Fred Miller III1, Breanna Hines1, Colby Martin1, Abigail McCain1, Emily Tedder1, Yenly Londono Calle2. VO2 Master Analyzer versus Parvo Medics TrueOne 2400 Canopy System for assessing Resting Metabolic Rate and Oxygen Consumption. 1Department of Kinesiology, Huntington University, Huntington, IN, USA. 2Parkview Huntington Hospital, Huntington, IN, USA.


Introduction: Resting Metabolic Rate (RMR) is the energy expended by the body at rest. The Parvo Medics TrueOne 2400 Canopy System is considered a “gold standard” system for measuring RMR, but it is limited by its high cost, lack of portability, and need for expertise. In contrast, the VO2 Master analyzer is a portable metabolic system offering a more cost-effective RMR measurement solution. However, the accuracy of the VO2 Master Analyzer for RMR compared to a gold standard is unknown. The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of the VO2 Master in a group of college students. Methods: Seventy-eight 18 to 23-year-old college students (mean ± SD: height = 173.2 ± 11.18 cm and weight = 74.8 ± 15.48 kg) attending a Midwest University performed an RMR test using both the VO2 Master and the Parvo Medics TrueOne 2400 Canopy System in a crossover study. A paired sample t-test was used to determine statistical differences between RMR and VO2 between the two systems. A Bland-Altman Analysis was performed for RMR to visualize bias and limits of agreement. Results: A significant difference (p < 0.05) for RMR (Parvo Medics = 1978.0 ± 454.9 vs. VO2 Master = 1875.3 ± 494.1 kcal/day) and VO2 (Parvo Medics = 3.90 ± 0.60 vs. VO2 Master = 3.56 ± 0.69 ml/kg/min) was found between the two systems. Bland-Altman analyses for RMR and VO2 revealed a constant bias of 102.7 kcal/day and 0.34 ml/kg/min, respectively. Conclusions: This study found that the VO2 Master underestimates RMR by almost 103 kcal/day and VO2 by 0.34 ml/kg/min. Thus, the VO2 Master may not be a suitable RMR or VO2 measure for college students. Further studies in other populations are recommended.