Download PDF
Int J Sports Med 2006; 27(5): 363-367
DOI: 10.1055/s-2005-865666
Training & Testing

© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Validation of a New Portable Ergospirometric Device (Oxycon Mobile®) During Exercise

C. Perret1 , G. Mueller2
  • 1Swiss Paraplegic Centre, Institute for Clinical Research, Nottwil, Switzerland
  • 2Swiss Paraplegic Centre, Institute for Sports Medicine, Nottwil, Switzerland
Further Information

Publication History

Accepted after revision: March 15, 2005

Publication Date:
25 July 2005 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to test the accuracy of a new portable spirometric-telemetric device (Oxycon Mobile®) over a wide range of exercise intensities against an accurate stationary apparatus (Oxycon Pro®). Therefore, fifteen endurance-trained subjects (V·O2peak: 58.8 ± 5.2 ml · min-1 · kg-1) performed an incremental as well as an endurance exercise test on two different occasions. Gas exchange variables were measured by the two ergospirometric devices simultaneously. For this purpose, a special face mask was designed which allowed respiratory gas sampling with both devices at exactly the same time. Compared to the Oxycon Pro® as an accurate reference system, the Oxycon Mobile® showed significantly lower values for V·O2 at 200 and 250 W during the incremental exercise test. For V·CO2 no significant differences were found although the Oxycon Mobile® seemed to systematically measure higher values. With regard to RER the Oxycon Mobile® showed significantly higher values at all workloads tested. We therefore dissuade from comparing gas exchange variables collected by the Oxycon Mobile® with data measured under laboratory conditions by an accurate reference system like the Oxycon Pro®. Furthermore, the extrapolation of information about substrate utilization during different exercise durations and intensities from data measured by the Oxycon Mobile® seems inappropriate.

Key words

Oxygen uptake - telemetry - ventilation - spirometry

References

  • 1 Beneke R, Sievers U, Buschkow S, Erasmus J. Portables Spirometrie-Telemetrie-System vs. Laborspirometer - Gerätevergleich unter Laborbedingungen.  Dt Z Sportmed. 1995;  46 403-408
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Bland J M, Altman D G. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.  Lancet. 1986;  1 307-310
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Crandall C G, Taylor S L, Raven P B. Evaluation of the Cosmed K2 portable telemetric oxygen uptake analyzer.  Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1994;  26 108-111
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Hausswirth C, Bigard A X, Le Chevalier J M. The Cosmed K4 telemetry system as an accurate device for oxygen uptake measurements during exercise.  Int J Sports Med. 1997;  18 449-453
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 King G A, McLaughlin J E, Howley E T, Bassett Jr D R, Ainsworth B E. Validation of Aerosport KB1-C portable metabolic system.  Int J Sports Med. 1999;  20 304-308
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Lothian F, Farrally M R, Mahoney C. Validity and reliability of the Cosmed K2 to measure oxygen uptake.  Can J Appl Physiol. 1993;  18 197-206
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Lucia A, Fleck S J, Gotshall R W, Kearney J T. Validity and reliability of the Cosmed K2 instrument.  Int J Sports Med. 1993;  14 380-386
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Macfarlane D. Automated metabolic gas analysis systems. A Review.  Sports Med. 2001;  31 841-861
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 McLaughlin J E, King G A, Howley E T, Bassett Jr D R, Ainsworth B E. Validation of the Cosmed K4b2 portable metabolic system.  Int J Sports Med. 2001;  22 280-284
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Melanson E L, Freedson P S, Hendelman D, Debold E. Reliability and validity of a portable metabolic measurement system.  Can J Appl Physiol. 1996;  21 109-119
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Meyer T, Georg T, Becker C, Kindermann W. Reliability of gas exchange measurements from two different spiroergometry systems.  Int J Sports Med. 2001;  22 593-597
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Novitsky S, Segal K R, Chatr-Aryamontri B, Guvakov D, Katch V L. Validity of a new portable indirect calorimeter: the AeroSport TEEM 100.  Eur J Appl Physiol. 1995;  70 462-467
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Peel C, Utsey C. Oxygen consumption using the K2 telemetry system and a metabolic cart.  Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1993;  25 396-400
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Rietjens G JWM, Kuipers H, Kester A DM, Keizer H A. Validation of a computerized metabolic measurement system (Oxycon-Pro®) during low and high intensity exercise.  Int J Sports Med. 2001;  22 291-294
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 15 Schulz H, Helle S, Heck H. The validity of the telemetric system Cortex X1 in the ventilatory and gas exchange measurement during exercise.  Int J Sports Med. 1997;  18 454-457
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Smekal G, Pokan R, von Duvillard S P, Baron R, Tschan H, Bachl N. Comparison of laboratory and “on-court” endurance testing in tennis.  Int J Sports Med. 2000;  21 242-249
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Wideman L, Stoudemire N M, Pass K A, McGinnes C L, Gaesser G A, Weltman A. Assessment of the Aerosport TEEM 100 portable metabolic measurement system.  Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1996;  28 509-515
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar

C. Perret

Swiss Paraplegic Centre, Institute for Clinical Research

6207 Nottwil

Switzerland

Phone: + 41419395697

Fax: + 41 4 19 39 66 67

Email: claudio.perret@paranet.ch