Brun T, Webb P, de Benoist B, Blackwell F
Hum Nutr Clin Nutr. 1985 Sep;39(5):321-34.
The results of measuring the 24-h energy expenditure by the diary-respirometer technique (factorial method) have been compared to those obtained by direct measurement of heat output and continuous recording of oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide production. Anthropometric and skinfold measurements were used to estimate lean body mass in eight male Asian subjects. They remained for 36 h in a metabolic chamber wearing a calorimeter suit. A ventilated hood and differential gas analysers were used to measure oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide production. While the subjects were sitting inactive, the KM respirometer indicated a mean energy expenditure which was significantly lower than with the calorimeter suit or with the ventilated hood. During exercise on an ergometer at 25 W and 75 W the respirometer gave readings of energy expenditure which were also significantly lower than either the ventilated hood or the calorimeter suit. The daily energy expenditure expressed in MJ for a standard body weight of 60 kg (MJ/60 kg) measured from the calorimeter suit was 9.79 MJ; from the ventilated hood, 9.51 MJ; from the diary-respirometer method, 8.30 MJ. The mean energy intake, measured for 10 consecutive d after the the subjects had left the metabolic room was 7.87 MJ, while during their stay in the metabolic room, their spontaneous intake was 7.74 MJ. The diary-respirometer technique tends to cumulate the errors from an incorrect time and motion recording and the potential lack of representativeness of the measurement of the energy cost of the activities. In the present study, it seems that the discrepancy observed between the results of the different methods can be attributed almost entirely to the underestimation of the energy cost of the activities by the respirometer. Contrary to our expectation the diary-respirometer technique does not seem to overestimate systematically the daily energy expenditure.
已将通过日记 - 呼吸计技术（析因法）测量24小时能量消耗的结果，与通过直接测量热量输出以及连续记录耗氧量和二氧化碳产生量所获得的结果进行了比较。采用人体测量和皮褶测量来估算8名亚洲男性受试者的瘦体重。他们穿着热量计套装在代谢室中停留36小时。使用通风面罩和差分气体分析仪来测量耗氧量和二氧化碳产生量。当受试者静息坐着时，KM呼吸计显示的平均能量消耗显著低于穿着热量计套装或使用通风面罩时的测量结果。在功率为25瓦和75瓦的测力计上进行运动期间，呼吸计给出的能量消耗读数也显著低于通风面罩或热量计套装的测量结果。对于标准体重6千克而言，通过热量计套装测得的每日能量消耗以兆焦耳表示为9.79兆焦耳；通过通风面罩测得为9.51兆焦耳；通过日记 - 呼吸计法测得为8.30兆焦耳。在受试者离开代谢室后连续10天测量的平均能量摄入量为7.87兆焦耳，而在他们停留于代谢室期间，其自发摄入量为7.74兆焦耳。日记 - 呼吸计技术往往会累积因时间和运动记录不正确以及活动能量消耗测量可能缺乏代表性而产生的误差。在本研究中，不同方法结果之间观察到的差异似乎几乎完全可归因于呼吸计对活动能量消耗的低估。与我们的预期相反，日记 - 呼吸计技术似乎并未系统性地高估每日能量消耗。
