Accuracy of the Cosmed K5 portable calorimeter

Crouter, Scott E.; LaMunion, Samuel R.; Hibbing, Paul R.; Kaplan, Andrew S.; Bassett, David R.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0226290

Cited by 31 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Direct observation was used as the reference criterion for posture, and an indirect calorimeter (K5; COSMED, Rome, Italy) was used as the reference criterion for activity. The K5 has been shown to measure the energy expenditure of a given task reliably (Crouter et al, 2019). It was calibrated before each recording according to the manufacturer's recommendation (flowmeter, scrubber, and room air).…”

Section: Measurement Equipmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Where to Place Which Sensor to Measure Sedentary Behavior? A Method Development and Comparison Among Various Sensor Placements and Signal Types

Kuster

Baumgartner

Hagströmer

et al. 2020

Journal for the Measurement of Physical Behaviour

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Sedentary behavior (SB) is associated with several chronic diseases and office workers especially are at increased risk. SB is defined by a sitting or reclined body posture with an energy expenditure of ≤1.5 metabolic equivalents. However, current objective methods to measure SB are not consistent with its definition. There is no consensus on which sensor placement and type should be used. Aim: To compare the accuracy of newly developed artificial intelligence models for 15 sensor placements in combination with four signal types (accelerometer only/plus gyroscope and/or magnetometer) to detect posture and physical in-/activity during desk-based activities. Method: Signal features for the model development were extracted from sensor raw data of 30 office workers performing 10 desk-based tasks, each lasting 5 min. Direct observation (posture) and indirect calorimetry (in-/activity) served as the reference criteria. The best classification model for each sensor was identified and compared among the sensor placements, both using Friedman and post hoc Wilcoxon tests (p ≤ .05). Results: Posture was most accurately measured with a lower body sensor, while in-/activity was most accurately measured with an upper body or waist sensor. The inclusion of additional signal types improved the posture classification for some placements, while the acceleration signal already contained the relevant signal information for the in-/activity classification. Overall, the thigh accelerometer most accurately classified desk-based SB. Conclusion: This study favors, in line with previous work, the measurement of SB with a thigh-worn accelerometer and adds the information that this sensor is also accurate in measuring physical in-/activity while sitting and standing.

show abstract

Section: Measurement Equipmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Where to Place Which Sensor to Measure Sedentary Behavior? A Method Development and Comparison Among Various Sensor Placements and Signal Types

Kuster

Baumgartner

Hagströmer

et al. 2020

Journal for the Measurement of Physical Behaviour

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous studies have determined the validity and the reliability of the K5. They showed that the K5′s measurements of metabolic parameters (pulmonary ventilation, oxygen consumption, and carbon dioxide production) were comparable to the measurements from the breath-by-breath method of the traditional metabolic cart (Vyntus CPX; Jaeger-CareFusion, Höchberg, Germany), the automated breathing metabolic simulator (VacuMed automated system; VacuMed, USA), and the Douglas Bag Method [ 42 , 43 , 44 ]. Additionally, a recent study reported very high intra- and inter-device reliability of the K5 in measuring pulmonary ventilation, oxygen consumption, and carbon dioxide production (r > 0.99) [ 44 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Indirect calorimetry is commonly used to calculate respiratory quotient (CO 2 production/O 2 uptake) and resting energy expenditure, as well as to determine caloric needs in research [ 39 , 40 , 41 ]. The K5, our criterion measure, is a portable indirect calorimetry system (174 × 111 × 64 mm and 900 g, including battery and O 2 sensor) that is worn on the back with a harness [ 42 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Generally, portable indirect calorimetry systems are used for measuring maximal oxygen uptake (VO 2max ) in specific exercise conditions, validating and calibrating accelerometer-based physical activity monitors in the laboratory and free-living conditions (up to 6 continuous hours), and calculating physical activity energy expenditure in free-living conditions [ 42 ]. Previous studies have determined the validity and the reliability of the K5.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Validity of MotionSense HRV in Estimating Sedentary Behavior and Physical Activity under Free-Living and Simulated Activity Settings

Kwon

Wan

Burns

et al. 2021

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

MotionSense HRV is a wrist-worn accelerometery-based sensor that is paired with a smartphone and is thus capable of measuring the intensity, duration, and frequency of physical activity (PA). However, little information is available on the validity of the MotionSense HRV. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess the concurrent validity of the MotionSense HRV in estimating sedentary behavior (SED) and PA. A total of 20 healthy adults (age: 32.5 ± 15.1 years) wore the MotionSense HRV and ActiGraph GT9X accelerometer (GT9X) on their non-dominant wrist for seven consecutive days during free-living conditions. Raw acceleration data from the devices were summarized into average time (min/day) spent in SED and moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA). Additionally, using the Cosemed K5 indirect calorimetry system (K5) as a criterion measure, the validity of the MotionSense HRV was examined in simulated free-living conditions. Pearson correlations, mean absolute percent errors (MAPE), Bland–Altman (BA) plots, and equivalence tests were used to examine the validity of the MotionSense HRV against criterion measures. The correlations between the MotionSense HRV and GT9X were high and the MAPE were low for both the SED (r = 0.99, MAPE = 2.4%) and MVPA (r = 0.97, MAPE = 9.1%) estimates under free-living conditions. BA plots illustrated that there was no systematic bias between the MotionSense HRV and criterion measures. The estimates of SED and MVPA from the MotionSense HRV were significantly equivalent to those from the GT9X; the equivalence zones were set at 16.5% for SED and 29% for MVPA. The estimates of SED and PA from the MotionSense HRV were less comparable when compared with those from the K5. The MotionSense HRV yielded comparable estimates for SED and PA when compared with the GT9X accelerometer under free-living conditions. We confirmed the promising application of the MotionSense HRV for monitoring PA patterns for practical and research purposes.

show abstract

“…This K5 COSMED system has been shown to produce reliable metabolic measurements compared with a metabolic simulator and a Douglas Bag. 16,19 The first 2 minutes for each condition were discarded to obtain steady-state oxygen consumption (VO 2 ) and heart rate data. The last 30 seconds for each condition were also discarded to account for any timing issues and any altered behavior as the participant anticipated the end of the condition.…”

Section: Assessment Of Energy Costmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reexamining the Energy Cost of Sedentary Behaviors From the 2011 Adult Compendium

Barnett¹,

Greever²,

Yagi³

et al. 2021

Journal of Physical Activity and Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: This study reexamines the energy cost of lower intensity activities compared to the 2011 Adult Compendium of Physical Activities. Methods: Participants (n = 32, age = 35 [13.8] y, 16 females) wore a portable metabolic system (COSMED), during 5 different conditions: sitting quietly, watching TV, sitting while working, driving, and walking at 2.0 mph. The metabolic equivalent (MET) values (VO2 mL·kg−1·min−1/3.5 mL·kg−1·min−1) were calculated. Results: The mean (SD) MET value for driving (1.46 [0.24]) was significantly lower than the Adult Compendium value of 2.5 (P < .001). Driving and slow walking have similar Adult Compendium values, but driving METs were significantly lower than slow walking (P < .001). Driving was similar to sitting while working (1.32 [0.25] METs, P > .05) and yielded significantly higher MET values than quiet sitting (1.08 [0.23] METs, P < .001) and watching TV (1.12 [0.22] METs, P < .001), both of which were lower than their respective Adult Compendium MET values. Conclusion: Existing Adult Compendium METs are significantly higher than measured METs for driving, which more closely correspond to sedentary behaviors than slow walking. The TV and quiet sitting also differed from their Adult Compendium values, which should be updated to reflect these findings, given that researchers and practitioners rely on Adult Compendium MET values to estimate energy cost.

show abstract

Accuracy of the Cosmed K5 portable calorimeter

Cited by 31 publications

References 15 publications

Where to Place Which Sensor to Measure Sedentary Behavior? A Method Development and Comparison Among Various Sensor Placements and Signal Types

Where to Place Which Sensor to Measure Sedentary Behavior? A Method Development and Comparison Among Various Sensor Placements and Signal Types

The Validity of MotionSense HRV in Estimating Sedentary Behavior and Physical Activity under Free-Living and Simulated Activity Settings

Reexamining the Energy Cost of Sedentary Behaviors From the 2011 Adult Compendium

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About