Methodological differences cannot explain associations between health, anthropometrics, and excess resting metabolic rate.
Methodological differences cannot explain associations between health, anthropometrics, and excess resting metabolic rate.
复制标题
方法学差异无法解释健康、人体测量学和过量静息代谢率之间的关联。
DOI：
10.1002/ajpa.23811
复制
发表时间：
2019
影响因子：
2.8
通讯作者：
Pontzer,Herman
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Gurven,Michael;Trumble,Benjamin;Stieglitz,Jonathan;Cummings,Dan;Kaplan,Hillard;Blackwell,AaronD;Yetish,Gandhi;Pontzer,Herman
我们赞赏奥科博克对方法论严谨性的兴趣。我们在很大程度上同意她的评论，这表明偏离标准方案可能导致了Tsimane测量的高静息代谢率（RMR）。事实上，我们的论文承认了RMR评估的金标准间接量热法的许多关键偏差，并试图对其中的几个进行调整（Gurven等人，2016年）。将标准临床方法引入远程现场设置通常涉及某些妥协，特别是在我们的情况下，其中RMR测量只是大规模健康和老龄化项目的一个组成部分（Gurven等人，2017年）。RMR数据收集时间为2012年至2014年，如果我们要再次测量RMR以进行重点随访，我们将考虑新的可用技术，尽可能改进我们的方案，并与我们公布的估计值进行比较。Ocobock总结了金标准RMR测试方案，并强调了我们的方法可以改进的地方。由于我们已经在我们的研究限制部分解决了其中的几个问题，我们首先回应了Ocobock的三个建议，以提高我们的RMR措施的有效性，这些措施在我们的原始论文中还没有提到。Ocobock提到，参与者在评估前应该休息至少20分钟，理想情况下，参与者应该避免运动至少14小时。虽然我们没有直接测量之前的活动的具体措施，但20分钟的休息时间几乎可以肯定是我们大多数参与者的情况;他们经常耐心地等待医生的就诊或其他项目成员的采访，并等待轮到他们进行RMR测量。然而，这是不可能的（或道德的）期望，
We appreciate Ocobock’s interest in methodological rigor. We largely agree with her commentary, which suggests that departures from standard protocols might have contributed to the high resting metabolic rate (RMR) measured for Tsimane. Indeed, our paper acknowledges many of the key departures from gold-standard indirect calorimetry methods of RMR assessment and attempts to adjust for several of these (Gurven et al., 2016). Bringing standard clinical methods into remote field settings often involves certain compromises, especially in our case, where RMR measurement was just one component of a large-scale health and aging project (Gurven et al., 2017). RMR data collection was from 2012 to 2014, and where we to measure RMR again for focused follow up, we would consider new available technologies, improve our protocol to the extent possible, and compare against our published estimates.Ocobock summarizes gold-standard RMR testing protocol and highlights where our methods could be improved. As we already addressed several of these in our study Limitations section, we first respond to three of Ocobock’s suggestions for improving the validity of our RMR measures that are not already mentioned in our original paper. Ocobock mentions that participants should have rested at least 20 min before assessment, and that participants should have ideally refrained from exercise for at least 14 hr. Although we do not have specific measures of activity directly prior to measurement, a 20-min resting period was almost certainly the case for the majority of our participants; they were often patiently waiting to visit the physician or being interviewed by other project members and waiting their turn for RMR measurement. It is simply not possible (or ethical), however, to expect