Document Type

Thesis - University Access Only

Award Date

2006

Degree Name

Master of Science (MS)

Department / School

Health, Physical Education, and Recreation

Abstract

Purpose: To assess the reliability and validity of the Cosmed Fitmate Pro (FM) and the Medical Graphics VO2000 against the ParvoMedics Turemax 2400 (TM) computerized metabolic system in the measurement of VO2, VE, and F EO2 during sub-maximal and maximal exercise intensities. In addition, to assess the reliability and validity of the FM, VO2000, and MedGem against the TM in the measurement ofVO2, VE, FEO2, and REE during rest. Methods: Duplicate measurements were made at rest and during 4 levels of an incremental exercise test in fifteen participants (8 = Male, 7 = Female). VO2, VE, FEO2, and REE values were averaged for the last 10 minutes of rest. VO2, VE, and FEO2 values were comparable for exercise at the same work level using the three systems, indicating that the metabolic stresses were similar. A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was used to determine if a difference in VO2, VE, FEO2, and REE existed between analyzers. A Tukey-post hoc test was used to identify significant differences when a significant F-ratio was obtained. Intraclass correlation coefficients (R) were calculated for VO2 (ml·kt 1 ·min- 1) values in order to determine the degree of correlation between measurements made by the same metabolic system. The level of significance was set at P < 0.05. Results: No significant differences were observed for test-retest reliability for all the systems during rest. No significant differences were observed for test-retest-reliability for the VO2000, FM and TM at all exercise intensities. Significant differences were found for FEO2 (%) between the TM and the FM and VO2000 during rest. Significant differences were found for VO2 (ml·kg- 1·min-1) between the TM system and the VO2000 at 5.0 mph and at 6.0 mph. Significant differences were found for VO2 (ml·kg-1·min- 1) between the VO2000 and FM at peak, 5.0 mph, and 6.0 mph. Significant differences were found for FEO2 (%) between the VO2000 and FM at peak, 5.0 mph, and 6.0 mph. Significant differences were also found for FEO2 (%) between the VO2000 and the TM at 3.5 mph and 5.0 mph. None of the other variables showed a significant difference between the portable systems and the TM system. Conclusion: These findings suggest that the VO2000, FM, and MG are reliable and valid for determining VO2 and REE during rest. In addition, the FM and VO2000 are reliable in determining VO2, VE , and F EO2 during submaximal and maximal intensities. In addition, the FM was observed to accurately measure VO2, VE, and FEO2 during all exercise intensities. However, the VO2000 was only shown to be valid for VE through all intensities and VO2 at peak and 3.5 mph, and FEO2 at peak and 6.0 mph.

Library of Congress Subject Headings

Energy metabolism -- Measurement -- Equipment and supplies -- Evaluation

Oxygen in the body -- Measurement -- Equipment and supplies -- Evaluation

Format

application/pdf

Number of Pages

94

Publisher

South Dakota State University

Download

Share

COinS