Clinical Accuracy of the MedGem Indirect Calorimeter for Measuring Resting Energy Expenditure in Cancer Patients

OBJECTIVE: To compare, in patients with cancer and in healthy subjects, measured resting energy expenditure (REE) from traditional indirect calorimetry to a new portable device (MedGem) and predicted REE. DESIGN: Cross-sectional clinical validation study. SETTING: Private radiation oncology centre, Brisbane, Australia. SUBJECTS: Cancer patients (n = 18) and healthy subjects (n = 17) aged 37-86 y, with body mass indices ranging from 18 to 42 kg/m(2). INTERVENTIONS: Oxygen consumption (VO(2)) and REE were measured by VMax229 (VM) and MedGem (MG) indirect calorimeters in random order after a 12-h fast and 30-min rest. REE was also calculated from the MG without adjustment for nitrogen excretion (MGN) and estimated from Harris-Benedict prediction equations. Data were analysed using the Bland and Altman approach, based on a clinically acceptable difference between methods of 5%. RESULTS: The mean bias (MGN-VM) was 10% and limits of agreement were -42 to 21% for cancer patients; mean bias -5% with limits of -45 to 35% for healthy subjects. Less than half of the cancer patients (n = 7, 46.7%) and only a third (n = 5, 33.3%) of healthy subjects had measured REE by MGN within clinically acceptable limits of VM. Predicted REE showed a mean bias (HB-VM) of -5% for cancer patients and 4% for healthy subjects, with limits of agreement of -30 to 20% and -27 to 34%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Limits of agreement for the MG and Harris Benedict equations compared to traditional indirect calorimetry were similar but wide, indicating poor clinical accuracy for determining the REE of individual cancer patients and healthy subjects.

High body mass index is not a barrier to physical activity: Analysis of international rugby players' anthropometric data

Recent data indicate that levels of overweight and obesity are increasing at an alarming rate throughout the world. At a population level (and commonly to assess individual health risk), the prevalence of overweight and obesity is calculated using cut-offs of the Body Mass Index (BMI) derived from height and weight. Similarly, the BMI is also used to classify individuals and to provide a notional indication of potential health risk. It is likely that epidemiologic surveys that are reliant on BMI as a measure of adiposity will overestimate the number of individuals in the overweight (and slightly obese) categories. This tendency to misclassify individuals may be more pronounced in athletic populations or groups in which the proportion of more active individuals is higher. This differential is most pronounced in sports where it is advantageous to have a high BMI (but not necessarily high fatness). To illustrate this point we calculated the BMIs of international professional rugby players from the four teams involved in the semi-finals of the 2003 Rugby Union World Cup. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO) cut-offs for BMI, approximately 65% of the players were classified as overweight and approximately 25% as obese. These findings demonstrate that a high BMI is commonplace (and a potentially desirable attribute for sport performance) in professional rugby players. An unanswered question is what proportion of the wider population, classified as overweight (or obese) according to the BMI, is misclassified according to both fatness and health risk? It is evident that being overweight should not be an obstacle to a physically active lifestyle. Similarly, a reliance on BMI alone may misclassify a number of individuals who might otherwise have been automatically considered fat and/or unfit.