2. Both DLW and HR analyses yielded similar results for the TEE, with a mean difference of −8.6 kcal/day. Forty-four (96%) out of 46 subjects fell within Tariquidar cost ±2SD of the mean difference in TEE comparisons, and there was no tendency towards under- or over-estimation. Since the REE is the largest component of the TEE and different methods and equations have been used to estimate the

REE in current years, we included REE estimations in the same subjects as a reference. We found that the GEA, Harris–Benedict equation and Cunningham equation used by bioimpedance assessment (BIA) all yielded similar REE estimates in middle-aged women and men. However, in young women, the Cunningham equation (BIA) gave significantly lower REE estimates than both GEA (p = 0.006) and the Harris–Benedict equation (p = 0.011)( Table 2). The mean difference between Bortezomib datasheet the GEA and Cunningham equation (BIA) was 1.4 kcal/day, and the correlation was r2 = 0.64 (p < 0.001, Fig. 1B). In this study we showed that the TEE estimated by HR monitoring compared well with that derived from the DLW method in young women, as well as in middle-aged men and women, but with large individual variations. HR monitoring is the most popular method for assessing free-living energy expenditure and the patterns of physical activity.30 It fulfills many of the criteria for providing continuous, indirect,

and objective measures of the TEE, being relatively inexpensive, simple to use and non-invasive. The TEE estimation from the HR is based on the fact that under most circumstances, the HR is correlated with the rate of oxygen consumption, and hence the Idoxuridine rate of energy expenditure.31 Unfortunately, the predictive power of HR monitoring as an index of energy expenditure at low levels of activity is poor,11 particularly in the critical HR range where resting and active conditions converge and overlap.32 As a result, the HR method

for TEE estimation performs well under circumstances of moderate to vigorous exercise, but is much less accurate in sedentary people.8, 33 and 34 To overcome this shortcoming, combining HR monitoring with accelerometry has been suggested to improve energy expenditure estimation.2 However, a recent study using the Actiheart monitor showed that this combined accelerometry/HR method did not provide any better energy expenditure estimates than using HR monitoring alone.35 The accuracy of TEE estimation by HR depends on the accuracy of the manufacturer’s proprietary software, namely the algorithm used.36 In an Australian study using Suunto’s previous software, the TEE was underestimated in runners during a submaximal running test when compared to gas analysis data.37 Livingstone and colleagues32 and 38 reported that the mean difference in the TEE obtained from the HR and DLW methods varied between 24 and 98 kcal/day. Likewise in a Japanese study, the HR TEE was also higher by a mean difference of 57 kcal/day in contrast to the DLW method.