Accessibility navigation


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. and Clegg, M. E. (2014) Comparison of the GEM and the ECAL indirect calorimeters against the Deltatrac for measures of RMR and diet-induced thermogenesis. Journal of Nutritional Science, 3. e52. ISSN 2048-6790

[img]
Preview
Text (Open Access) - Published Version
· Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
· Please see our End User Agreement before downloading.

802kB
[img] Text - Accepted Version
· Restricted to Repository staff only

405kB

It is advisable to refer to the publisher's version if you intend to cite from this work. See Guidance on citing.

To link to this item DOI: 10.1017/jns.2014.58

Abstract/Summary

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 VO2, VCO2, RMR and fat oxidation (P < 0.005). The ECAL was significantly higher than the Deltatrac for measures of VO2, 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.

Item Type:Article
Refereed:Yes
Divisions:Faculty of Life Sciences > School of Chemistry, Food and Pharmacy > Department of Food and Nutritional Sciences > Human Nutrition Research Group
ID Code:80394
Publisher:Cambridge University Press

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

University Staff: Request a correction | Centaur Editors: Update this record

Page navigation