Download PDF
Int J Sports Med 2012; 33(09): 728-733
DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1301316
Training & Testing
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Comparison of 2 Portable Respiratory Gas Analysers

P. M. Leprêtre
1   Laboratoire de Recherche Adaptations Physiologiques à l’Exercice et ­Réadaptation à l’Effort Université de Picardie Jules Verne, AMIENS, France
,
T. Weissland
1   Laboratoire de Recherche Adaptations Physiologiques à l’Exercice et ­Réadaptation à l’Effort Université de Picardie Jules Verne, AMIENS, France
,
C. Paton
2   Department of Sport Science, Eastern Institute of Technology, Napier, New Zealand
,
M. Jeanne
1   Laboratoire de Recherche Adaptations Physiologiques à l’Exercice et ­Réadaptation à l’Effort Université de Picardie Jules Verne, AMIENS, France
,
S. Delannaud
3   Unité Périnatalité & Risques Toxiques E-4285 – UMI 01 Unité mixte INERIS, UFR de Médecine, IUP-santé, Université de Picardie Jules Verne, Amiens, France
,
S. Ahmaidi
1   Laboratoire de Recherche Adaptations Physiologiques à l’Exercice et ­Réadaptation à l’Effort Université de Picardie Jules Verne, AMIENS, France
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History



accepted after revision 07 December 2011

Publication Date:
04 May 2012 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare respiratory measures taken simultaneously using the Cosmed K4b2 and Cortex Metamax II portable metabolic systems. 10 trained male cyclists performed a graded exercise cycle test to exhaustion (40w.3 min − 1) under standardized conditions. The measured respiratory variables were significantly correlated between both devices: r=0.97 and 0.98 (n=10, p<0.01) for oxygen uptake ( V˙O2) and ventilation (VE), respectively. Further Bland and Altman plots revealed a good level of agreement for measures of V˙O2 expressed in mL.min − 1 [− 670 to 486] (mean bias of − 91.7, i. e., − 3.1%) or in mL.min − 1.kg − 1 [− 7.3 to 9.0] (mean bias of 0.85, i. e., 2.3%) and VE [− 23.1 to 18.2] (L.min − 1, mean bias of − 2.4, i. e. − 4.1%). However, poor agreement was found for measures of carbon dioxide (VCO2, mL.min − 1) [− 280 to 1 394] (mean bias of 671 i.e., 20.3%). VCO2 at maximal exercise intensity was also significantly (p<0.01) greater in the Cortex compared to the Cosmed system. The higher measured CO2 concentrations led to significantly (p<0.01) higher calculated respiratory exchange ratio (RER) values with the Cortex device. In conclusion, there was satisfactory agreement between the Cosmed K4b2 and Cortex Metamax II systems for most respiratory measures; however there was a poor level of agreement between VCO2 and calculated RER measurements between the 2 systems.

Key words

respiratory gas exchanges - exercise - breath-by-breath gas analysers - comparison
 

  • References

  • 1 Art T, Duvivier DH, van Erck E, de Moffarts B, Votion D, Bedoret D, Lejeune JP, Lekeux P, Serteyn D. Validation of a portable equine metabolic measurement system. Equine Vet J 2006; 36: 557-561
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Barbinau C, Leger L, Long A. Variability of maximum oxygen measurement in various metabolic systems. J Strength Cond Res 1999; 13: 318-324
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1: 307-310
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Crouter S, Foster C, Esten P, Brice G, Porcari JP. Comparison of incremental treadmill exercise and free range running. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2001; 33: 644-647
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 De Lorenzo A, Sorge RP, Bertini I, Andreoli A, Lacopino L, Di Daniele N, Perriello G. Validity and reliability of a new portable telemetric calorimeter designed to measure oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide production. Diabetes Nutr Metab 2001; 14: 268-276
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Duffield R, Dawson B, Pinnington HC, Wong P. Accuracy and reliability of a Cosmed K4b2 portable gas analysis system. J Sci Med Sport 2004; 7: 11-22
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Foster C, Green MA, Snyder AC, Thompson NN. Physiological responses during simulated competition. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1993; 25: 877-882
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Glaner MF, Silva RAS. Validation of a new cycle ergometer. Int J Sports Med 2011; 32: 117-121
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Harriss DJ, Atkinson G. Update – Ethical standards in sport and exercise science research. Int J Sports Med 2011; 32: 819-821
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Hausswirth C, Bigard AX, Le Chevalier JM. The Cosmed K4 telemetry system as an accurate device for oxygen uptake measurements during exercise. Int J Sports Med 1997; 18: 449-453
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Hilloskopi H, Manttari A, Pasanen M. The comparison between three different respiratory gas analysers. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000; 31: S354
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Hodges LD, Brodie DA, Bromley PD. Validity and reliability of select commercially available metabolic analyzer systems. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2005; 15: 271-279
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Hopkins WG. Analysis of validity by linear regression (Excel spreadsheet). In: A New View of Statistics. Sportsci.org: Internet Society for Sport Science sportsci.org/resource/stats/xvalid.xls 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Hopkins WG, Schabort EJ, Hawley JA. Reliability of power in physical performance tests. Sports Med 2001; 31: 211-234
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Jeukendrup AE, Wallis GA. Measurement of substrate oxidation during exercise by means of gas exchange measurements. Int J Sports Med 2005; 26: S28-S37
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Kenny GP, Reardon FD, Marion A, Thoden JS. A comparative analysis of physiological responses at submaximal workloads during different laboratory simulations of field cycling. Eur J Appl Physiol 1995; 71: 409-415
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Larsson PU, Wadell KM, Jakobsson EJ, Burlin LU, Henriksson-Larsén KB. Validation of the MetaMax II portable metabolic measurement system. Int J Sports Med 2004; 25: 115-123
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Lepretre PM, Lopes P, Koralsztein JP, Billat V. Fatigue responses in exercise under control of VO2. Int J Sports Med 2008; 29: 199-205
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Leprêtre PM, Metayer N, Giovagnoli G, Pagliei E, Barrey E. Comparison of analyses of respiratory gases made with the K4b2 portable and Quark laboratory analysers in horses. Vet Rec 2009; 165: 22-25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Littlewood RA, White MS, Bell KL, Davies PS, Cleghorn GJ, Grote R. Comparison of the Cosmed K4 b(2) and the Deltatrac II metabolic cart in measuring resting energy expenditure in adults. Clin Nutr 2002; 21: 491-497
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 MacFarlane DJ. Automated metabolic gas analysis systems: a review. Sports Med 2001; 31: 841-861
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 McLaughlin JE, King GA, Howley ET, Bassett Jr DR, Ainsworth BE. Validation of the COSMED K4 b2 portable metabolic system. Int J Sports Med 2001; 22: 280-284
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Medbø JI, Mamen A, Welde B, von Heimburg E, Stokke R. Examination of the Metamax I and II oxygen analysers during exercise studies in the laboratory. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2002; 62: 585-598
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Meyer T, Davison RC, Kindermann W. Ambulatory gas exchange measurements – current status and future options. Int J Sports Med 2005; 26: S19-S27
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Mortensen SP, Dawson EA, Yoshiga CC, Dalsgaard MK, Damsgaard R, Secher NH, González-Alonso J. Limitations to systemic and locomotor limb muscle oxygen delivery and uptake during maximal exercise in humans. J Physiol 2005; 566: 273-285
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Pagan JD, Hintz HF. Equine energetics. I. Relationship between body weight and energy requirements in horses. J Anim Sci 1986; 63: 815-821
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Paton CD, Hopkins WG. Ergometer error and biological variation in power output in a performance test with three cycle ergometers. Int J Sports Med 2006; 27: 444-447
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Pinnington HC, Wong P, Tay J, Green D, Dawson B. The level of accuracy and agreement in measures of FEO2, FECO2 and VE between the Cosmed K4b2 portable, respiratory gas analysis system and a metabolic cart. J Sci Med Sport 2001; 4: 324-335
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Schrack JA, Simonsick EM, Ferrucci L. Comparison of the Cosmed K4b(2) portable metabolic system in measuring steady-state walking energy expenditure. PLoS One 2010; 5: e9292
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Trabulsi J, Ittenbach RF, Schall JI, Olsen IE, Yudkoff M, Daikhin Y, Zemel BS, Stallings VA. Evaluation of formulas for calculating total energy requirements of preadolescent children with cystic fibrosis. Am J Clin Nutr 2007; 85: 144-151
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Yu D, Zeng G, Li M, Mao D, Huang C, Piao J, Guo H, Cheng G, Peng M. Energy expenditure at physical activities of young and middle-aged adults in southern China. Wei Sheng Yan Jiu 2010; 39: 715-718
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Yule E, Kaminsky LA, Sedlock DA, King BA, Whaley MH. Inter-laboratory reliability of VO2max and sub maximal measurements. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1996; 28: S15
    PubMedGoogle Scholar