Journal of Applied Physiology Fuel your research with LabChart
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J Appl Physiol 40: 619-624, 1976;
8750-7587/76 $5.00
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wilmore, J. H.
Right arrow Articles by Norton, A. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wilmore, J. H.
Right arrow Articles by Norton, A. C.

Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol 40, Issue 4 619-624, Copyright © 1976 by American Physiological Society

ARTICLES

An automated system for assessing metabolic and respiratory function during exercise

J. H. Wilmore, J. A. Davis and A. C. Norton

This paper provides a brief description of a new, totally automated system for assessing metabolic and respiratory function during exercise. This system was evaluated simultaneously against two established systems, one a computer-based system and the other a semiautomated system, to determine its validity over a wide range of metabolic levels, i.e., less than 2 to greater than 16 mets. A total of 112 males and females, 12-65 yr of age, performed either arm or leg exercises on a bicycle ergometer or treadmill, starting at approximately 2 mets and progressing by approximately 1 met/min to the point of volitional fatigue. Respiratory and metabolic assessments were made each minute during the entire exercise bout. Comparisons across the three systems demonstrated remarkable agreement, particularly when all potential sources of error for each system are considered. Although several statistically significant differences between two of the systems were noted at the lowest work levels, the difference in VO2 between any two systems never exceeded 1.1 ml/kg-min.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Br. J. Sports. Med.Home page
C Maiolo, G Melchiorri, L Iacopino, S Masala, and A De Lorenzo
Physical activity energy expenditure measured using a portable telemetric device in comparison with a mass spectrometer
Br. J. Sports Med., October 1, 2003; 37(5): 445 - 447.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Appl. Physiol.Home page
D. R. Bassett Jr., E. T. Howley, D. L. Thompson, G. A. King, S. J. Strath, J. E. McLaughlin, and B. B. Parr
Validity of inspiratory and expiratory methods of measuring gas exchange with a computerized system
J Appl Physiol, July 1, 2001; 91(1): 218 - 224.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 CLIN PEDIATRHome page
C. Chryssanthopoulos, M.G. Maksud, W.G. Gallen, and L.L. Hause
Cardiopulmonary Responses of Asthmatic Children to Strenuous Exercise: Effect of Theophylline
Clinical Pediatrics, July 1, 1984; 23(7): 384 - 388.
[Abstract] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Visit Other APS Journals Online