4.4 Review

Foundational insights into the estimation of whole-body metabolic rate

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
卷 118, 期 5, 页码 867-874

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00421-018-3828-9

关键词

Calorimetry; Metabolic rate; Oxygen consumption; Respirometry

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Since 2013, this journal has promoted the publication of thematic reviews (Taylor in Eur J Appl Physiol 113:1634, 2013), where leading groups were invited to review the critical literature within each of several sub-topics. The current theme is historically based, and is focussed on estimating the metabolic rate in humans. This review charts the development of our understanding of those methods, from the discovery of oxygen and carbon dioxide, to the introduction of highly sophisticated modern apparatus to examine the composition of expired gas and determine respiratory minute volume. An historical timeline links the six thematic vignettes on this theme. Modern advances have greatly enhanced data collection without significant decrements in measurement accuracy. At the same time, however, conceptual errors, particularly steady-state requirements, are too often ignored. Indeed, it is recognised that we often neglect the past, leading to errors in research design, experimental observations and data interpretation, and this appears to be increasingly prevalent within the open-access literature. Accordingly, the Editorial Board, in recognition of a widening gap between our experimental foundations and contemporary research, embarked on developing a number of thematic review series, of which this series is the first. The intent of each accompanying overview is to introduce and illuminate seminal investigations that led to significant scientific or intellectual breakthroughs, and to thereby whet the appetite of readers to delve more deeply into the historical literature; for it is only when the foundations are understood that we can best understand where we are now, and in which directions we should head.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据