These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Validity of the BodyGem calorimeter and prediction equations for the assessment of resting energy expenditure in overweight and obese Saudi males.
    Author: Almajwal AM, Williams PG, Batterham MJ.
    Journal: Saudi Med J; 2011 Jul; 32(7):718-24. PubMed ID: 21748210.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of resting energy expenditure (REE) measurement in a sample of overweight and obese Saudi males, using the BodyGem device (BG) with whole room calorimetry (WRC) as a reference, and to evaluate the accuracy of predictive equations. METHODS: Thirty-eight subjects (mean +/- SD, age 26.8+/- 3.7 years, body mass index 31.0+/- 4.8) were recruited during the period from 5 February 2007 to 28 March 2008. Resting energy expenditure was measured using a WRC and BG device, and also calculated using 7 prediction equations. Mean differences, bias, percent of bias (%bias), accurate estimation, underestimation and overestimation were calculated. RESULTS: Repeated measures with the BG were not significantly different (accurate prediction: 81.6%; %bias 1.1+/- 6.3, p>0.24) with limits of agreement ranging from +242 to -200 kcal. Resting energy expenditure measured by BG was significantly less than WRC values (accurate prediction: 47.4%; %bias: 11.0+/- 14.6, p = 0.0001) with unacceptably wide limits of agreement. Harris-Benedict, Schofield and World Health Organization equations were the most accurate, estimating REE within 10% of measured REE, but none seem appropriate to predict the REE of individuals. CONCLUSION: There was a poor agreement between the REE measured by WRC compared to BG or predictive equations. The BG assessed REE accurately in 47.4% of the subjects on an individual level.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]