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!
|
| container_end_page | 418 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 5 |
| container_start_page | 414 |
| container_title | International journal of sports medicine |
| container_volume | 36 |
| creator | Welch, W. A. Strath, S. J. Swartz, A. M. |
| description | 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. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1055/s-0034-1398575 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1694976351</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1677882714</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c366t-23cc03c3a36099cd2514d30bf274780039316c1541d1a7e8d9ae76283bcd7e0e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkMtLw0AQhxdRbK1ePUqOXlL3ld3sUYovqAi1epNls5nULXnU7Abpf29Cq3gRPA0zfPNj5kPonOApwUly5WOMGY8JU2kikwM0JpypmCnBD9EYE0ljLigdoRPv1xgTrgg7RiOaSIyxkmP0NmvqVdtBHaJXU7rchW1k6jxaQOlM5sqhb4po-dlEjxBM1pTORs9bH6DyURiGxnct9LwPrl79ghYmwCk6Kkzp4WxfJ-jl9mY5u4_nT3cPs-t5bJkQIabMWswsM0xgpWxOE8JzhrOCSi7T_kHFiLAk4SQnRkKaKwNS0JRlNpeAgU3Q5S530zYfXX-Krpy3UJamhqbzmgjFlRQsIf9ApUxTKnuPEzTdobZtvG-h0JvWVabdaoL1YF97PdjXe_v9wsU-u8sqyH_wb909EO-A8O6gAr1uurbuxfwV-AWRZYyP</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1677882714</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Congruent Validity and Reliability of Two Metabolic Systems to Measure Resting Metabolic Rate</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Thieme Connect Journals</source><creator>Welch, W. A. ; Strath, S. J. ; Swartz, A. M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Welch, W. A. ; Strath, S. J. ; Swartz, A. M.</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0172-4622</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1439-3964</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1398575</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25700097</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Stuttgart · New York: Georg Thieme Verlag KG</publisher><subject>Adult ; Basal Metabolism ; Calorimetry, Indirect - methods ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Nutrition ; Oxygen Consumption ; Reproducibility of Results ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>International journal of sports medicine, 2015-05, Vol.36 (5), p.414-418</ispartof><rights>Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c366t-23cc03c3a36099cd2514d30bf274780039316c1541d1a7e8d9ae76283bcd7e0e3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.thieme-connect.de/products/ejournals/pdf/10.1055/s-0034-1398575.pdf$$EPDF$$P50$$Gthieme$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.thieme-connect.de/products/ejournals/html/10.1055/s-0034-1398575$$EHTML$$P50$$Gthieme$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3017,3018,27924,27925,54559,54560</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25700097$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Welch, W. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Strath, S. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Swartz, A. M.</creatorcontrib><title>Congruent Validity and Reliability of Two Metabolic Systems to Measure Resting Metabolic Rate</title><title>International journal of sports medicine</title><addtitle>Int J Sports Med</addtitle><description>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.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Basal Metabolism</subject><subject>Calorimetry, Indirect - methods</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Nutrition</subject><subject>Oxygen Consumption</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>0172-4622</issn><issn>1439-3964</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkMtLw0AQhxdRbK1ePUqOXlL3ld3sUYovqAi1epNls5nULXnU7Abpf29Cq3gRPA0zfPNj5kPonOApwUly5WOMGY8JU2kikwM0JpypmCnBD9EYE0ljLigdoRPv1xgTrgg7RiOaSIyxkmP0NmvqVdtBHaJXU7rchW1k6jxaQOlM5sqhb4po-dlEjxBM1pTORs9bH6DyURiGxnct9LwPrl79ghYmwCk6Kkzp4WxfJ-jl9mY5u4_nT3cPs-t5bJkQIabMWswsM0xgpWxOE8JzhrOCSi7T_kHFiLAk4SQnRkKaKwNS0JRlNpeAgU3Q5S530zYfXX-Krpy3UJamhqbzmgjFlRQsIf9ApUxTKnuPEzTdobZtvG-h0JvWVabdaoL1YF97PdjXe_v9wsU-u8sqyH_wb909EO-A8O6gAr1uurbuxfwV-AWRZYyP</recordid><startdate>20150501</startdate><enddate>20150501</enddate><creator>Welch, W. A.</creator><creator>Strath, S. J.</creator><creator>Swartz, A. M.</creator><general>Georg Thieme Verlag KG</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7TS</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150501</creationdate><title>Congruent Validity and Reliability of Two Metabolic Systems to Measure Resting Metabolic Rate</title><author>Welch, W. A. ; Strath, S. J. ; Swartz, A. M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c366t-23cc03c3a36099cd2514d30bf274780039316c1541d1a7e8d9ae76283bcd7e0e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Basal Metabolism</topic><topic>Calorimetry, Indirect - methods</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Nutrition</topic><topic>Oxygen Consumption</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Welch, W. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Strath, S. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Swartz, A. M.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Physical Education Index</collection><jtitle>International journal of sports medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Welch, W. A.</au><au>Strath, S. J.</au><au>Swartz, A. M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Congruent Validity and Reliability of Two Metabolic Systems to Measure Resting Metabolic Rate</atitle><jtitle>International journal of sports medicine</jtitle><addtitle>Int J Sports Med</addtitle><date>2015-05-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>36</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>414</spage><epage>418</epage><pages>414-418</pages><issn>0172-4622</issn><eissn>1439-3964</eissn><abstract>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.</abstract><cop>Stuttgart · New York</cop><pub>Georg Thieme Verlag KG</pub><pmid>25700097</pmid><doi>10.1055/s-0034-1398575</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0172-4622 |
| ispartof | International journal of sports medicine, 2015-05, Vol.36 (5), p.414-418 |
| issn | 0172-4622 1439-3964 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1694976351 |
| source | MEDLINE; Thieme Connect Journals |
| subjects | Adult Basal Metabolism Calorimetry, Indirect - methods Female Humans Male Nutrition Oxygen Consumption Reproducibility of Results Young Adult |
| title | Congruent Validity and Reliability of Two Metabolic Systems to Measure Resting Metabolic Rate |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T01%3A14%3A16IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Congruent%20Validity%20and%20Reliability%20of%20Two%20Metabolic%20Systems%20to%20Measure%20Resting%20Metabolic%20Rate&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20sports%20medicine&rft.au=Welch,%20W.%20A.&rft.date=2015-05-01&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=414&rft.epage=418&rft.pages=414-418&rft.issn=0172-4622&rft.eissn=1439-3964&rft_id=info:doi/10.1055/s-0034-1398575&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1677882714%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1677882714&rft_id=info:pmid/25700097&rfr_iscdi=true |