Congruent Validity and Reliability of Two Metabolic Systems to Measure Resting Metabolic Rate
Abstract Abstract 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 mor...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | International journal of sports medicine 2015-05, Vol.36 (5), p.414-418 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Abstract
Abstract
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 V
E
, F
E
O
2
, F
E
CO
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 V
E
(Parvo2: 25.03 L/min, Cosmed2: 8.98 L/min) and F
E
O
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, F
E
O
2
, V
E
were significantly different between systems, but the resultant RMR values were not significantly different. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0172-4622 1439-3964 |
DOI: | 10.1055/s-0034-1398575 |