Cargando…

Comparison of the GEM and the ECAL indirect calorimeters against the Deltatrac for measures of RMR and diet-induced thermogenesis

The Deltatrac™ II Metabolic Monitor (Datex-Ohmeda Inc.) is considered the standard reference machine in indirect calorimetry; however, it is no longer commercially available thus there is a need for new machines. The gas exchange measurement (GEM; GEM Nutrition Ltd) and the ECAL (Health Professional...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kennedy, S., Ryan, L., Fraser, A., Clegg, M. E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cambridge University Press 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4473179/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26101620
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/jns.2014.58
_version_ 1782377202407440384
author Kennedy, S.
Ryan, L.
Fraser, A.
Clegg, M. E.
author_facet Kennedy, S.
Ryan, L.
Fraser, A.
Clegg, M. E.
author_sort Kennedy, S.
collection PubMed
description The Deltatrac™ II Metabolic Monitor (Datex-Ohmeda Inc.) is considered the standard reference machine in indirect calorimetry; however, it is no longer commercially available thus there is a need for new machines. The gas exchange measurement (GEM; GEM Nutrition Ltd) and the ECAL (Health Professional Solutions) are alternative measuring systems. The aim of this study was to compare the ECAL and GEM with Deltatrac for measures of RMR and the GEM to the Deltatrac for measures of diet-induced thermogenesis (DIT). Twenty healthy participants were tested on test day 1 (T1) and test day 2 (T2). RMR was measured in a randomised order for 30 min on the Deltatrac, the GEM and the ECAL. Following this, a 1553 kJ meal was consumed and DIT was measured on the Deltatrac and the GEM in alternating 15 min intervals for 4 h. The GEM reported consistently higher values than the Deltatrac for V(O2), V(CO2), RMR and fat oxidation (P < 0·005). The ECAL was significantly higher than the Deltatrac for measures of VO(2), RMR, carbohydrate oxidation (T2) and respiratory quotient and fat oxidation (T1, T2) (P < 0·05). There were no significant differences within repeated RMR measures on the ECAL, the GEM or the Deltatrac. DIT measures were consistently higher on the GEM (T1) (P < 0·005); however, there were no significant differences between repeated measures. The findings suggest that while the GEM and the ECAL were not accurate alternatives to the Deltatrac, they may be reliable for repeated measures.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4473179
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Cambridge University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44731792015-06-22 Comparison of the GEM and the ECAL indirect calorimeters against the Deltatrac for measures of RMR and diet-induced thermogenesis Kennedy, S. Ryan, L. Fraser, A. Clegg, M. E. J Nutr Sci Innovative Techniques The Deltatrac™ II Metabolic Monitor (Datex-Ohmeda Inc.) is considered the standard reference machine in indirect calorimetry; however, it is no longer commercially available thus there is a need for new machines. The gas exchange measurement (GEM; GEM Nutrition Ltd) and the ECAL (Health Professional Solutions) are alternative measuring systems. The aim of this study was to compare the ECAL and GEM with Deltatrac for measures of RMR and the GEM to the Deltatrac for measures of diet-induced thermogenesis (DIT). Twenty healthy participants were tested on test day 1 (T1) and test day 2 (T2). RMR was measured in a randomised order for 30 min on the Deltatrac, the GEM and the ECAL. Following this, a 1553 kJ meal was consumed and DIT was measured on the Deltatrac and the GEM in alternating 15 min intervals for 4 h. The GEM reported consistently higher values than the Deltatrac for V(O2), V(CO2), RMR and fat oxidation (P < 0·005). The ECAL was significantly higher than the Deltatrac for measures of VO(2), RMR, carbohydrate oxidation (T2) and respiratory quotient and fat oxidation (T1, T2) (P < 0·05). There were no significant differences within repeated RMR measures on the ECAL, the GEM or the Deltatrac. DIT measures were consistently higher on the GEM (T1) (P < 0·005); however, there were no significant differences between repeated measures. The findings suggest that while the GEM and the ECAL were not accurate alternatives to the Deltatrac, they may be reliable for repeated measures. Cambridge University Press 2014-11-07 /pmc/articles/PMC4473179/ /pubmed/26101620 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/jns.2014.58 Text en © The Author(s) 2014 The online version of this article is published within an Open Access environment subject to the conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/.
spellingShingle Innovative Techniques
Kennedy, S.
Ryan, L.
Fraser, A.
Clegg, M. E.
Comparison of the GEM and the ECAL indirect calorimeters against the Deltatrac for measures of RMR and diet-induced thermogenesis
title Comparison of the GEM and the ECAL indirect calorimeters against the Deltatrac for measures of RMR and diet-induced thermogenesis
title_full Comparison of the GEM and the ECAL indirect calorimeters against the Deltatrac for measures of RMR and diet-induced thermogenesis
title_fullStr Comparison of the GEM and the ECAL indirect calorimeters against the Deltatrac for measures of RMR and diet-induced thermogenesis
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the GEM and the ECAL indirect calorimeters against the Deltatrac for measures of RMR and diet-induced thermogenesis
title_short Comparison of the GEM and the ECAL indirect calorimeters against the Deltatrac for measures of RMR and diet-induced thermogenesis
title_sort comparison of the gem and the ecal indirect calorimeters against the deltatrac for measures of rmr and diet-induced thermogenesis
topic Innovative Techniques
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4473179/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26101620
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/jns.2014.58
work_keys_str_mv AT kennedys comparisonofthegemandtheecalindirectcalorimetersagainstthedeltatracformeasuresofrmranddietinducedthermogenesis
AT ryanl comparisonofthegemandtheecalindirectcalorimetersagainstthedeltatracformeasuresofrmranddietinducedthermogenesis
AT frasera comparisonofthegemandtheecalindirectcalorimetersagainstthedeltatracformeasuresofrmranddietinducedthermogenesis
AT cleggme comparisonofthegemandtheecalindirectcalorimetersagainstthedeltatracformeasuresofrmranddietinducedthermogenesis