Validity of a new portable indirect calorimeter: the AeroSport TEEM 100

S. Novitsky, K. R. Segal, B. Chatr-Aryamontri, D. Guvakov, V. L. Katch

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

58 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare oxygen uptake ((Formula presented.)) values collected with a new portable indirect calorimeter (AeroSport TEEM 100 Metabolic Analysis System) against a more traditional large calorimeter system that has been reported to be valid and reliable (SensorMedics 2900 Metabolic Measurement Cart). Minute ventilations ranging from rest up to heavy exercise were compared with simultaneous measurements from a 120-1 Tissot gasometer. Each of the three TEEM 100 pneumotachs were tested. Three hundred and sixty-one separate ventilation tests were performed using the low-flow, medium-flow, and high-flow heads of the portable calorimeter. For each of the pneumotachs, the correlation between the portable calorimeter values and the gasometer values exceeded r = 0.94. The standard error of estimate for the low-, medium- and high-flow pneumotach were 5.96, 4.89 and 9.0%, respectively, expressed relative to the mean gasometer value. Simultaneous measurements of(Formula presented.) using the portable calorimeter and the SensorMedics 2900 unit were compared during rest and at work rates starting at zero watts, increasing by 25 W to 150 W. Each work rate was of 4 min duration. The average of data from minutes 3 and 4 were used in all analyses. There was very close agreement between the two metabolic measurement systems. Except at the 100-W work rate, where the(Formula presented.) difference was small (3.9%), yet statistically significant, all of the other differences in(Formula presented.) were small and non-significant. The scatter plot of(Formula presented.) for the SensorMedics versus the portable Aero-Sport calorimeter revealed close agreement; the correlation was r = 0.96, (SEE = 3.95%). It was concluded that the AeroSport TEEM 100 portable calorimeter system produces valid data at rest and at low to moderate work rates compared to a criterion, large system.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)462-467
Number of pages6
JournalEuropean Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology
Volume70
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1995

Fingerprint

Pulmonary Ventilation
Sports
Ventilation
Head
Oxygen

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Physiology
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Novitsky, S. ; Segal, K. R. ; Chatr-Aryamontri, B. ; Guvakov, D. ; Katch, V. L. / Validity of a new portable indirect calorimeter : the AeroSport TEEM 100. In: European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology. 1995 ; Vol. 70, No. 5. pp. 462-467.
@article{d9e5e09a00d4486db1830357b558e923,
title = "Validity of a new portable indirect calorimeter: the AeroSport TEEM 100",
abstract = "The purpose of this study was to compare oxygen uptake ((Formula presented.)) values collected with a new portable indirect calorimeter (AeroSport TEEM 100 Metabolic Analysis System) against a more traditional large calorimeter system that has been reported to be valid and reliable (SensorMedics 2900 Metabolic Measurement Cart). Minute ventilations ranging from rest up to heavy exercise were compared with simultaneous measurements from a 120-1 Tissot gasometer. Each of the three TEEM 100 pneumotachs were tested. Three hundred and sixty-one separate ventilation tests were performed using the low-flow, medium-flow, and high-flow heads of the portable calorimeter. For each of the pneumotachs, the correlation between the portable calorimeter values and the gasometer values exceeded r = 0.94. The standard error of estimate for the low-, medium- and high-flow pneumotach were 5.96, 4.89 and 9.0{\%}, respectively, expressed relative to the mean gasometer value. Simultaneous measurements of(Formula presented.) using the portable calorimeter and the SensorMedics 2900 unit were compared during rest and at work rates starting at zero watts, increasing by 25 W to 150 W. Each work rate was of 4 min duration. The average of data from minutes 3 and 4 were used in all analyses. There was very close agreement between the two metabolic measurement systems. Except at the 100-W work rate, where the(Formula presented.) difference was small (3.9{\%}), yet statistically significant, all of the other differences in(Formula presented.) were small and non-significant. The scatter plot of(Formula presented.) for the SensorMedics versus the portable Aero-Sport calorimeter revealed close agreement; the correlation was r = 0.96, (SEE = 3.95{\%}). It was concluded that the AeroSport TEEM 100 portable calorimeter system produces valid data at rest and at low to moderate work rates compared to a criterion, large system.",
author = "S. Novitsky and Segal, {K. R.} and B. Chatr-Aryamontri and D. Guvakov and Katch, {V. L.}",
year = "1995",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1007/BF00618499",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "70",
pages = "462--467",
journal = "European Journal of Applied Physiology",
issn = "1439-6319",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "5",

}

Validity of a new portable indirect calorimeter : the AeroSport TEEM 100. / Novitsky, S.; Segal, K. R.; Chatr-Aryamontri, B.; Guvakov, D.; Katch, V. L.

In: European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, Vol. 70, No. 5, 09.1995, p. 462-467.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Validity of a new portable indirect calorimeter

T2 - the AeroSport TEEM 100

AU - Novitsky, S.

AU - Segal, K. R.

AU - Chatr-Aryamontri, B.

AU - Guvakov, D.

AU - Katch, V. L.

PY - 1995/9

Y1 - 1995/9

N2 - The purpose of this study was to compare oxygen uptake ((Formula presented.)) values collected with a new portable indirect calorimeter (AeroSport TEEM 100 Metabolic Analysis System) against a more traditional large calorimeter system that has been reported to be valid and reliable (SensorMedics 2900 Metabolic Measurement Cart). Minute ventilations ranging from rest up to heavy exercise were compared with simultaneous measurements from a 120-1 Tissot gasometer. Each of the three TEEM 100 pneumotachs were tested. Three hundred and sixty-one separate ventilation tests were performed using the low-flow, medium-flow, and high-flow heads of the portable calorimeter. For each of the pneumotachs, the correlation between the portable calorimeter values and the gasometer values exceeded r = 0.94. The standard error of estimate for the low-, medium- and high-flow pneumotach were 5.96, 4.89 and 9.0%, respectively, expressed relative to the mean gasometer value. Simultaneous measurements of(Formula presented.) using the portable calorimeter and the SensorMedics 2900 unit were compared during rest and at work rates starting at zero watts, increasing by 25 W to 150 W. Each work rate was of 4 min duration. The average of data from minutes 3 and 4 were used in all analyses. There was very close agreement between the two metabolic measurement systems. Except at the 100-W work rate, where the(Formula presented.) difference was small (3.9%), yet statistically significant, all of the other differences in(Formula presented.) were small and non-significant. The scatter plot of(Formula presented.) for the SensorMedics versus the portable Aero-Sport calorimeter revealed close agreement; the correlation was r = 0.96, (SEE = 3.95%). It was concluded that the AeroSport TEEM 100 portable calorimeter system produces valid data at rest and at low to moderate work rates compared to a criterion, large system.

AB - The purpose of this study was to compare oxygen uptake ((Formula presented.)) values collected with a new portable indirect calorimeter (AeroSport TEEM 100 Metabolic Analysis System) against a more traditional large calorimeter system that has been reported to be valid and reliable (SensorMedics 2900 Metabolic Measurement Cart). Minute ventilations ranging from rest up to heavy exercise were compared with simultaneous measurements from a 120-1 Tissot gasometer. Each of the three TEEM 100 pneumotachs were tested. Three hundred and sixty-one separate ventilation tests were performed using the low-flow, medium-flow, and high-flow heads of the portable calorimeter. For each of the pneumotachs, the correlation between the portable calorimeter values and the gasometer values exceeded r = 0.94. The standard error of estimate for the low-, medium- and high-flow pneumotach were 5.96, 4.89 and 9.0%, respectively, expressed relative to the mean gasometer value. Simultaneous measurements of(Formula presented.) using the portable calorimeter and the SensorMedics 2900 unit were compared during rest and at work rates starting at zero watts, increasing by 25 W to 150 W. Each work rate was of 4 min duration. The average of data from minutes 3 and 4 were used in all analyses. There was very close agreement between the two metabolic measurement systems. Except at the 100-W work rate, where the(Formula presented.) difference was small (3.9%), yet statistically significant, all of the other differences in(Formula presented.) were small and non-significant. The scatter plot of(Formula presented.) for the SensorMedics versus the portable Aero-Sport calorimeter revealed close agreement; the correlation was r = 0.96, (SEE = 3.95%). It was concluded that the AeroSport TEEM 100 portable calorimeter system produces valid data at rest and at low to moderate work rates compared to a criterion, large system.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0029079286&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0029079286&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/BF00618499

DO - 10.1007/BF00618499

M3 - Article

C2 - 7671883

AN - SCOPUS:0029079286

VL - 70

SP - 462

EP - 467

JO - European Journal of Applied Physiology

JF - European Journal of Applied Physiology

SN - 1439-6319

IS - 5

ER -