Premium
Evaluation of a new whole room indirect calorimeter for measurement of resting metabolic rate
Author(s) -
Whyte Kathryn J.,
Rising Russell,
Albu Jeanine J.,
PiSunyer Xavier
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
the faseb journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.709
H-Index - 277
eISSN - 1530-6860
pISSN - 0892-6638
DOI - 10.1096/fasebj.27.1_supplement.854.9
Subject(s) - propane , basal metabolic rate , calorimeter (particle physics) , zoology , chemistry , analytical chemistry (journal) , mathematics , chromatography , biology , biochemistry , physics , optics , organic chemistry , detector
Objective Compare a new whole room indirect calorimeter (WRIC) for measuring resting metabolic rate (RMR) against a metabolic cart (MC). Methods Simulated RMR (kcal/d), RQ (VCO 2 /VO 2 ) and air flow (L/min) were obtained by performing 10 one‐hour propane (99.5% purity) combustion tests within the new WRIC (Promethion GA‐6 and FG‐1, Sable Systems Intl, Las Vegas, NV) and then with a MC (Vmax Encore, Carefusion Inc, San Diego, CA) utilizing a modified canopy hood. The propane was weighed before and after each test. Both the WRIC and MC were calibrated prior to each test according to the respective manufacturer's instructions. Calculated RMR and RQ from propane combustion were compared to simulated metabolic values. All data were extrapolated to 24‐hours and analyzed using SPSS (Ver.13). Results Calculated and simulated RMR for the WRIC ranged from 1861.4 to 3021.1 and 1828.2 to 3067.8 while that for the MC were 1450.6 to 2082.6 and 1353.6 to 2304.0, respectively. RQ for the WRIC and MC from propane ranged from 0.59 to 0.62 and 0.57 to 0.60, respectively. Compared to propane simulated RMR for the WRIC and MC varied by 0.80±1.5 and 2.0±8.8%, respectively. However, in comparison to calculated individual values, there was greater variability of simulated RMR (−10.8 to +13.1%) across the 10 propane combustion tests for the MC versus that for the WRIC (−1.6 to 2.3%). Finally, air flow for the WRIC and MC were 98.95 ± 0.38 and 44.40 ± 1.50, respectively. Conclusions The WRIC was more precise than the MC. The imprecision of the MC may contribute to intermittent large errors of RMR thus possibly effecting outcomes when used for calorie prescription.