The aim of this article was to compare 2 portable devices (a heart-rate monitor and an electromagnetic-coil system) that evaluate 2 different physiological parameters—heart rate (HR) and ventilation (VE)—with the objective of estimating energy expenditure (EE). The authors set out to prove that VE is a more pertinent setting than HR to estimate EE during light to moderate activities (sitting and standing at rest and walking at 4, 5, and 6 km/hr). Eleven healthy men were recruited to take part in this study (27.6 ± 5.4 yr, 73.7 ± 9.7 kg). The authors determined the relationships between HR and EE and between VE and EE during light to moderate activities. They compared EE measured by indirect calorimetry (EEREF) with EE estimated by HR monitor (EEHR) and EE estimated by electromagnetic coils (EEMAG) in upright sitting and standing positions and during walking exercises. They compared EEREF with EEHR and EEMAG. The results showed no significant difference between the values of EEREF and EEMAG. However, they showed several significant differences between the values of EEREF and EEHR (for standing at rest and walking at 5 and 6 km/hr). These results showed that the electromagnetic-coil system seems to be more accurate than the HR monitor to estimate EE at rest and during exercise. Taking into consideration these results, it would be interesting to associate the parameters VE and HR to estimate EE. Furthermore, a new version of the electromagnetic-coil device was recently developed and provides the possibility to perform measurement under daily life conditions.
Gastinger, Nicolas, Sorel, and Prioux are with the Movement, Sport, and Health Sciences Laboratory, Rennes University 2, Rennes, France. Sefati is with Rennes University 1, Rennes, France.