...
首页> 外文期刊>JPEN. Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition. >Day-to-day variance in measurement of resting metabolic rate using ventilated-hood and mouthpiece & nose-clip indirect calorimetry systems.
【24h】

Day-to-day variance in measurement of resting metabolic rate using ventilated-hood and mouthpiece & nose-clip indirect calorimetry systems.

机译:使用通风罩,吹口和鼻夹间接量热法测量静息代谢率的每日差异。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND: To know if the magnitude of change in resting metabolic rate (RMR) observed during an intervention is meaningful, it is imperative to first identify the variability that occurs within individuals from day to day under normal conditions. The 2 most common systems used to measure RMR involve a ventilated hood or a mouthpiece & nose clip to collect expired gases. The variation in measurement using these 2 approaches has not been systematically compared. METHODS: RMR was measured in 10 healthy adults during 5 separate testing sessions within a 2-week period where usual diet and physical activity were maintained. Each testing session consisted of one measurement of RMR using a ventilated hood system, followed by another using a mouthpiece & nose-clip system. RESULTS: No significant difference in RMR was evident between measurement sessions using either indirect calorimeter. Oxygen consumption and RMR were significantly higher using the mouthpiece & nose-clip system. Average within-individual coefficient of variation for RMR was significantly lower for the ventilated-hood system. RMR measures were consistently lower using the ventilated-hood system by an average of 94.5 +/- 63.3 kcal. Day-to-day variance was between 2% and 4% for both systems. CONCLUSIONS: The use of either system is appropriate for assessing RMR in clinical and research settings, but alternating between systems should be undertaken with caution. A change in RMR must be greater than approximately 6% (96 kcal/d; 1.2 kcal/kg/d) or approximately 8% (135 kcal/d; 1.7 kcal/kg/d) when using a ventilated-hood system or a mouthpiece & nose-clip system, respectively, to observe any meaningful intervention-related differences within individuals.
机译:背景:要了解干预期间观察到的静息代谢率(RMR)的变化幅度是否有意义,必须首先确定正常情况下个体内部每天发生的变化。用于测量RMR的两种最常见的系统包括通风罩或烟嘴和鼻夹,用于收集排出的气体。尚未系统比较使用这两种方法的测量差异。方法:在维持正常饮食和身体活动的2周时间内,在5个独立的测试阶段对10名健康成年人进行了RMR测量。每次测试包括使用通风罩系统对RMR进行一次测量,然后使用烟嘴和鼻夹系统进行另一次测量。结果:使用间接量热仪的两次测量之间,RMR没有明显差异。使用吹口和鼻夹系统时,氧气消耗和RMR明显更高。对于通风橱系统,RMR的平均个体内变异系数显着较低。使用通风橱系统,RMR值始终较低,平均为94.5 +/- 63.3 kcal。两个系统的日常差异在2%和4%之间。结论:使用这两种系统都适合在临床和研究环境中评估RMR,但应谨慎使用系统。使用通风橱系统或通风系统时,RMR的变化必须大于大约6%(96 kcal / d; 1.2 kcal / kg / d)或大约8%(135 kcal / d; 1.7 kcal / kg / d)。吹嘴和鼻夹系统,分别观察个体内部任何有意义的干预相关差异。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号