The use of a portable metabolic monitoring device for measuring resting metabolic rate in healthy adults

Suey S.Y. Yeung, Marijke C. Trappenburg, Carel G.M. Meskers, Andrea B. Maier*, Esmee M. Reijnierse

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Objective measurement of RMR may be important for optimal nutritional care but is hindered by the price and practicality of the metabolic monitoring device. This study compared two metabolic monitoring devices for measuring RMR and VO2 and compared the measured RMR with the predicted RMR calculated from equations. RMR was measured using QUARK RMR (reference device) and Fitmate GS (COSMED) in a random order for 30 min, each on fasted participants. In total, sixty-eight adults participated (median age 22 years, interquartile range 21-32). Pearson correlation showed that RMR (r 0·86) and VO2 (r 0·86) were highly correlated between the two devices (P < 0·05). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) showed good relative agreements regarding RMR (ICC = 0·84) and VO2 (ICC = 0·84) (P < 0·05). RMR measured by QUARK RMR was significantly higher (649 (sd 753) kJ/d) than Fitmate GS. Equations significantly overpredicted RMR. Accurate RMR (i.e. within ±10 % of the RMR measured by QUARK RMR) was found among 38 % of the participants for Fitmate GS and among 46-68 % depending on the equations. Bland-Altman analysis showed a low absolute agreement with QUARK RMR at an individual level for both Fitmate GS (limits of agreement (LOA): -828 to +2125 kJ/d) and equations (LOA ranged from -1979 to +1879 kJ/d). In conclusion, both Fitmate GS and predictive equations had low absolute agreements with QUARK RMR at an individual level. Therefore, these limitations should be considered when determining RMR using Fitmate GS or equations.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1229-1240
Number of pages12
JournalBritish Journal of Nutrition
Volume124
Issue number11
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 14 Dec 2020

Cite this