J L Miles-Chan1, D Sarafian2, J P Montani2, Y Schutz2, A G Dulloo3. 1. Department of Medicine/Physiology, University of Fribourg, Chemin du Musée 5, CH-1700 Fribourg, Switzerland. Electronic address: jenniferlynn.miles@unifr.ch. 2. Department of Medicine/Physiology, University of Fribourg, Chemin du Musée 5, CH-1700 Fribourg, Switzerland. 3. Department of Medicine/Physiology, University of Fribourg, Chemin du Musée 5, CH-1700 Fribourg, Switzerland. Electronic address: abdul.dulloo@unifr.ch.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Energy expenditure (EE) during sitting is widely assumed to be higher than that while lying down, but supporting evidence is equivocal. Despite this, resting EE in the sitting position is often used as a proxy for basal metabolic rate. Here we investigate whether EE differs in the comfortable seated position compared to supine (lying) position. METHODS: EE and respiratory quotient (RQ) were measured (by ventilated hood indirect calorimetry) in 19 healthy subjects (9 men, 10 women) after an overnight fast. Supine measurements were made using a comfortable clinical tilting table and sitting measurements made using an adjustable, ergonomic car seat adapted for the hood system. After about 30 min of rest in either position, metabolic monitoring was conducted until stabilization of EE for at least 15 min in each posture. RESULTS: EE in the sitting position was not significantly different compared to supine (<2% difference). By contrast, heart rate was higher by 7 beats/min (p < 0.05). RQ was slightly but significantly decreased during sitting compared to lying (p < 0.05), with no change in breathing rate. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the ventilated hood calorimetry system for assessment of REE after an overnight fast in a comfortable sitting position can be used as a good proxy of the basal metabolic rate. It also underscores the applicability of the ventilated hood system to measurements of resting EE in the sitting posture which, compared to supine posture, may be more acceptable/convenient to the subject/patient participating in postprandial metabolic studies lasting several hours.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Energy expenditure (EE) during sitting is widely assumed to be higher than that while lying down, but supporting evidence is equivocal. Despite this, resting EE in the sitting position is often used as a proxy for basal metabolic rate. Here we investigate whether EE differs in the comfortable seated position compared to supine (lying) position. METHODS: EE and respiratory quotient (RQ) were measured (by ventilated hood indirect calorimetry) in 19 healthy subjects (9 men, 10 women) after an overnight fast. Supine measurements were made using a comfortable clinical tilting table and sitting measurements made using an adjustable, ergonomic car seat adapted for the hood system. After about 30 min of rest in either position, metabolic monitoring was conducted until stabilization of EE for at least 15 min in each posture. RESULTS: EE in the sitting position was not significantly different compared to supine (<2% difference). By contrast, heart rate was higher by 7 beats/min (p < 0.05). RQ was slightly but significantly decreased during sitting compared to lying (p < 0.05), with no change in breathing rate. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the ventilated hood calorimetry system for assessment of REE after an overnight fast in a comfortable sitting position can be used as a good proxy of the basal metabolic rate. It also underscores the applicability of the ventilated hood system to measurements of resting EE in the sitting posture which, compared to supine posture, may be more acceptable/convenient to the subject/patient participating in postprandial metabolic studies lasting several hours.
Authors: Bart Dekker; Olaf Verschuren; Astrid C J Balemans; Nadia Baart; Frank Tubbing; Casper F van Koppenhagen; Marcel W M Post Journal: Spinal Cord Date: 2018-06-28 Impact factor: 2.772
Authors: Jennifer Koch; Jan Flemming; Thomas Zeffiro; Michael Rufer; Scott P Orr; Christoph Mueller-Pfeiffer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-09-01 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Francisco J Amaro-Gahete; Guillermo Sanchez-Delgado; Juan M A Alcantara; Borja Martinez-Tellez; Francisco M Acosta; Elisa Merchan-Ramirez; Marie Löf; Idoia Labayen; Jonatan R Ruiz Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-06-12 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Ernest O Asante; Yi-Qian Sun; Tom Ivar Lund Nilsen; Bjørn Olav Åsvold; Elin Pettersen Sørgjerd; Xiao-Mei Mai Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-03-25 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Simon Baldwin; Craig Bennell; Brittany Blaskovits; Andrew Brown; Bryce Jenkins; Chris Lawrence; Heather McGale; Tori Semple; Judith P Andersen Journal: Front Psychol Date: 2022-01-17