Information on the performance of different instruments used to measure blood lactate concentration is incomplete. We therefore examined instruments from Yellow Springs Instruments (YSI 23L and YSI 1500) and three cheaper and simpler instruments: Dr. Lange's LP8+, Lactate Pro from Arkray in the KDK corporation and Accusport from Boehringer Mannheim. First, a number of blood samples were analysed by standard enzymatic photofluorometry (our reference method) and, in addition, by one or more of the instruments mentioned above. Second, measurements using two or more identical instruments were compared. Third, since Lactate Pro and Accusport are small (approximately 100 g, pocket-size), battery-driven, instruments that could be used for outdoor testing, the performance of these instruments was examined at simulated altitudes (O2 pressure of <10 kPa) and at temperatures below -20 degrees C, while screening the instruments as much as possible from the cold. Most of the different instruments showed systematically too high or too low values (10-25% deviation). The observed differences between instruments may affect the "blood lactate threshold" by 2-5%. We found different readings between "equal" YSI 1500 instruments, while we could see no difference when comparing the other instruments of the same type. Lactate Pro gave reliable results at both -21+/-1 degrees C and at simulated altitude. Accusport gave reliable results in the cold, but 1.85+/-0.08 mmol L(-1) (mean+/-SD) too high readings at the simulated altitude. Of the three simpler instruments examined, the Lactate Pro was at least as good as the YSI instruments and superior to the other two.

The performance of the Metamax I and the Metamax II portable analysers for measuring the O2 uptake has been examined during exercise. Healthy subjects ran on the treadmill or bicycled on ergometers while the O2 uptake was measured by the Metamaxes and also by the Douglas bag technique or the Vmax 29 instrument. In the first series of experiments, O2 uptake was measured by each instrument in turn. In later experiments two or more breathing valves were connected in a series, thus enabling measurement of the O2 uptake simultaneously by more than one instrument. The O2 uptake measured by the Metamax analysers rose linearly by the value given by the control methods. However, there were variations of approximately 5% because the relationships differed between subjects. When the data from each subject were examined separately, the error of regression was 0.5-1 micromol s(-1) kg(-1) (2-3%), and the error of regression when relating the O2 uptake to the exercise intensity was similar to that found when using the Douglas bag technique alone. In most cases the lung ventilation reported by the Metamaxes was a few percent less than that given by the control methods, while the fractional extraction of O2 was higher for the Metamaxes. The respiratory exchange ratios (R-value) reported by the Metamaxes were in good agreement with those of the control methods in the range 0.9-1.0 only; for this parameter, the Metamaxes do not seem to be reliable for exercise testing. The O2 uptake and the R-value were also calculated from the raw data reported by the Metamaxes. The calculated values differed somewhat from those reported by the instruments, and the calculated values were more in agreement with those obtained by the Douglas bag technique than those reported by the instrument. This study suggests that the O2 uptake reported by the Metamaxes is precisely measured within subjects but that there are some systematic errors as well as variations between subjects.

BackgroundHigh aerobic fitness is consistently associated with a favorable metabolic risk profile in children. Direct measurement of peak oxygen consumption (VO2peak) is often not feasible, thus indirect tests such as the Andersen test are required in many settings. The present study seeks to determine the reliability and validity of the Andersen test in 10-year-old children.MethodsA total of 118 10-year-old children (67 boys and 51 girls) were recruited from one school and performed four VO2peak tests over three weeks: three Andersen tests (indirect) and one continuous progressive treadmill test (direct). Of these, 104 children provided valid data on all Andersen tests and 103 children also provided valid data on the direct treadmill test. Reliability and validity were assessed using Bland Altman plots and linear regression analysis.ResultsBias (mean change) and random error (limits of agreement) were 26.7±125.2 m for test 2 vs. test 1 (p<.001 for mean difference) and 3.9±88.8 m for test 3 vs. test 2 (p = .514 for mean difference). The equation to estimate VO2peak suggested by Andersen et al. (2008) showed a poor fit in the present sample; thus, we suggest a new equation: VO2peak = 23.262+0.050*Andersen distance –3.858*gender –0.376*body weight (R2 = 0.61, standard error of the estimate = 5.69, p<.001, boys = 0, girls = 1).ConclusionsThe Andersen test provided reliable and valid data on a group level. However, a substantial degree of individual variability was found for estimates of VO2peak. Researchers should be aware of the amount of noise in indirect tests that estimate aerobic fitness.