Congruent validity and reliability of two metabolic systems to measure resting metabolic rate. Int J Sports Med 2015 May;36(5):414-8
Date
02/24/2015Pubmed ID
25700097DOI
10.1055/s-0034-1398575Scopus ID
2-s2.0-84928882458 (requires institutional sign-in at Scopus site) 21 CitationsAbstract
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 K4b(2) (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, FEO(2), FECO(2), VO(2), VCO(2), 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.m(2)) 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 FEO(2) (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, FEO(2), V(E) were significantly different between systems, but the resultant RMR values were not significantly different.
Author List
Welch WA, Strath SJ, Swartz AMAuthor
Whitney A. Morelli PhD Assistant Professor in the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation department at Medical College of WisconsinMESH terms used to index this publication - Major topics in bold
AdultBasal Metabolism
Calorimetry, Indirect
Female
Humans
Male
Oxygen Consumption
Reproducibility of Results
Young Adult