» Articles » PMID: 24477571

The Validity of the Moxus Modular Metabolic System During Incremental Exercise Tests: Impacts on Detection of Small Changes in Oxygen Consumption

Overview
Specialty Physiology
Date 2014 Jan 31
PMID 24477571
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: We investigated the accuracy of the Moxus Modular Metabolic System (MOXUS) against the Douglas Bag Method (DBM) during high-intensity exercise, and whether the two methods agreed when detecting small changes in [Formula: see text] between two consecutive workloads ([Formula: see text]).

Methods: Twelve trained male runners performed two maximal incremental running tests while gas exchange was analyzed simultaneously by the two systems using a serial setup for four consecutive intervals of 30 s on each test. Comparisons between methods were performed for [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], fractions of expired O2 (FeO2) and CO2 (FeCO2) and [Formula: see text].

Results: The MOXUS produced significant higher (mean ± SD, n = 54) readings for [Formula: see text] (80 ± 200 mL min(-1), p = 0.005) and [Formula: see text] (2.9 ± 4.2 L min(-1), p < 0.0001), but not FeO2 (-0.01 ± 0.09). Log-transformed 95 % limits of agreement for readings between methods were 94-110 % for [Formula: see text], 97-108 % for [Formula: see text] and 99-101 % for FeO2. [Formula: see text] for two consecutive measurements was not different between systems (120 ± 110 vs. 90 ± 190 mL min(-1) for MOXUS and DBM, respectively, p = 0.26), but agreement between methods was very low (r = 0.25, p = 0.12).

Discussion: Although it was tested during high-intensity exercise and short sampling intervals, the MOXUS performed within the acceptable range of accuracy reported for automated analyzers. Most of the differences between equipments were due to differences in [Formula: see text]. Detecting small changes in [Formula: see text] during an incremental test with small changes in workload, however, might be beyond the equipment's accuracy.

Citing Articles

Development and validation of dynamic bioenergetic model for intermittent ergometer cycling.

Lidar J, Ainegren M, Sundstrom D Eur J Appl Physiol. 2023; 123(12):2755-2770.

PMID: 37369795 PMC: 10638188. DOI: 10.1007/s00421-023-05256-7.


Comparison of a Continuous and Discontinuous GXT on VO in Resistance-Trained and Endurance-Trained Males.

Shepherd B, Price F, Krings B, Smith J Int J Exerc Sci. 2022; 15(4):414-422.

PMID: 35518364 PMC: 9022703. DOI: 10.70252/NHAY2400.


Impact of catheterization on shear-mediated arterial dilation in healthy young men.

Tryfonos A, Cocks M, Rasoul D, Mills J, Green D, Dawson E Eur J Appl Physiol. 2020; 120(11):2525-2532.

PMID: 32857185 PMC: 7557491. DOI: 10.1007/s00421-020-04473-8.


Reliability and Validation of the Hexoskin Wearable Bio-Collection Device During Walking Conditions.

Montes J, Young J, Tandy R, Navalta J Int J Exerc Sci. 2018; 11(7):806-816.

PMID: 30338022 PMC: 6179424. DOI: 10.70252/YPHF4748.

References
1.
Doherty M, Nobbs L, Noakes T . Low frequency of the "plateau phenomenon" during maximal exercise in elite British athletes. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2003; 89(6):619-23. DOI: 10.1007/s00421-003-0845-z. View

2.
Bassett Jr D, Howley E, Thompson D, King G, Strath S, McLaughlin J . Validity of inspiratory and expiratory methods of measuring gas exchange with a computerized system. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2001; 91(1):218-24. DOI: 10.1152/jappl.2001.91.1.218. View

3.
Gore C, Clark R, Shipp N, van der Ploeg G, Withers R . CPX/D underestimates VO(2) in athletes compared with an automated Douglas bag system. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003; 35(8):1341-7. DOI: 10.1249/01.MSS.0000079045.86512.C5. View

4.
Macfarlane D, Wong P . Validity, reliability and stability of the portable Cortex Metamax 3B gas analysis system. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2011; 112(7):2539-47. PMC: 3371330. DOI: 10.1007/s00421-011-2230-7. View

5.
Carter J, Jeukendrup A . Validity and reliability of three commercially available breath-by-breath respiratory systems. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2002; 86(5):435-41. DOI: 10.1007/s00421-001-0572-2. View