Send to

Choose Destination
J Am Diet Assoc. 2009 May;109(5):836-45. doi: 10.1016/j.jada.2009.02.016.

Hand-held indirect calorimeter offers advantages compared with prediction equations, in a group of overweight women, to determine resting energy expenditures and estimated total energy expenditures during research screening.

Author information

College of Agriculture, Biotechnology and Natural Resources, University of Nevada, Reno, 1664 N Virginia St, Mail Stop 142, Reno, NV 89557, USA.



To compare standardized prediction equations to a hand-held indirect calorimeter in estimating resting energy and total energy requirements in overweight women.


Resting energy expenditure (REE) was measured by hand-held indirect calorimeter and calculated by prediction equations Harris-Benedict, Mifflin-St Jeor, World Health Organization/Food and Agriculture Organization/United Nations University (WHO), and Dietary Reference Intakes (DRI). Physical activity level, assessed by questionnaire, was used to estimate total energy expenditure (TEE).


Subjects (n=39) were female nonsmokers older than 25 years of age with body mass index more than 25.


Repeated measures analysis of variance, Bland-Altman plot, and fitted regression line of difference. A difference within +/-10% of two methods indicated agreement.


Significant proportional bias was present between hand-held indirect calorimeter and prediction equations for REE and TEE (P<0.01); prediction equations overestimated at lower values and underestimated at higher values. Mean differences (+/-standard error) for REE and TEE between hand-held indirect calorimeter and Harris-Benedict were -5.98+/-46.7 kcal/day (P=0.90) and 21.40+/-75.7 kcal/day (P=0.78); between hand-held indirect calorimeter and Mifflin-St Jeor were 69.93+/-46.7 kcal/day (P=0.14) and 116.44+/-75.9 kcal/day (P=0.13); between hand-held indirect calorimeter and WHO were -22.03+/-48.4 kcal/day (P=0.65) and -15.8+/-77.9 kcal/day (P=0.84); and between hand-held indirect calorimeter and DRI were 39.65+/-47.4 kcal/day (P=0.41) and 56.36+/-85.5 kcal/day (P=0.51). Less than 50% of predictive equation values were within +/-10% of hand-held indirect calorimeter values, indicating poor agreement.


A significant discrepancy between predicted and measured energy expenditure was observed. Further evaluation of hand-held indirect calorimeter research screening is needed.

[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center