Roffey Darren M, Byrne Nuala M, Hills Andrew P
School of Human Movement Studies, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2006 Sep-Oct;30(5):426-32. doi: 10.1177/0148607106030005426.
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.
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.
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.
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.
为了确定在一项干预过程中观察到的静息代谢率(RMR)变化幅度是否有意义,首先必须确定个体在正常情况下每日的变异性。用于测量RMR的两种最常见系统包括通风面罩或口嘴及鼻夹来收集呼出气体。尚未对使用这两种方法进行测量的差异进行系统比较。
在2周内的5次单独测试中,对10名健康成年人的RMR进行测量,在此期间保持正常饮食和身体活动。每次测试包括使用通风面罩系统测量一次RMR,然后使用口嘴及鼻夹系统进行另一次测量。
使用两种间接热量计进行测量时,RMR无明显差异。使用口嘴及鼻夹系统时,耗氧量和RMR显著更高。通风面罩系统的RMR个体内平均变异系数显著更低。使用通风面罩系统时,RMR测量值始终较低,平均低94.5±63.3千卡。两种系统的每日方差均在2%至4%之间。
在临床和研究环境中,使用任何一种系统都适合评估RMR,但在两种系统之间交替使用时应谨慎。当分别使用通风面罩系统或口嘴及鼻夹系统时,RMR的变化必须分别大于约6%(96千卡/天;1.2千卡/千克/天)或约8%(135千卡/天;1.7千卡/千克/天),才能观察到个体内任何有意义的与干预相关的差异。