Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
MS Sioson, R Martindale, A Abayadeera, N Abouchaleh, D Aditianingsih, R Bhurayanontachai, WC Chiou, N Higashibeppu, MB Mat Nor, E Osland, JE Palo, N Ramakrishnan, M Shalabi, LN Tam, JJ Ern Tan (2018)
Nutrition therapy for critically ill patients across the Asia–Pacific and Middle East regions: a consensus statement, 24
WT Donahoo, JA Levine, EL Melanson (2004)
Variability in energy expenditure and its components, 7
R. Robergs, D. Dwyer, T. Astorino (2010)
Recommendations for Improved Data Processing from Expired Gas Analysis Indirect CalorimetrySports Medicine, 40
R. Wedgwood, D. Bass, J. Klimas, C. Kleeman, M. Quinn (1953)
Relationship of body composition to basal metabolic rate in normal man.Journal of applied physiology, 6 6
C. Irving, D. Eggett, S. Fullmer (2017)
Comparing Steady State to Time Interval and Non–Steady State Measurements of Resting Metabolic RateNutrition in Clinical Practice, 32
J. Weir (1949)
New methods for calculating metabolic rate with special reference to protein metabolismThe Journal of Physiology, 109
J. Borges, G. Guerra‐Júnior, E. Gonçalves (2019)
Methods for data analysis of resting energy expenditure measured using indirect calorimetry.Nutrition, 59
Objectives: The aim of this study is to propose a new wave protocol to identify low-frequency oscillations for evaluating resting energy expenditure (REE) and compare its performance with the 5-minute interval abbreviated protocol and standard protocol. Research methods & procedures: Consecutive 20-minute indirect calorimetry (IC) was used to collect metabolic data from 23 women and 37 men (between 23 and 43 years old). Sliding window filter algorithms were used to eliminate noise. Three protocols were used to evaluate REE: averaging the data between two consecutive waves (wave protocol), averaging the second 5-minute intervals (interval protocol), and averaging the last 15-minute REE (standard protocol). Results: Based on 60 healthy participants' metabolic data, compared with the interval protocol, the wave protocol showed better consistency with the standard protocol. The mean bias (limits of agreement) using the wave protocol was 0.3458% (-7.817% to 8.509%), and that using the interval protocol was -1.720% (-16.06% to 12.62%). The time required to evaluate REE with the wave protocol and interval protocol was measured. The measurement time for the interval protocol was 10 minutes, while the average measurement time for the wave protocol was 9.75 minutes. Conclusions: We recommend the wave protocol for estimating REE in healthy people. This abbreviated protocol can identify low-frequency oscillations and consider individual differences to more accurately reflect the baseline REE compared to the interval protocol. Compared with the standard protocol, the measurement time of the wave protocol was reduced by nearly half (from 20 minutes (standard protocol) to 9.75 minutes).
Journal of Applied Physiology – The American Physiological Society
Published: Dec 1, 2021
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.