J M A Alcantara1, J E Galgani2, L Jurado-Fasoli3, M Dote-Montero3, E Merchan-Ramirez3, E Ravussin4, J R Ruiz5, G Sanchez-Delgado6. 1. PROFITH "PROmoting FITness and Health Through Physical Activity" Research Group, Sport and Health University Research Institute (iMUDS), Department of Physical and Sports Education, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Granada, 18011 Granada, Spain. Electronic address: alcantarajma@ugr.es. 2. Department of Health Sciences, Nutrition and Dietetics Career, Faculty of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile; Department of Nutrition, Diabetes and Metabolism, Faculty of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile. 3. PROFITH "PROmoting FITness and Health Through Physical Activity" Research Group, Sport and Health University Research Institute (iMUDS), Department of Physical and Sports Education, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Granada, 18011 Granada, Spain. 4. Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70808, USA. 5. PROFITH "PROmoting FITness and Health Through Physical Activity" Research Group, Sport and Health University Research Institute (iMUDS), Department of Physical and Sports Education, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Granada, 18011 Granada, Spain; Instituto de Investigación Biosanitaria, ibs.Granada, Granada, Spain. 6. PROFITH "PROmoting FITness and Health Through Physical Activity" Research Group, Sport and Health University Research Institute (iMUDS), Department of Physical and Sports Education, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Granada, 18011 Granada, Spain; Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70808, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: The validity of most commercially available metabolic cart is mostly unknown. Thus, we aimed to determine the accuracy, precision, within-subject reproducibility, and concordance of RMR and RER measured by four commercially available metabolic carts [Cosmed Q-NRG, Vyaire Vyntus CPX, Maastricht Instruments Omnical, and Medgraphics Ultima CardiO2]. Further, we studied whether a previously proposed simulation-based post-calorimetric calibration of cart readouts [individual calibration control evaluation (ICcE)] modify the RMR and RER reproducibility and concordance. METHODS: Three experiments simulating different RMR and RER by controlled pure gas (N2 and CO2) infusions were conducted on 5 non-consecutive days. Moreover, 30-min methanol burns were performed on 3 non-consecutive days. Lastly, the RMR and RER of 29 young non-ventilated adults (11 women; 25 ± 4 years-old; BMI: 24.1 ± 3.2 kg/m2) were assessed twice using each instrument, 24 hours apart, under standardized conditions. RESULTS: The Omnical presented the lowest measurement error for RER (Omnical = 1.7 ± 0.9%; Vyntus = 4.5 ± 2.0%; Q-NRG = 6.6 ± 1.9%; Ultima = 6.8 ± 6.5%) and EE (Omnical = 1.5 ± 0.5%; Q-NRG = 2.5 ± 1.3%; Ultima = 10.7 ± 11.0%; Vyntus = 13.8 ± 5.0%) in all in vitro experiments (controlled pure gas infusions and methanol burns). In humans, the 4 metabolic carts provided discordant RMR and RER estimations (all P < 0.001). No differences were detected in RMR within-subject reproducibility (P = 0.058; Q-NRG inter-day coefficient of variance = 3.6 ± 2.5%; Omnical = 4.8 ± 3.5%; Vyntus = 5.0 ± 5.6%; Ultima = 5.7 ± 4.6%), although the Ultima CardiO2 provided larger RER inter-day differences (4.6 ± 3.5%) than the others carts (P = 0.001; Omnical = 1.9 ± 1.7%; Vyntus = 2.1 ± 1.3%; Q-NRG = 2.4 ± 2.1%). The ICcE procedure did not modify the RMR or RER concordance and did not reduce the inter-day differences in any of the carts. CONCLUSIONS: The 4 metabolic carts provided discordant measurements of RMR and RER. Overall, the Omnical provides more accurate and precise estimations of RMR and RER than the Q-NRG, Vyntus and Ultima CardiO2, and might be considered the best for assessing RMR and RER in non-ventilated humans. Finally, our results do not support the use of an ICcE procedure.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: The validity of most commercially available metabolic cart is mostly unknown. Thus, we aimed to determine the accuracy, precision, within-subject reproducibility, and concordance of RMR and RER measured by four commercially available metabolic carts [Cosmed Q-NRG, Vyaire Vyntus CPX, Maastricht Instruments Omnical, and Medgraphics Ultima CardiO2]. Further, we studied whether a previously proposed simulation-based post-calorimetric calibration of cart readouts [individual calibration control evaluation (ICcE)] modify the RMR and RER reproducibility and concordance. METHODS: Three experiments simulating different RMR and RER by controlled pure gas (N2 and CO2) infusions were conducted on 5 non-consecutive days. Moreover, 30-min methanol burns were performed on 3 non-consecutive days. Lastly, the RMR and RER of 29 young non-ventilated adults (11 women; 25 ± 4 years-old; BMI: 24.1 ± 3.2 kg/m2) were assessed twice using each instrument, 24 hours apart, under standardized conditions. RESULTS: The Omnical presented the lowest measurement error for RER (Omnical = 1.7 ± 0.9%; Vyntus = 4.5 ± 2.0%; Q-NRG = 6.6 ± 1.9%; Ultima = 6.8 ± 6.5%) and EE (Omnical = 1.5 ± 0.5%; Q-NRG = 2.5 ± 1.3%; Ultima = 10.7 ± 11.0%; Vyntus = 13.8 ± 5.0%) in all in vitro experiments (controlled pure gas infusions and methanol burns). In humans, the 4 metabolic carts provided discordant RMR and RER estimations (all P < 0.001). No differences were detected in RMR within-subject reproducibility (P = 0.058; Q-NRG inter-day coefficient of variance = 3.6 ± 2.5%; Omnical = 4.8 ± 3.5%; Vyntus = 5.0 ± 5.6%; Ultima = 5.7 ± 4.6%), although the Ultima CardiO2 provided larger RER inter-day differences (4.6 ± 3.5%) than the others carts (P = 0.001; Omnical = 1.9 ± 1.7%; Vyntus = 2.1 ± 1.3%; Q-NRG = 2.4 ± 2.1%). The ICcE procedure did not modify the RMR or RER concordance and did not reduce the inter-day differences in any of the carts. CONCLUSIONS: The 4 metabolic carts provided discordant measurements of RMR and RER. Overall, the Omnical provides more accurate and precise estimations of RMR and RER than the Q-NRG, Vyntus and Ultima CardiO2, and might be considered the best for assessing RMR and RER in non-ventilated humans. Finally, our results do not support the use of an ICcE procedure.
Authors: Juan M A Alcantara; Guillermo Sanchez-Delgado; Lucas Jurado-Fasoli; Jose E Galgani; Idoia Labayen; Jonatan R Ruiz Journal: Eur J Nutr Date: 2022-08-25 Impact factor: 4.865
Authors: Adam van Casteren; Jonathan R Codd; Kornelius Kupczik; Guy Plasqui; William I Sellers; Amanda G Henry Journal: Sci Adv Date: 2022-08-17 Impact factor: 14.957