This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Stewart, C. L. Articles by Branson, R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Stewart, C. L. Articles by Branson, R. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Comparison of Two Systems of Measuring Energy Expenditure

From the University of Cincinnati Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH

Correspondence: Cynthia M. Goody, PhD, Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of Cincinnati, 3202 Eden Avenue, PO Box 039467, Cincinnati, OH 45267. Electronic mail may be sent to cynthia.goody{at}uc.edu.

Background: Health care professionals typically use resting metabolic rate (RMR) via indirect calorimetry to determine a person's energy expenditure. Traditional indirect calorimetry measurements involve an expensive, cumbersome piece of equipment that requires careful calibration. The recent development of a handheld indirect calorimeter makes it easier to measure RMR. The purpose of this study was to compare simultaneous measurements of RMR with handheld and traditional indirect calorimeters. Methods: Healthy, free-living subjects (n = 50) age 18 years and older were tested simultaneously with both indirect calorimeters. All subjects breathed through the handheld device using a mouthpiece while wearing noseclips to prevent leaks. The handheld indirect calorimetry device was placed inside a canopy. The exhaled gas from the handheld was positioned directly over the inlet to the port delivering gases to the traditional device's mixing chamber. The canopy facilitated the simultaneous collection of all expired gases into the traditional device. During the measurement, oxygen consumption and RMR were continuously recorded on a personal computer.Results: Mean oxygen consumption and RMR did not significantly differ between the two devices, with a mean difference of 0.58 ± 15.33 mL/min (p = .790) and 4.66 ± 113.39 kcal/day (p = .773) and an absolute difference of 12.3 ± 8.99 mL/min and 86.58 ± 72.32 kcal/day, respectively. Correlation coefficients for oxygen consumption and RMR were 0.945 and 0.941, respectively. Conclusions: No significant difference was found between the measurements of indirect calorimetry with the MedGem (HealtheTech, Golden, CO) device compared with the DeltaTrac device (Datex-Ohmeda, Madison, WI). These findings suggest that the handheld indirect calorimeter may provide an accurate measure of oxygen consumption and RMR measurements for spontaneously breathing subjects.

Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, Vol. 29, No. 3, 212-217 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/0148607105029003212


CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				B. A. Anderegg, C. Worrall, E. Barbour, K. N. Simpson, and M. DeLegge Comparison of Resting Energy Expenditure Prediction Methods With Measured Resting Energy Expenditure in Obese, Hospitalized Adults JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr, March 1, 2009; 33(2): 168 - 175. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W J Marshall Nutritional assessment: its role in the provision of nutritional support J. Clin. Pathol., October 1, 2008; 61(10): 1083 - 1088. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. D. Van Loan Do Hand-Held Calorimeters Provide Reliable and Accurate Estimates of Resting Metabolic Rate? J. Am. Coll. Nutr., December 1, 2007; 26(6): 625 - 629. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. Cereda, M. Turrini, D. Ciapanna, L. Marbello, A. Pietrobelli, and E. Corradi Assessing Energy Expenditure in Cancer Patients: A Pilot Validation of a New Wearable Device JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr, November 1, 2007; 31(6): 502 - 507. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. A. Haugen, L.-N. Chan, and F. Li Indirect Calorimetry: A Practical Guide for Clinicians Nutr Clin Pract, August 1, 2007; 22(4): 377 - 388. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. R. Rubenbauer, D. L. Johannsen, S. M. Baier, R. Litchfield, and P. J. Flakoll The Use of a Handheld Calorimetry Unit to Estimate Energy Expenditure During Different Physiological Conditions JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr, May 1, 2006; 30(3): 246 - 250. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]