Monday, 9 June 2025

Understanding Anaerobic Threshold (VT2) and VO2 Max in Endurance Training

 Introduction: The Science Behind Ventilatory Thresholds

Every endurance athlete, whether a long-distance runner, cyclist, or swimmer, strives to maximize efficiency and delay fatigue. Two key physiological markers—Ventilatory Threshold 1 (VT1) and Ventilatory Threshold 2 (VT2)—play a crucial role in determining an athlete’s metabolic efficiency. These thresholds define how energy is utilized during physical exertion and directly influence overall performance.

VT1 vs. VT2: Defining Energy Transitions

  • VT1 (Aerobic Threshold): The transition from lipid metabolism (fat-burning) to a mixed metabolism, where both carbohydrates and fats fuel muscle activity.
  • VT2 (Anaerobic Threshold): The point where the body shifts to a predominantly carbohydrate-based metabolism, leading to rapid lactate accumulation and increased reliance on anaerobic energy pathways.

This physiological transition dictates an athlete's ability to sustain high-intensity efforts, making VT2 a key factor in endurance performance, recovery, and overall fitness.

Factors Influencing VT1 and VT2

Several physiological and external factors influence an individual's ventilatory thresholds:

  1. Age & Sex
    • Younger athletes generally exhibit higher VT2 values, while aging naturally reduces aerobic capacity.
    • Men tend to have a higher VO2 Max due to greater lung capacity and muscle mass, but women can achieve similar endurance levels through optimized training.
  2. Body Composition & Health Status
    • High body fat percentage may reduce VT2 efficiency, as excess weight increases cardiovascular workload.
    • Health conditions such as cardiovascular disease, respiratory disorders, and metabolic syndromes can significantly impact ventilatory thresholds.
  3. Pharmacological Influences
    • Medications such as beta-blockers and ACE inhibitors affect heart rate regulation, potentially lowering VT2 due to altered cardiovascular response.
  4. Cardiac Function & Ventricular Parameters
    • The heart’s ejection fraction and ventricular relaxation capacity dictate oxygen delivery efficiency.
    • A lower peak heart rate limits maximal cardiac output, directly influencing VO2 Max and VT2.

VO2 Max and VT2: The Connection

VO2 Max is the maximum oxygen uptake during exercise, representing cardiorespiratory efficiency. Since VT2 marks the transition to anaerobic metabolism, it directly correlates with VO2 Max:

  • Athletes with higher VO2 Max levels can sustain aerobic efforts longer before crossing into VT2.
  • Increasing VT2 effectively extends endurance, allowing the body to buffer lactate accumulation more efficiently.

Training Strategies to Improve VT2 & VO2 Max

Structured workouts can significantly increase VT2, delay lactate buildup, and optimize VO2 Max. Here’s how:

1. Threshold Training (Lactate Clearance Sessions)

  • Running or cycling at 95-105% of VT2 intensity improves the body’s ability to metabolize lactate.
  • Sessions should last 20–40 minutes, mimicking race conditions.

2. High-Intensity Interval Training (HIIT)

  • Short bursts of maximum effort (~110% VO2 Max) with equal recovery periods.
  • Enhances anaerobic power while boosting the efficiency of VT2 adaptation.

3. Long Steady-State Workouts

  • Prolonged efforts at 80-85% VO2 Max strengthen the aerobic base.
  • Builds endurance while minimizing lactate accumulation.

4. Strength Training for VO2 Max Optimization

  • Studies show that lower-body strength work (squats, lunges, plyometrics) improves metabolic efficiency.
  • Stronger muscle fibers require less oxygen, prolonging aerobic capacity.

Monitoring VT2 and VO2 Max with Data Analytics

Coaches and sports scientists track VT2 trends alongside VO2 Max using wearable sensors, lactate testing, and predictive data modeling.

Using R Code for VT2 Estimation

This R function  serves as a valuable tool for estimating VT2 based on training data, enabling athletes to: Analyze trends in ventilatory adaptation Quantify improvements over multiple training sessions Adjust pacing strategies for optimal endurance

Final Thoughts: Why VT2 Matters

Understanding VT2 and VO2 Max is fundamental for endurance athletes looking to optimize their training. By integrating targeted workouts, data-driven insights, and physiological testing, athletes can increase their threshold capacity, reduce fatigue, and improve overall performance.


Example

Let's assume these data:


Tempo <- matrix(c(46,30,7,50,5,0,12,33),nrow=4,ncol=2,byrow=TRUE)

Dist <- c(7460,1250,1100,2290)

distanza <- 10000

BpM <- c(163,134,153,160)

RunTime(Tempo,Dist,distanza,BpM)


Table 1. Summary of results


Run Distance (mt) Velocity (km/h) Expected Velocity (km/h) Time (s) ExpectedTime (10 km) bpm Anaerobic Threshold (km/h)
1 7460 9.63 9.46 2790 3806.28 163 9.36
2 1250 9.57 8.45 470 4259.64 134 9.31
3 1100 13.20 11.56 300 3113.47 153 12.83
4 2290 10.95 10.02 753 3592.27 160 10.64



Figures

Figure 1. Running sessions' performances


The scatter plot presents data points illustrating a relationship between velocity (km/h) and distance (m). Observations from the trend suggest:

  • As distance increases, velocity tends to decrease slightly, indicating a potential endurance effect where pace slows over longer distances.

  • The initial point shows higher velocity, possibly due to the athlete starting with higher energy levels.

  • The drop in velocity around mid-range distances could suggest a pacing strategy or fatigue onset.

  • The final data points stabilize, indicating a consistent pace over longer distances.

The athlete may be adjusting their effort across distances to optimize endurance. Threshold Monitoring: If this dataset correlates with anaerobic threshold, the trend might highlight the optimal endurance balance for sustaining effort efficiently. Training Application: Understanding this pattern can help refine speed maintenance strategies for long-distance runs.




Figure 4. Velocity vs. Distance



The data points indicate a trend of decreasing velocity as the running distance increases. The drop in velocity at 3000m (~11 km/h) suggests possible fatigue onset or pacing strategy adjustments. The gradual decline in velocity might indicate controlled endurance pacing, where the athlete slows down to maintain stamina. 
Training Insights: If the anaerobic threshold is being assessed, the change in velocity across distances can help identify the optimal threshold where endurance and performance balance out.

R function: calculate the anaerobic threshold

RunTime <- function(Time,Distance,Distance_reference,bpm) {

## INPUT

#Time: run time measured [min, s]

#Distance: run distance [mt]

#Distance_reference: reference distance [mt] of which we want to evaluate the expected time 

#bpm: cardiac frequency (beats per minute) 

## OUTPUT

# T2 = tempo corsa atteso su distanza di riferimento (s)

# V2 = velocità attesa su distanza di riferimento (km / h)

# V1 = velocità media singole corse (km / h)

# Vm = velocità media su distanze e tempi rilevati cumulati (km / h)

# FC = Frequenza cardiaca per minuto

# SAN = Soglia Anaerobica stimata

# SAN2 = proiezione Soglia Anaerobica su tempi attesi e distanza di riferimento

# D1 = distanze percorse

# P1 = passo corsa per km [min, s]  

# P2 = passo corsa atteso per km [min, s]  


T1 <- Time

D1 <- Distance

D2 <- Distance_reference

T = T1[,2] + T1[,1]*60 # run time (seconds)

T2 = T* (D2/D1)^(1.06) # expected time (seconds)

V2 = 3.6 * (D2/T2)

V1 = 3.6 * (D1/T);

p = (1000*T/D1)/60 # run pace per km 

P1 = data.frame(floor(p), ((p - floor(p))*60)) # run pace per km [min, s]  

p2 = (1000*T2/D2)/60 # expected run pace per km 

P2 = data.frame(floor(p2), ((p2 - floor(p2))*60)) # expected run pace per km [min, s]  

Vm = 3.6 * (sum(D1)/sum(T));

SAN = 35000/(T*(10000/D1)) #Anaerobic Threshold

SAN2 = 35000/(T2*(10000/D2)) #projection of the Anaerobic Threshold over expected time and reference distance

FC <- bpm

## summary statistics

stats=NULL

stats$V1 = c(mean(V1), sd(V1))

stats$D1 = c(mean(D1), sd(D1))

stats$V2 = c(mean(V2), sd(V2))

stats$T1 = c(mean(T), sd(T))

stats$T2 = c(mean(T2), sd(T2))

stats$SAN = c(mean(SAN), sd(SAN))

stats$SAN2 = c(mean(SAN2), sd(SAN2))

stats$FC = c(mean(FC), sd(FC))

stats$P1 = c(mean(p), sd(p))

stats$P2 = c(mean(p2), sd(p2))

DF <- data.frame(

    Run = seq_along(Distance),

    Distance = Distance,

    Velocity = V1,

    Expected_Velocity = V2,

    Time = T,

    Expected_Time = T2,

    bpm = bpm,

    Anaerobic_Threshold = SAN

  )

##Plots

par(mfrow=c(2,2))

plot(V1,main="Velocity(km / h)",xlab="Run",ylab="km / h",pch=16,type="o",lty=2)

grid(nx = NULL, ny = NULL, col = "lightgray", lty = "dotted",lwd = par("lwd"), equilogs = TRUE)

plot(D1,main="Distance",xlab="Run",ylab="mt",pch=16,type="o",lty=2)

grid(nx = NULL, ny = NULL, col = "lightgray", lty = "dotted",lwd = par("lwd"), equilogs = TRUE)

plot(T,main="Run time",xlab="Run",ylab="s",pch=16,type="o",lty=2)

grid(nx = NULL, ny = NULL, col = "lightgray", lty = "dotted",lwd = par("lwd"), equilogs = TRUE)

plot(P1[,2] + P1[,1]*60,main="Run pace per km", xlab="Run",ylab="s",pch=16,type="o",lty=2)

grid(nx = NULL, ny = NULL, col = "lightgray", lty = "dotted",lwd = par("lwd"), equilogs = TRUE)


par(mfrow=c(2,2))

plot(T2,main="Projection of times",xlab="Run",ylab="s",pch=16,type="o",lty=2)

grid(nx = NULL, ny = NULL, col = "lightgray", lty = "dotted",lwd = par("lwd"), equilogs = TRUE)

plot(V2,main=paste0("expected velocity\n on reference distance of",D2," mt",sep=""),xlab="Run",ylab="km / h",pch=16,type="o",lty=2)

grid(nx = NULL, ny = NULL, col = "lightgray", lty = "dotted",lwd = par("lwd"), equilogs = TRUE)

plot(P2[,2] + P2[,1]*60,main="Expected run pace per km (s)", xlab="Run", ylab="s",pch=16,type="o",lty=2)

grid(nx = NULL, ny = NULL, col = "lightgray", lty = "dotted",lwd = par("lwd"), equilogs = TRUE)


par(mfrow=c(1,2))

plot(T, SAN,main="Anaerobic Threshold vs. Time",xlab="Time (s)",ylab="Anaerobic Threshold (km / h)",pch=16)

grid(nx = NULL, ny = NULL, col = "lightgray", lty = "dotted",lwd = par("lwd"), equilogs = TRUE)

plot(SAN,main="Anaerobic Threshold",xlab="Run",ylab="Anaerobic Threshold (km / h)",pch=16)

grid(nx = NULL, ny = NULL, col = "lightgray", lty = "dotted",lwd = par("lwd"), equilogs = TRUE)


plot(D1,V1,main="Velocity vs. Distance",xlab="Distance",ylab="Velocity (km / h)",pch=16)

grid(nx = NULL, ny = NULL, col = "lightgray", lty = "dotted",lwd = par("lwd"), equilogs = TRUE)



par(mfrow=c(2,1))

plot(D1,FC,main="bpm vs. distance",ylab="bpm",xlab="distance (mt)",pch=16)

grid(nx = NULL, ny = NULL, col = "lightgray", lty = "dotted",lwd = par("lwd"), equilogs = TRUE)

plot(V1,FC,main="bpm vs. velocity",xlab="velocity (km / h)",ylab="bpm",pch=16)

grid(nx = NULL, ny = NULL, col = "lightgray", lty = "dotted",lwd = par("lwd"), equilogs = TRUE)


return(DF)

}


This function evaluates the performance of running training sessions based on distance, time, and heart rate data. 

It calculates expected time, velocity, anaerobic threshold, and other metrics to provide insights into a runner's progress.



Tuesday, 15 April 2025

Design and validation of a semi-quantitative microneutralization assay for human Metapneumovirus A1 and B1 subtypes

This study presents a comprehensive overview of human Metapneumovirus (hMPV), an enveloped RNA virus identified in 2001. It details the virus's biological characteristics, epidemiological significance, and ongoing vaccine research efforts. hMPV is classified within the Pneumoviridae family and comprises two global genetic lineages, namely A and B. While the pathogenic mechanisms underlying hMPV infection remain inadequately understood, the structural proteins involved, particularly the Fusion (F) protein, are instrumental in mediating infection and modulating the immune response. The F protein is highly conserved and is regarded as the principal target for vaccine development, as it promotes the formation of neutralizing antibodies, a contrast to the more variable Glycoprotein G.


From an epidemiological perspective, hMPV is widely distributed and predominantly impacts infants and young children, often resulting in severe respiratory illnesses. Despite the absence of a licensed vaccine, various candidates, including live recombinant viruses and monoclonal antibodies that target the F protein, have shown encouraging results in preclinical evaluations.


Moreover, this study introduces a high-throughput ELISA-based microneutralization assay (EMN) specifically designed to detect neutralizing antibodies against hMPV-A1 and hMPV-B1. This assay has been validated in accordance with international guidelines and exhibits high sensitivity and specificity, rendering it suitable for large-scale serological studies. The findings revealed a moderate humoral response within a cohort of human serum samples, thereby confirming the immunogenicity of the F protein.


The EMN assay represents a significant advancement in hMPV research, enabling the evaluation of vaccine candidates and showing promise for the development of effective preventive strategies against this respiratory virus. Future research efforts will focus on expanding the applicability of the assay and investigating polyvalent vaccine strategies.

As the scientific community continues to grapple with the complexities of human Metapneumovirus (hMPV), innovative approaches are emerging to address the challenges posed by this elusive pathogen. One of the most promising avenues involves leveraging next- generation sequencing (NGS) technologies to uncover the genetic variability and evolutionary dynamics of hMPV. By mapping the virus' s genetic landscape with unprecedented precision, researchers can identify potential mutational hotspots and design more robust vaccine candidates that remain effective across diverse strains.


Another revolutionary concept gaining traction is the application of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning in vaccine development and assay optimization. By analyzing vast datasets, AI models can predict the immunogenicity of viral antigens, streamline the design of polyvalent vaccines, and even enhance the performance parameters of assays like the ELISA- based microneutralization assay (EMN). This fusion of computational power with virological expertise has the potential to accelerate breakthroughs in hMPV research.


Additionally, innovative immunological strategies, such as combining monoclonal antibodies with adjuvants to boost immune responses, are being explored. Adjuvant technology can enhance the immunogenicity of vaccines targeting the F protein, ensuring stronger and longer- lasting protection against hMPV.


Finally, the advent of nanotechnology in vaccine delivery presents an exciting frontier for hMPV prevention. Nanoparticles engineered to carry antigens can mimic viral structures, eliciting more effective immune responses while enabling targeted delivery to respiratory tissues. This cutting- edge approach not only enhances vaccine efficacy but also minimizes systemic side effects.


By integrating these innovative perspectives, the field of hMPV research is transforming from understanding the fundamentals of a newly identified virus to pioneering solutions that address unmet medical needs. As scientists push the boundaries of what' s possible, hMPV stands as a testament to the ingenuity and resilience of the human spirit in combating infectious diseases.


Understanding Anaerobic Threshold (VT2) and VO2 Max in Endurance Training

  Introduction: The Science Behind Ventilatory Thresholds Every endurance athlete, whether a long-distance runner, cyclist, or swimmer, st...