Validation of the doubly labeled water method in rats during isolation and simulated weightlessness

Total energy expenditure (TEE) of rats during simulated microgravity is unknown. The doubly labeled water method (DLW) reliably measures TEE, but the results depend on the methods of calculation. These methods were validated and appraised by indirect calorimetry in eight rats during isolation (7 days) and simulated microgravity (10 days). There were no effects on CO(2) production in the method used to derive constant flux rates as in the regression models. r(CO(2)) estimates were dependent on the assumed fractionation processes, the derivation of constant flux rate methods, and the selected pool models. Use of respiratory or food quotients did not influence TEE estimations, which were similar during isolation and simulation. During either isolation with growth or simulation with a stabilized mass, the one-pool model of Speakman (Speakman JR. Doubly Labelled Water. Theory and Practice. London: Chapman and Hall, 1997) resulted in the more reliable validation (0.8 +/- 2.2 and 2.2 +/- 3.4% vs. calorimetry, respectively). However, during simulation, agreement was also observed with the single pool model of Lifson (Lifson N, Gordon GB, and McClintock R. J Appl Physiol 7: 704-710, 1955) (-2.5 +/- 2.5%), and two two-pool models [Schoeller (Schoeller DA. J Nutr 118: 1278-1289, 1988) (0.5 +/- 3.1%) and Speakman (Speakman, JR. Doubly Labelled Water. Theory and Practice. London: Chapman and Hall, 1997) (-1.9 +/- 2.7%)]. This latter finding seems linked to the stable body mass and to fractionation consideration close to the single-pool model of Speakman. During isolation or simulated microgravity, the other equations underestimated TEE by 10-20%.