Comparison of Two Systems of Measuring Energy Expenditure

Abstract

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.

The purpose of this study was to validate the MedGem indirect calorimeter by simultaneously comparing its measurements to those from a traditional indirect calorimeter. No significant difference was found between the measurements, suggesting the MedGem provides an accurate measurement of oxygen consumption and resting metabolic rate.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Zeman F, Ney D. Applications in medical nutrition therapy. In: Davis K, ed. Applications in medical nutrition therapy. Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall, 1996.

Gilliat-Wimberly M, Manore M, Woolf K, Swan P, Carroll S. Effects of habitual physical activity on the resting metabolic rates and body composition of women aged 35 to 50 years. J Am Diet Assoc. 2001 ;101:1181– 1188.

Müller M, Illner K, Bosy-Westphal A, Brinkmann G, Heller M. Regional lean body mass and resting energy expenditure in non-obese adults.Eur J Nutr. 2001;40:93– 97.

Bandini L, Must A, Spadano J, Dietz W. Relation of body composition, parental overweight, pubertal stage, and race-ethnicity to energy expenditure among premenarcheal girls. Am J Clin Nutr. 2002 ;76:1040– 1047.

Buchholz A, McGillivray C, Pencharz P. Differences in resting metabolic rate between paraplegic and able-bodied subjects are explained by differences in body composition. Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 ;77:371– 378.

Kacmarek R, Hess D, Stoller J. Monitoring in respiratory care. In: Marshall D, ed. St. Louis, MO: Mosby,1993 .

Kearney J, Murphy O. The MedGem is a valid and reliable indirect calorimeter. White Paper. Golden, CO: HealtheTech,2003 .

Nieman D, Trone G, Austin M. A new device for measuring resting metabolic rate and oxygen consumption. J Am Diet Assoc. 2003 ;103:588– 593.

St-Onge M, Rubiano F, Jones A, Heymsfield S. A new hand-held indirect calorimeter to measure postprandial energy expenditure.Obesity Res. 2004;12:704– 709.

10.

Takala J, Keinanen O, Vaisanen P. Measurement of gas exchange in intensive care: laboratory and clinical validation of a new device.Crit Care Med. 1989;17:1041– 1047.

11.

Weissman C, Sardar A, Kemper M. In vitro evaluation of a compact metabolic measurement instrument. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1990 ;14:216– 221.