
to assess the kinetics of VO2 and other respiratory variables on a
breath-by-breath basis at the onset of exercise [24]
and then in 1973 at the offset of exercise [25]. They
found that the overall kinetics at the onset of exercise were generally slower at
higher absolute exercise intensities and that at moderate to higher intensity
exercise the rapid exponential increase in VO2 during the first
1–2 mins of exercise was followed by a further slow increase in
VO2 over the subsequent 3–4 mins [23]. They also made a brief point that increased
fitness might be associated with more rapid exercise VO2 kinetics at the
same absolute work rate based on comparing the responses of two men with
VO2max values of 19 and 40 ml/kg/min. I was
intrigued by these findings because as a runner, I had noted that pretty much as
hard as you were breathing in the first five mins or so of a run, was generally how
hard you were going to be breathing for the remainder of the run if you maintained
the same pace. Also, I wondered if their “fitness” comparison with a
40 yr old with a VO2max of 19 ml/kg/min
might have been affected by additional pulmonary and CV issues that could have
altered his exercise responses above and beyond his lack of fitness.
I was working with the University of Wisconsin distance runners at the time, so I
had
a ready and available highly-trained population (Lucky Point #1). Now, all I had to
do was to get the breath-by-breath VO2 system – clearly no small
problem. However, as luck would have it (Lucky Point #2) my advisors had contacts
at
the University of Wisconsin Medical School who were also interested in developing
a
computer-based respiratory gas exchange analysis system. Working with the equations
from Beaver, Wasserman, and Whipp [19], for my
master’s thesis we developed what was perhaps the third breath-by-breath
VO2 system in the world. However, this system simply integrated the
expired gas fraction curves to derive “mixed” expired gas fractions
that were not weighted for their instantaneous flow signals; but the steady-state
VO2 values generated by this system did validate against both those
predicted for the work rates and Douglas bag (i. e. - the timed collection
of expiratory gases in rubberized neoprene bags and later meteorological balloons
for subsequent gas and volume analyses) values. We found that VO2
kinetics were clearly slowed at higher work intensities and that the highly-trained
individuals (VO2max=70 ml/kg/min) had
more rapid VO2 kinetics at the onset of exercise than untrained
individuals (VO2max=50 ml/kg/min) at the
same absolute work rates, but the differences were only of borderline significance
at the same relative work rates [26].
I presented these results at the 1975 FASEB meetings, where the first person to the
microphone following my talk was Brian Whipp. I was shaking in my boots when I saw
him, but he winked at me as he approached the microphone, I breathed a huge sigh of
relief, and he complemented me on the study and asked a pretty easy question. Also
at that meeting, I had lunch with Dr. John Holloszy, where he pretty much indicated
that the study I had presented was the first one they wanted to do in their new
human exercise physiology lab at the Washington University School of Medicine. Oh,
and by the way, would you like to come work with us as a postdoctoral fellow (Lucky
Point #3)?
As I wanted to continue this VO2 kinetics research for my doctoral
dissertation, we had to develop a true breath-by-breath VO2 system where
the instantaneous expired gas fractions were weighted by the time-aligned flow
signals. More luck for me as the lab where I worked in the Medical School had just
purchased a Perkin-Elmer respiratory mass spectrometer (Lucky Point #4). Also, my
major professor advised me to take an undergraduate Introduction to Computing course
(remember – 1973) because “I think computers are going to be
important in the future” (Lucky Point #5)! The course introduced FORTRAN
programming and I was hooked!.
Given this “massive” background I then taught myself machine language
programming on my first PDP 12 minicomputer. It took me a year of programming to
develop a validated breath-by-breath VO2 system. During this time, I was
in contact with Brian Whipp who generously gave me further insights into the complex
analysis algorithms. I then conducted my dissertation study wherein we assessed the
exercise and recovery VO2 responses at three relative exercise
intensities and two exercise durations finding no evidence for lactate underlying
either the second slow component of the exercise or the recovery VO2
response [27]
[28].
In 1976 I arrived at the Washington University School of Medicine as a new PhD to
begin an NIH post-doctoral fellowship with Dr. Holloszy. During this time, again as
luck would have it, both financially and scientifically (Lucky Point #6), I was also
supported by Dr. Michael Brooke and the Jerry Lewis Neuromuscular Disease Center.
Every Tuesday I tested their patients using both acute and prolonged exercise
protocols with and without prior manipulation of diet or substrate stores to assess
the physiological impact of their disease [29]
[30]
[31].
Dr. Holloszy’s group had a Friday data presentation/journal club
involving postdoctoral fellows and researchers from both the human and the animal
research labs – thus, a wide range of exercise physiology topics was
addressed. One Friday, I presented exercise test data on various neuromuscular
disease patients with one of them having McArdle’s disease. After I
explained the underlying pathology, John Ivy asked “So, did that patient
have an anaerobic threshold?” I responded that we didn’t actually
use a test appropriate to assess the AT. But then he asked the key question
“OK, but from the beginning to the end of their exercise test, did they
hyperventilate?” And the answer was a clear and resounding YES. So, he asked
if we thought we could get more such patients? To which I responded, “I hope
so!”
McArdle’s disease, a rare neuromuscular disease with most cases going
undiagnosed, was first identified in the medical literature in 1951 by the British
physician Brian McArdle [32]. The pathology in these
patients is the complete or relative lack of the phosphorylase enzyme in skeletal
muscle. Thus, their rate of skeletal muscle glycogen breakdown is reduced to the
point where all of the diminished rates of pyruvate generation can be processed via
the Krebs Cycle rather than going to lactate to maintain skeletal muscle
NAD+levels. The initial case described by McArdle was
“diagnosed” by performing a handgrip exercise test with occluded arm
blood flow. As you can well imagine, this would elicit a huge increase in blood
lactate levels in healthy individuals, but lactate levels did not increase
whatsoever in this, and all other, McArdle’s disease patients [32]. The lack of skeletal muscle phosphorylase and the
inability to break down glycogen at high rates were subsequently verified in
skeletal muscle biopsy samples from these patients.
My discussions with Dr. Brooke indicated that they had two McArdle’s patients
in the St. Louis area and two others in Indianapolis and West Virginia (Lucky Point
#7). As I indicated in the eventual paper, 4 participants doesn’t sound like
a very substantial sample size. However, at the time these 4 patients accounted for
10% of the total world McArdle’s disease population described in the
medical literature. So, from an alternative point of view, how many studies include
10% of the total world population, however it is defined?
We clearly demonstrated that our four McArdle’s patients had ventilatory
responses with progressive exercise that were similar to those of 26 normal healthy
individuals ([Fig. 1]), with a ventilatory breakpoint
(“anaerobic threshold”???) at 81±5%
VO2max versus 73±2% VO2max in the controls
[33]. These similar ventilatory responses occurred
despite the McArdle’s patients exhibiting no increase in their blood lactate
levels whatsoever during or following the maximal exercise test ([Fig. 2]). Given the heavy reliance of Drs. Whipp and
Wasserman on arterial blood gas measurements in their initial AT studies, Ed Coyle
raised the possibility of obtaining similar samples in our patients. While we
couldn’t obtain arterial blood gas samples, we did assess venous
H+levels. And thank goodness we did because the results clearly showed the
markedly disparate responses between the two groups at work intensities exceeding
the ventilatory breakpoint, with venous [H+] increasing markedly after this
point in the healthy participants (a respiratory alkalosis not able to completely
overcome the underlying metabolic acidosis) whereas venous [H+] decreased
markedly in the patients after this point (a respiratory alkalosis without an
underlying metabolic acidosis)(thank you Jerry Dempsey)([Fig. 3]) – a rather clear demonstration that this critical
physiological breakpoint does not appear to be directly caused by the metabolic
acidosis.
Fig. 1 Ventilatory responses to progressive exercise in
McArdle’s disease patients (circles, dashed line) and healthy
control participants (closed squares, solid line) [33].
This study was presented at the 1981 Miami, FL American College of Sports Medicine
meeting. Now 40+yrs later, I think it is appropriate for me to apologize for
my over-exuberance in this abstract. The title of the abstract was
“Ventilatory threshold without increasing blood lactic acid levels in
McArdles’s patients – Anaerobic Threshold?” I should have
ended the title before the final phrase “- Anaerobic Threshold?”.
Also, in the first sentence of the abstract in the phrase “commonly (yet
misleadingly) termed the anaerobic threshold” the “yet
misleadingly” should not have been there as by that point in the abstract
the statement was clearly premature. Finally, in the last sentence stating that the
relationship others had observed between the changes in ventilation and blood
lactate levels during progressive exercise “were fortuitous” is
hardly consistent with any scientific hypothesis. At the meetings other
investigators approached me (Steven Lewis most prominently) to indicate that after
seeing our abstract, they had tested a McArdle’s disease patient and found
that they also hyperventilated markedly with increases in exercise intensity.
A second apology is also necessary here. One of the reviewers of this original
McArdle’s paper [33] contacted me before it
was published and requested the figures for an upcoming debate with one of the
proponents of the AT. I sent the graphs and heard later that the AT proponent was
totally blindsided when these graphs were presented, especially since the graphs
were not available to the general scientific community at that time. This was not
appropriate on my part and my answer should have been “No” to that
request.
Sometime after publication, I received a Letter to the Editor from Dr. Whipp and
asked if I would like to respond. However, while I cannot remember all of the
details of the initial letter, I responded that I did not think the letter was
appropriate because it accused me of using “legerdemain” to generate
the results in the McArdle’s patients. The Oxford Dictionary definition of
legerdemain is “skillful use of one's hands when performing
conjuring tricks”, so perhaps you can see why I wanted no part of responding
to such a letter. A revised version of the letter came to me much later and I think
we had a useful exchange of points of view [34]
[35].
So Jim, you did some interesting work with one- and two-component exercise and
recovery VO2 kinetics curves for your dissertation with a major focus on
the potential role of blood lactate as a mechanism underlying the second component
of the recovery VO2 response. Since you showed that your
McArdle’s patients didn’t alter their blood lactate levels with
maximal exercise, what did their recovery VO2 kinetics show? Uh (stumble,
stumble) – we took them off the VO2 system at the end of the
maximal exercise test. So, they had to recover anyway, but you didn’t
measure their recovery VO2 responses? Yes – aren’t we
brilliant scientists?
Thus, in a follow-up we studied five McArdle’s patients, only one of whom was
in the previous study, age-matched healthy controls, and older healthy individuals
VO2max-matched to the McArdle’s patients [36]. They underwent progressive exercise to their
maximal capacity; VO2 was assessed for 6 mins prior to, during,
and for 15 mins after exercise. These McArdle’s patients again
showed a ventilatory threshold similar to that of the two control groups, again
without any increase whatsoever in their blood lactate levels. In addition, the
recovery VO2 kinetics in all three groups were best fit by a two-, rather
than a one-, component exponential model, with there being no differences between
any of the groups in terms of the time course and magnitude parameters, providing
further evidence that the second slower recovery VO2 component may well
not have a “lactacid” mechanism underlying it.
Subsequent History of the “Anaerobic Threshold”
Subsequent History of the “Anaerobic Threshold”
We concluded our first McArdle’s disease patient’s paper by stating
“Clearly, further research is necessary to determine which signal or signals
results in the altered cardiovascular, respiratory, and metabolic responses
occurring at or very near the point where ventilation increases abruptly”
[33]. And wow - was that an understatement for
what followed!
Since then, there have been untold numbers of symposia, poster sessions, oral
sessions, and publications addressing the AT. In fact, at the 2019 national ACSM
meeting in Orlando, FL a symposium was held titled “Anaerobic Threshold:
50+Years of Controversy”, the general contents of
which were also published recently in the Journal of Physiology (London) [37]. The symposium was chaired by Michael Hogan
(California – San Diego) and presentations were given by researchers focused
on lactate metabolism and the physiological and applied aspects of the AT. Perhaps
the best summary of this Symposium, and maybe of all AT research, was provided by
a
quote from Brian Whipp relayed via Harry Rossiter (UCLA) – “the term
anaerobic threshold seems to polarize investigators into those who believe it to be
a milestone and those who believe it to be a millstone” [38]. On the millstone side, Bruce Gladden (Auburn) made
the strong statement that “Anaerobic threshold is an inappropriate term
because it implies a mechanism that is refuted by several lines of evidence”
[39]. Also on the millstone side, David Poole
(Kansas State) indicated that “Thresholds represent fundamental
“tipping points”, teaching us physiological control mechanisms BUT
problems of definition, measurement, and interpretation create confusion”
[40]. On the milestone side in terms of human
performance, Harry Rossiter cited data from Faude et al. [41] indicating that a substantial number of studies have reported strong
linear correlations between the lactate threshold and distance running performance,
a point initially raised in 1970 by Dave Costill with directly measured blood
lactate levels during submaximal exercise [42]. From a
clinical perspective, Dr. Rossiter summarized a substantial body of research showing
that a patient’s AT is strongly and inversely related to their development
of post-surgical complications, especially CV events [43]
[44]. Thus, this critical
“tipping” point during submaximal exercise is clearly of substantial
physiological, clinical, and performance significance, although the mechanisms
underlying it continue to be debated.
Scientific Impact of the Anaerobic Threshold Concept
Scientific Impact of the Anaerobic Threshold Concept
Another important question is whether the AT concept had an impact on the field of
exercise physiology. One imperfect but widely used method to assess the impact of
a
paper is its citation rate. The original Wasserman et al. AT paper [2] is clearly highly impactful having been cited 1555
times through the end of 2019, or ~32 citations/yr over the past
45 yrs ([Fig. 4]). Furthermore, their 1986
paper [23] on newer methods to detect the AT has been
cited ~2700 times, a rate of 77 citations/yr. And
Wasserman’s initial 1964 [22] paper on AT in
cardiac patients has also been cited nearly 600 times, a rate of ~11
citations per yr since its publication. Together these three seminal AT papers have
been cited a total of ~5000 times, which averages out to a rate of
~120 citations per year since they were published, or once every three days.
All three of these papers also continue to be cited at very high rates with the
averages amounting to 17, 45, and 135 (total ~200) citations per yr over the
last 10 yrs for the three papers. These averages for the last 10 yrs
are ~40% greater than their average citation rates over their entire
history, indicating that they continue to be cited at very high rates.
Another further and dramatic demonstration of the impact of these papers is that the
1986 Wasserman paper on new methods to identify the AT [23] is the most cited exercise physiology paper and the second most cited
article ever published in the Journal of Applied Physiology. Furthermore, its
citation rate is ~75% higher than the second most cited exercise
physiology article published in that Journal. Also, the original 1973 Wasserman AT
paper [2] is the third most cited exercise physiology
article ever published in the Journal of Applied Physiology.
Another measure of the impact of a concept, especially in the case of a newly-coined
term, is the number of papers generated related to the concept. These data also
continue to strongly substantiate the impact of the AT on the discipline. A PubMed
search for “anaerobic threshold” identified ~5650 papers
published since 1973 until the end of 2018, which averages ~120 such
publications each yr since 1973 – or one every three days for the past
~50 yrs ([Fig. 5]). Also, the number
of such publications in the last 10 yrs averages 217 papers/yr
– well above the average across all the yrs since the original AT
publication [2]([Fig.
5]). Thus, the AT concept has generated a substantial number of papers and
they continue to appear at high rates.
So, how impactful were the two McArdle’s patient papers that questioned the
mechanism proposed to underlie the AT? Relative to this, the initial 1982
McArdle’s disease patient paper [33] has been
cited 182 times since its publication ([Fig. 4]). To
put this in perspective, this amounts to only 11% of the citations for the
original Wasserman AT paper [2] and only 7% of
the citations for the 1986 Wasserman new AT methods paper [23]. The second McArdle’s disease patient paper [36] has only been cited 34 times since its publication.
Thus, the original Wasserman AT papers were clearly cited substantially more, in
fact at 10–14 times higher rates, than the two papers that questioned the
mechanism proposed to underlie the AT.
Given the supposed self-correcting nature of science, another important question is
whether the McArdle’s disease papers had any impact on the citation
histories of the seminal AT publications. Clearly if a scientific finding was
subsequently found to be incorrect, in terms of the methods, the data, or the
mechanistic explanations, it would be expected that the citations to the original
publications would decrease after that point in time. However, as shown above, the
citation histories of these papers clearly show that the highest citation rates for
these papers have all been in the last ~10 yrs, well after the
publication of the McArdle’s disease patient papers ([Fig. 4]). The same trend also holds for the number of
AT papers being published, with the rates again being the highest in the last
10 yrs. This provides strong evidence that the McArdle’s disease
papers actually had no discernable effect on these two outcomes relative to the
impact of the AT concept.
Thus, clearly the citations for the seminal Wasserman AT papers and the number of
publications related to this concept have increased substantially over time and both
remain at very high levels, despite strong evidence that the phenomenon is actually
mis-named. However, the data relative to the continued high rates of AT publications
also shed some further light on where much of the continued interest in this
phenomenon is derived. As indicated above ([Fig. 5]),
a substantial number of AT articles have continued to appear in the scientific
literature. Linear regression analyses of these data indicate there is a highly
significant increase in the rates of “AT” publications over time
since the original 1973 publication as evidenced by an average increase of
~6 such publications each yr over the last 45 yrs, with a
correlation of 0.97 (P<0.00001). On the other hand, the rate of increases in
AT papers over time in the two exercise physiology journals with the most
“AT” papers (European Journal of Applied Physiology, International
Journal of Sports Medicine) have increases of only 0.3 and 0.2 papers/yr,
respectively, over this same general time frame ([Table
1]). In addition, the next four exercise physiology journals in terms of
published “AT” papers over time all have rates of increases which,
while generally highly statistically significant, amount to 0.1 paper/yr.
And the increases in AT papers over time in these six leading exercise physiology
journals amounts to a total of slightly less than 1 paper/yr. Thus, the
rates of increase in AT papers per yr published in the general literature are
20–60 times higher than the rates of increases in AT papers in the six
leading exercise physiology journals and the rates of increase in AT
papers/yr in the total literature is still ~6 times the combined
rate of increase across the six leading exercise physiology journals. Thus, the
overwhelming majority of AT papers (~85%) are appearing in
non-exercise physiology journals, with many to most of these journals being related
to clinical exercise physiology.
Table 1 Rates of increase in anaerobic threshold publications
over time in various sources.
|
Publication Source
|
Slope*
|
Correlation (p-value)
|
Total Citations
|
|
All Sources
|
5.9
|
0.97 (p<0.00001)
|
5650
|
|
European Journal of Applied Physiology
|
0.3
|
0.60 (p<0.00001)
|
360
|
|
International Journal of Sports Medicine
|
0.2
|
0.67 (p<0.00001)
|
267
|
|
Journal of Applied Physiology
|
0.1
|
0.26 (p=0.85)
|
255
|
|
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise
|
0.1
|
0.36 (p=0.015)
|
241
|
|
Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness
|
0.1
|
0.58 (p=0.00003)
|
183
|
|
British Journal of Sports Medicine
|
0.1
|
0.68 (p<0.00001)
|
60
|
|
Six Exercise Physiology Journals Above
|
0.9
|
–
|
1366
|
*slope is expressed in the increase in citations in that source per
yr from 1973 until the end of 2019 as determined by simple linear
regression.
Exercise Physiology Texts and the Anaerobic Threshold
Exercise Physiology Texts and the Anaerobic Threshold
All exercise physiology textbooks since the mid 1980’s have addressed the AT
concept. In fact, in 1984 Brooks and Fahey referred to the AT as a
“misnomer” and termed it the lactate inflection point using the
McArdle’s patient data as one of the primary pieces of evidence [45]. All of the exercise physiology texts generally
address both the milestone vs millstone issues surrounding the AT. On the millstone
side, they all question the proposed underlying “anaerobic”
mechanism and raise issues with the terminology of this inflection point. On the
milestone side of the ledger, they also quite consistently acknowledge that this
exercise intensity represents an inflection point that is of critical physiological
and metabolic significance.
Summary and Conclusions
Roughly 50 yrs ago, Wasserman and colleagues published their groundbreaking
AT study. Their study represented the culmination of the evolution of respiratory
gas analysis and laboratory computers to the point where such physiological studies
were now possible. The initial publications from this group continue to be highly
cited, with two of them being the second and fourth most cited papers ever published
in the Journal of Applied Physiology. Further evidence of its impact is the fact
that the AT concept has generated > 5500 publications with
the rates also continuing to increase over time. The publication of two papers that
seriously question the “anaerobic” mechanism for this critical
physiological phenomenon [33]
[36] had no discernible effect on the rates of citations of the original
AT papers or the number of AT papers published since. Thus, despite substantial
evidence refuting the proposed “anaerobic” mechanisms underlying
this phenomenon, these papers continue to be highly influential in the discipline
of
exercise physiology and perhaps even more explicitly in the discipline of clinical
exercise physiology.