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 Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Roffey, D. M. Articles by Hills, A. P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Roffey, D. M. Articles by Hills, A. P. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Day-to-Day Variance in Measurement of Resting Metabolic Rate Using Ventilated-Hood and Mouthpiece & Nose-Clip Indirect Calorimetry Systems

From the School of Human Movement Studies, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

Correspondence: Darren M. Roffey, BHSc, School of Human Movement Studies, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia 4059. Electronic mail may be sent to d.roffey{at}student.qut.edu.au.

Background: To know if the magnitude of change in resting metabolic rate (RMR) observed during an intervention is meaningful, it is imperative to first identify the variability that occurs within individuals from day to day under normal conditions. The 2 most common systems used to measure RMR involve a ventilated hood or a mouthpiece & nose clip to collect expired gases. The variation in measurement using these 2 approaches has not been systematically compared. Methods: RMR was measured in 10 healthy adults during 5 separate testing sessions within a 2-week period where usual diet and physical activity were maintained. Each testing session consisted of one measurement of RMR using a ventilated hood system, followed by another using a mouthpiece & nose-clip system. Results: No significant difference in RMR was evident between measurement sessions using either indirect calorimeter. Oxygen consumption and RMR were significantly higher using the mouthpiece & nose-clip system. Average within-individual coefficient of variation for RMR was significantly lower for the ventilated-hood system. RMR measures were consistently lower using the ventilated-hood system by an average of 94.5 ± 63.3 kcal. Day-to-day variance was between 2% and 4% for both systems. Conclusions: The use of either system is appropriate for assessing RMR in clinical and research settings, but alternating between systems should be undertaken with caution. A change in RMR must be greater than 6% (96 kcal/d; 1.2 kcal/kg/d) or 8% (135 kcal/d; 1.7 kcal/kg/d) when using a ventilated-hood system or a mouthpiece & nose-clip system, respectively, to observe any meaningful intervention-related differences within individuals.

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