The Validity of the V̇O2 Master Pro for Measuring Oxygen Consumption During Sedentary Activity and Treadmill Walking and Jogging.

Jisu Kim, Kyu-Ri Hong, In-Whi Hwang, Xiaolin Wen, Jun-Hao Shen, Ho-Jun Kim, Jonathan Kenyon, Jessica Geller, Ronald K Evans, Jung-Min Lee, Youngdeok Kim
{"title":"The Validity of the V̇O2 Master Pro for Measuring Oxygen Consumption During Sedentary Activity and Treadmill Walking and Jogging.","authors":"Jisu Kim, Kyu-Ri Hong, In-Whi Hwang, Xiaolin Wen, Jun-Hao Shen, Ho-Jun Kim, Jonathan Kenyon, Jessica Geller, Ronald K Evans, Jung-Min Lee, Youngdeok Kim","doi":"10.1139/apnm-2025-0095","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Metabolic carts are commonly used to estimate oxygen consumption (V̇O2) during exercise, but are largely limited to controlled laboratory settings. The V̇O2 Master Pro (VMP) is a newer, portable metabolic analyzer designed to address this limitation; however, few studies have evaluated the validity of this device at varying activity levels.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the validity of the VMP in measuring V̇O2 compared with a stationary metabolic cart, the COSMED Quark CPET (CQ), during sedentary activity and treadmill walking/jogging in a laboratory setting.</p><p><strong>Approach: </strong>Twenty-seven healthy adults [mean age=22.1±7.6 years; female=51.8%] participated in two laboratory trials on separate days. In a counterbalanced order, participants used the CQ and VMP during 10-minute conditions of the following activities: sedentary activity (sitting quietly), slow walking (3.2 km/h), brisk walking (5.6 km/h), and jogging (7.2 km/h). The agreement between the two measures was evaluated using equivalence testing, mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), percentage bias, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), and Bland-Altman analyses.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>The devices showed low agreement and significant proportional biases across all activity levels [ICCs=0.135-0.323]. Equivalence testing did not demonstrate statistically significant equivalence between the devices (p>.05), with the VMP underestimating V̇O2. The smallest error appeared during jogging [MAPE=20.05%; percentage bias= -19.29%].</p><p><strong>Significance: </strong>The VMP underestimated V̇O2 at all tested intensities, demonstrating low accuracy and agreement relative to the reference measure. This may be attributed to limited ventilatory flow capture or sensor responsiveness during submaximal activities. Observed bias and within-subject variability suggest caution when using the VMP across different submaximal activity levels.</p>","PeriodicalId":93878,"journal":{"name":"Applied physiology, nutrition, and metabolism = Physiologie appliquee, nutrition et metabolisme","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied physiology, nutrition, and metabolism = Physiologie appliquee, nutrition et metabolisme","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1139/apnm-2025-0095","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Metabolic carts are commonly used to estimate oxygen consumption (V̇O2) during exercise, but are largely limited to controlled laboratory settings. The V̇O2 Master Pro (VMP) is a newer, portable metabolic analyzer designed to address this limitation; however, few studies have evaluated the validity of this device at varying activity levels.

Objective: To assess the validity of the VMP in measuring V̇O2 compared with a stationary metabolic cart, the COSMED Quark CPET (CQ), during sedentary activity and treadmill walking/jogging in a laboratory setting.

Approach: Twenty-seven healthy adults [mean age=22.1±7.6 years; female=51.8%] participated in two laboratory trials on separate days. In a counterbalanced order, participants used the CQ and VMP during 10-minute conditions of the following activities: sedentary activity (sitting quietly), slow walking (3.2 km/h), brisk walking (5.6 km/h), and jogging (7.2 km/h). The agreement between the two measures was evaluated using equivalence testing, mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), percentage bias, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), and Bland-Altman analyses.

Main results: The devices showed low agreement and significant proportional biases across all activity levels [ICCs=0.135-0.323]. Equivalence testing did not demonstrate statistically significant equivalence between the devices (p>.05), with the VMP underestimating V̇O2. The smallest error appeared during jogging [MAPE=20.05%; percentage bias= -19.29%].

Significance: The VMP underestimated V̇O2 at all tested intensities, demonstrating low accuracy and agreement relative to the reference measure. This may be attributed to limited ventilatory flow capture or sensor responsiveness during submaximal activities. Observed bias and within-subject variability suggest caution when using the VMP across different submaximal activity levels.

v_o2 Master Pro测量久坐运动、跑步机步行和慢跑时耗氧量的有效性。
代谢车通常用于估算运动过程中的耗氧量,但主要局限于受控的实验室环境。VMP是一种更新的便携式代谢分析仪,旨在解决这一限制;然而,很少有研究评估该设备在不同活动水平下的有效性。目的:在实验室环境下,评估VMP与固定代谢车、COSMED夸克CPET (CQ)在久坐活动和跑步机行走/慢跑时测量V / O2的有效性。方法:27例健康成人[平均年龄=22.1±7.6岁;女性(51.8%)分别在不同的日期参加了两次实验室试验。按照平衡的顺序,参与者在以下活动的10分钟条件下使用CQ和VMP:久坐活动(安静地坐着),慢走(3.2公里/小时),快走(5.6公里/小时)和慢跑(7.2公里/小时)。使用等效检验、平均绝对百分比误差(MAPE)、百分比偏差、类内相关系数(ICCs)和Bland-Altman分析来评估两种测量方法之间的一致性。主要结果:这些设备在所有活动水平上显示出较低的一致性和显著的比例偏差[icc =0.135-0.323]。等效性试验未显示设备之间具有统计学意义的等效性(p < 0.05), VMP低估了V / O2。慢跑时误差最小[MAPE=20.05%;百分比偏差= -19.29%]。意义:VMP在所有测试强度下都低估了V²O2,相对于参考测量显示出较低的准确性和一致性。这可能是由于呼吸流量捕获有限或在次最大活动时传感器反应有限。观察到的偏倚和受试者内部的可变性表明,在不同的次极大活动水平上使用VMP时要谨慎。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信