Segal K R
Am J Clin Nutr. 1987 Jun;45(6):1420-3. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/45.6.1420.
This study compared three techniques for indirect calorimetric measurement of resting energy expenditure: ventilated canopy, face mask, mouthpiece plus noseclips. A total of 18 healthy men and women underwent all three measurement techniques in three consecutive 20-min measurement periods in a Latin square design. No significant effects were found for either period or method with respect to oxygen consumption, respiratory exchange ratio, and caloric expenditure. Oxygen consumption was (mean +/- SD) 250 +/- 45, 251 +/- 47, and 254 +/- 49 mL/min for hood, mask, and mouthpiece, respectively (ns). The respiratory exchange ratio was lower for the hood (0.809 +/- 0.051) than mask (0.837 +/- 0.043) and mouthpiece (0.847 +/- 0.045) but this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.07). Calculated caloric expenditure was 1.20 +/- 0.22, 1.21 +/- 0.22, and 1.23 +/- 0.23 kcal/min for hood, mask, and mouthpiece, respectively (ns). Thus, in healthy individuals similar results are obtained by the three methods and the face mask and mouthpiece are acceptable alternatives to the ventilated hood for estimation of resting energy expenditure.
通风面罩法、面罩法、口器加鼻夹法。18名健康男性和女性按照拉丁方设计，在三个连续的20分钟测量时段内接受了所有三种测量技术。在氧耗量、呼吸交换率和热量消耗方面，无论是时段还是方法，均未发现显著影响。通风面罩法、面罩法和口器法的氧耗量分别为（均值±标准差）250±45、251±47和254±49毫升/分钟（无显著差异）。通风面罩法的呼吸交换率（0.809±0.051）低于面罩法（0.837±0.043）和口器法（0.847±0.045），但这种差异无统计学意义（p = 0.07）。通风面罩法、面罩法和口器法计算出的热量消耗分别为1.20±0.22、1.21±0.22和1.23±0.23千卡/分钟（无显著差异）。因此，对于健康个体，三种方法可获得相似结果，且面罩法和口器法是用于估算静息能量消耗的通风面罩法的可接受替代方法。
