Download PDF
Int J Sports Med 2015; 36(05): 414-418
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1398575
Nutrition
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Congruent Validity and Reliability of Two Metabolic Systems to Measure Resting Metabolic Rate

W. A. Welch
1   Kinesiology, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, United States
,
S. J. Strath
1   Kinesiology, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, United States
,
A. M. Swartz
1   Kinesiology, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, United States
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History



accepted after revision 12 January 2014

Publication Date:
20 February 2015 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Determine the congruent validity and intra- and inter-day reliability of RMR measures assessed by the ParvoMedics Trueone 2 400 hood dilution method (Parvo) and Cosmed K4b2 (Cosmed) breath-by-breath metabolic systems.

Participants underwent 6 RMR assessments over 2 consecutive mornings, 3 with the Parvo (Day 1: Parvo 1; Day 2: Parvo 2, 3), 3 with the Cosmed (Day 1: Cosmed 1; Day 2: Cosmed 2, 3). Measured VE, FEO2, FECO2, VO2, VCO2, kcal/day, and HR values were averaged over a minimum of 10 min. Intra- and inter-day reliability within each system was determined with RMANOVA, and congruent validity was assessed via paired sample t-tests.

31 participants (13 females, 18 males; 27.3±7 years, 24.8±3.1 kg.m2) completed the study. There were no significant differences in any within or between day Parvo values or Cosmed values. When systems were compared, there was a significant difference between VE (Parvo2: 25.03 L/min, Cosmed2: 8.98 L/min) and FEO2 (Parvo2: 19.68%, Cosmed2: 16.63%), however, there were no significant difference in device-calculated RMR (kcals/day).

The Parvo and Cosmed are reliable metabolic system with no intra- or inter-day differences in RMR. Due to differences in measurement technology, FEO2, VE were significantly different between systems, but the resultant RMR values were not significantly different.

Key words

oxygen consumption - energy expenditure - indirect calorimetry - measurement
 

  • References

  • 1 NHLBI Obesity Education Initiative Expert Panel on the Identification, Evaluation, and Treatment of Obesity in Adults (US) . Clinical Guidelines on the Identification, Evaluation, and Treatment of Overweight and Obesity in Adults – The Evidence Report. National Institutes of Health. Obes Res 1998; 6 (Suppl. 02) 51S-209S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Bassett Jr DR, Howley ET, Thompson DL, King GA, Strath SJ, McLaughlin JE, Parr BB. Validity of inspiratory and expiratory methods of measuring gas exchange with a computerized system. J Appl Physiol 2001; 91: 218-224
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Cooper JA, Watras AC, O’Brien MJ, Luke A, Dobratz JR, Earthman CP, Schoeller DA. Assessing validity and reliability of resting metabolic rate in six gas analysis systems. J Am Diet Assoc 2009; 109: 128-132
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Crouter SE, Antczak A, Hudak JR, DellaValle DM, Haas JD. Accuracy and reliability of the ParvoMedics TrueOne 2400 and MedGraphics VO2000 metabolic systems. Eur J Appl Physiol 2006; 98: 139-151
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Field AE, Coakley EH, Must A, Spadano JL, Laird N, Dietz WH, Rimm E, Colditz GA. Impact of overweight on the risk of developing common chronic diseases during a 10-year period. Arch Intern Med 2001; 161: 1581-1586
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Frankenfield D, Roth-Yousey L, Compher C. Comparison of predictive equations for resting metabolic rate in healthy nonobese and obese adults: a systematic review. J Am Diet Assoc 2005; 105: 775-789
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Harriss DJ, Atkinson G. Ethical Standards in Sport and Exercise Science Research: 2014 Update. International Journal of Sports Medicine 2013; 34: 1025-1028
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Haugen HA, Melanson EL, Tran ZV, Kearney JT, Hill JO. Variability of measured resting metabolic rate. Am J Clin Nutr 2003; 78: 1141-1145
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Hill JO, Wyatt HR, Peters JC. Energy balance and obesity. Circulation 2012; 126: 126-132
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Littlewood RA, White MS, Bell KL, Davies PS, Cleghorn GJ, Grote R. Comparison of the Cosmed K4 b(2) and the Deltatrac II metabolic cart in measuring resting energy expenditure in adults. Clin Nutr 2002; 21: 491-497
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Lohman TG, Harris M, Teixeira PJ, Weiss L. Assessing body composition and changes in body composition. Another look at dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2000; 904: 45-54
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 McAnena OJ, Harvey LP, Katzeff HL, Daly JM. Indirect calorimetry: comparison of hood and mask systems for measuring resting energy expenditure in healthy volunteers. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 1986; 10: 555-557
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 McArdle WD, Katch FI, Katch VL. Exercise Physiology: Nutrition. Energy, and Human Performance. 7th ed. Baltimore, MD: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2010
    Google Scholar
  • 14 McLaughlin JE, King GA, Howley ET, Bassett Jr DR, Ainsworth BE. Validation of the COSMED K4 b2 portable metabolic system. Int J Sports Med 2001; 22: 280-284
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Medicine ACoS . ACSM’s Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription. 7th ed. Baltimore, MD: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2006
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Ogden CL, Carroll MD, Curtin LR, McDowell MA, Tabak CJ, Flegal KM. Prevalence of overweight and obesity in the United States, 1999–2004. JAMA 2006; 295: 1549-1555
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Vandarakis D, Salacinski AJ, Broeder CE. A comparison of COSMED metabolic systems for the determination of resting metabolic rate. Res Sports Med 2013; 21: 187-194
    PubMedGoogle Scholar