European Journal of Applied Physiology

, Volume 98, Issue 2, pp 139–151 | Cite as

Accuracy and reliability of the ParvoMedics TrueOne 2400 and MedGraphics VO2000 metabolic systems

  • Scott E. Crouter
  • Amanda Antczak
  • Jonathan R. Hudak
  • Diane M. DellaValle
  • Jere D. Haas
Original Article


This study examined the accuracy and reliability of the MedGraphics VO2000 (VO2000) portable metabolic system and the ParvoMedics TrueOne 2400 (TrueOne 2400) metabolic cart against the criterion Douglas bag (DB) method. Ten healthy males (age 20 ± 1.7 years) had their gas exchange variables measured at rest and during cycling at 50, 100, 150, 200, and 250 W. Each stage was 10–12 min. For half of the stage gas exchange was measured with the DB and TrueOne 2400 simultaneously and for the other half of the stage gas exchange was measured with the VO2000. The testing was performed on two separate days and the order in which the equipment was used in each stage was randomized. Reliability between days for VE (CV 7.3–8.8%) was similar among devices, however, for VO2, and VCO2 the VO2000 (CV 14.2–15.8%) was less reliable compared to the DB (CV 5.3–6.0%) and TrueOne 2400 (CV 4.7–5.7%). The TrueOne 2400 was not significantly different from the DB at rest or any work rate for VE, VO2, or VCO2 (P ≥ 0.05). The VO2000 was significantly different from the DB for VE at 50–100 W, VO2 at rest and 100–250 W, and VCO2 at rest and 200–250 W (all, P < 0.05). The TrueOne 2400 provides accurate and reliable results for the measurement of gas exchange variables. The VO2000 portable metabolic system was less reliable for measuring VO2 and VCO2 and generally overestimates VO2 at most cycling work rates. Further research is needed to confirm the results found with the VO2000.


Oxygen consumption Indirect calorimetry Carbon dioxide production Douglas bag 


  1. Atkinson G, Nevill AM (1998) Statistical methods for assessing measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine. Sports Med 26:217–238PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bassett DR Jr, Howley ET, Thompson DL, King GA, Strath SJ, McLaughlin JE, Parr BB (2001) Validity of inspiratory and expiratory methods of measuring gas exchange with a computerized system. J Appl Physiol 91:218–224PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bigard AX, Guezennec CY (1995) Evaluation of the Cosmed K2 telemetry system during exercise at moderate altitude. Med Sci Sports Exerc 27:1333–1338PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Brehm MA, Harlaar J, Groepenhof H (2004) Validation of the portable VmaxST system for oxygen-uptake measurement. Gait Posture 20:67–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Byard AD, Dengel DR (2002) Validity of a portable metabolic measurement system. Med Sci Sports Exerc 34:S149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carter J, Jeukendrup AE (2002) Validity and reliability of three commercially available breath-by-breath respiratory systems. Eur J Appl Physiol 86:435–441PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Foss O, Hallen J (2005) Validity and stability of a computerized metabolic system with mixing chamber. Int J Sports Med 26:569–575PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gore CJ, Clark RJ, Shipp NJ, Van Der Ploeg GE, Withers RT (2003) CPX/D underestimates VO(2) in athletes compared with an automated Douglas bag system. Med Sci Sports Exerc 35:1341–1347PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. King GA, McLaughlin JE, Howley ET, Bassett DR Jr, Ainsworth BE (1999) Validation of aerosport KB1-C portable metabolic system. Int J Sports Med 20:304–308PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Larsson PU, Wadell KME, Jakobsson EJI, Burlin LU, Henriksson-Larsen KB (2004) Validation of the MetaMax II portable metabolic system. Int J Sports Med 25:115–123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lothian F, Farrally MR, Mahoney C (1993) Validity and reliability of the Cosmed K2 to measure oxygen uptake. Can J Appl Physiol 18:197–206PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Louhevaara V, Ilmarinen J, Oja P (1985) Comparison of three field methods for measuring oxygen consumption. Ergonomics 28:463–470PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lucia A, Fleck SJ, Gotshall RW, Kearney JT (1993) Validity and reliability of the Cosmed K2 instrument. Int J Sports Med 14:380–386PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McLaughlin JE, King GA, Howley ET, Bassett DR Jr, Ainsworth BE (2001) Validation of the COSMED K4b2 portable metabolic system. Int J Sports Med 22:280–284PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Meyer T, Georg T, Becker C, Kindermann W (2001) Reliability of gas exchange measurement from two different spiroergometry systems. Int J Sports Med 22:93–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Meyer T, Davison RC, Kindermann W (2005) Ambulatory gas exchange measurements–current status and future options. Int J Sports Med 26(Suppl 1):S19–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Olson TP, Tracy JE, Dengel DR (2003) Validity of a low-flow pneumotach and portable metabolic system for measurement of basal metabolic rate. Med Sci Sports Exerc 35:S143Google Scholar
  19. Peel C, Utsey C (1993) Oxygen consumption using the K2 telemetry system and a metabolic cart. Med Sci Sports Exerc 25:396–400PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Prieur F, Castells J, Denis C (2003) A methodology to assess the accuracy of a portable metabolic system (VmaxST). Med Sci Sports Exerc 35:879–885PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rietjens GJ, Kuipers H, Kester AD, Keizer HA (2001) Validation of a computerized metabolic measurement system (Oxycon-Pro) during low and high intensity exercise. Int J Sports Med 22:291–294PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Stuart MK, Howley ET, Gladden LB, Cox RH (1981) Efficiency of trained subjects differing in maximal oxygen uptake and type of training. J Appl Physiol 50:444–449PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Withers RT, Gore CJ, Gass G, Hahn A (2000) Determination of maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max) or maximal aerobic power. In: Gore CJ (eds) Physiological tests for elite athletes. Human kinetics. Champaign, pp 114–127Google Scholar
  24. Yeh MP, Gardner RM, Adams TD, Yanowitz FG (1982) Computerized determination of pneumotachometer characteristics using a calibrated syringe. J Appl Physiol 53:280–285PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Yeh MP, Adams TD, Gardner RM, Yanowitz FG (1987) Turbine flowmeter vs. Fleisch pneumotachometer: a comparative study for exercise testing. J Appl Physiol 63:1289–1295PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Scott E. Crouter
    • 1
  • Amanda Antczak
    • 2
  • Jonathan R. Hudak
    • 2
  • Diane M. DellaValle
    • 1
  • Jere D. Haas
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Nutritional SciencesCornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Exercise and Sport SciencesIthaca CollegeIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations