Validation of predictive equations to estimate resting metabolic rate of females and males across different activity levels

Author:

Prado‐Nóvoa Olalla1,Howard Kristen R.1,Laskaridou Eleni1,Reid Glen R.1,Zorrilla‐Revilla Guillermo12ORCID,Marinik Elaina L.1,Davy Brenda M.1,Speakman John R.34,Davy Kevin P.1

Affiliation:

1. Department of Human Nutrition, Foods, and Exercise, Human Integrative Physiology Laboratory Virginia Tech Blacksburg Virginia USA

2. Laboratorio de Evolución Humana, Departamento de Historia, Geografía y Comunicación Universidad de Burgos Burgos Spain

3. Institute of Biological and Environmental Sciences University of Aberdeen Aberdeen UK

4. Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Metabolic Health, Center for Energy Metabolism and Reproduction, Shenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology Chinese Academy of Sciences Shenzhen China

Abstract

AbstractObjectivesUsing equations to predict resting metabolic rate (RMR) has yielded different degrees of validity, particularly when sex and different physical activity levels were considered. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to determine the validity of several different predictive equations to estimate RMR in female and male adults with varying physical activity levels.MethodWe measured the RMR of 50 adults (26 females and 24 males) evenly distributed through activity levels varying from sedentary to ultra‐endurance. Body composition was measured by dual X–ray absorptiometry and physical activity was monitored by accelerometry. Ten equations to predict RMR were applied (using Body Mass [BM]: Harris & Benedict, 1919; Mifflin et al., 1990 [MifflinBM]; Pontzer et al., 2021 [PontzerBM]; Schofield, 1985; FAO/WHO/UNU, 2004; and using Fat‐Free Mass (FFM): Cunningham, 1991; Johnstone et al., 2006; Mifflin et al., 1990 [MifflinFFM]; Nelson et al. 1992; Pontzer et al., 2021 [PontzerFFM]). The accuracy of these equations was analyzed, and the effect of sex and physical activity was evaluated using different accuracy metrics.ResultsEquations using BM were less accurate for females, and their accuracy was influenced by physical activity and body composition. FFM equations were slightly less accurate for males but there was no obvious effect of physical activity or other sample parameters. PontzerFFM provides higher accuracy than other models independent of the magnitude of RMR, sex, activity levels, and sample characteristics.ConclusionEquations using FFM were more accurate than BM equations in our sample. Future studies are needed to test the accuracy of RMR prediction equations in diverse samples.

Funder

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Genetics,Anthropology,Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics,Anatomy

Cited by 3 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3