Comparison of Resting Metabolic Rate Estimates Obtained Using CardioCoachMax, CosMed FitMateWM, and InBody770.

Authors

• Winny Duarte, CUNY Lehman CollegeFollow
• Adam Mohan, CUNY Lehman CollegeFollow
• Alec Piñero, CUNY Lehman CollegeFollow
• Timothy Mui, CUNY Lehman CollegeFollow
• D.J. Oberlin, CUNY Lehman CollegeFollow

Abstract

Resting metabolic rate (RMR) denotes the energy expenditure by the body at rest to maintain essential physiological functions. An accurate measurement is important for estimating individual energy requirements, and different measurement devices may produce varying results. PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare RMR estimates obtained using three assessment devices: InBody (IB), CardioCoach (CC), and FitMate (FM), to evaluate differences in their measurements. METHODS: Thirteen healthy adults have been recruited to date through fliers and word of mouth (data collection is still ongoing). All devices were tested in a single morning session after an 8-h fast, 24 h without alcohol, and 48 h without vigorous exercise. IB estimated RMR from body composition (BIA), CC and FM measure RMR by indirect calorimetry over 15-20 min of rest. All three devices were used in random order, with CC and FM 10-20 min apart. FitMateTM, previously validated as a measure for RMRs (Nieman et al., 2006), served as the criterion measure. The Harris-Benedict (HB) equation was also used to estimate RMR. The resulting RMRs were compared across the three devices and the HB equation using repeated measures ANOVA. RESULTS: There were significant differences among the methods for estimating RMR (F=4.24, p=0.03). Pairwise comparisons showed that IB differed significantly from CC (p=0.04) and HB (p=0.01) but not from FM; no other pairwise comparisons rose to the level of statistical significance. IB produced the lowest average RMR, while CC and FM were the highest and similar. A One-sample t-test of differences between FM and CC showed no difference (t=1.00, p=0.34). However, the IB RMR differed significantly from the average value of FM and CC (t=-3.12, p=0.01). CONCLUSION: Preliminary results showed that CC produced RMR estimates comparable to the criterion FM. IB produced the lowest estimates, differing significantly from CC and HB; its difference from FM was not statistically significant in this preliminary sample. Further data collection is needed to confirm these findings.

Recommended Citation

Duarte, Winny; Mohan, Adam; Piñero, Alec; Mui, Timothy; and Oberlin, D.J. (2026) "Comparison of Resting Metabolic Rate Estimates Obtained Using CardioCoachMax, CosMed FitMateWM, and InBody770.," International Journal of Exercise Science: Conference Proceedings: Vol. 15: Iss. 9, Article 7.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/ijesab/vol15/iss9/7