Dataset Information

Estimating the agreement between the metabolic rate calculated from prediction equations and from a portable indirect calorimetry device: an effort to develop a new equation for predicting resting metabolic rate.

ABSTRACT: Background:Many studies have been performed over time in order to determine the reliability of metabolic rate prediction equations. Purpose:To evaluate the agreement, in terms of bias, absolute bias and accuracy between metabolic rate prediction equations and measured metabolic rate using indirect calorimetry system (IC), investigating also the factors affecting this agreement. Methods:The anthropometric features of 383 Caucasian participants of all Body Mass Index (BMI) classes were recorded and Resting Metabolic Rate (RMR) was measured by using the IC Fitmate portable device. The resulting values were compared with the predictive values of Harris & Benedict, Schofield, Owen, FAO-WHO-UNU, Mifflin and Harrington equations. Results:A closer approximation in agreement was obtained using the Harrington equation (based on BMI, age and gender). The equations using variables, such as weight, height, age and gender demonstrated higher agreement than the equations using merely weight and gender. Higher educational level was associated with normal weight, while higher calorific ratio was found in the class of normal-weighted individuals. An inverse relationship between ??? and RMR was also observed and a logarithmic equation for calculating RMR was created, which was differentiated in relation to BMI classes, using the weight and gender variables. Conclusion:A better measurement agreement between RMR prediction equations and IC may be achieved due to BMI consideration. The present findings contributed to a better understanding of the measured parameters, confirming the inverse relationship between BMI and RMR. Age group and gender variables may also exert significant role on the bias response of some RMR equations.

SUBMITTER: Pavlidou E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6003108 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Estimating the agreement between the metabolic rate calculated from prediction equations and from a portable indirect calorimetry device: an effort to develop a new equation for predicting resting metabolic rate.

Pavlidou Eleni E Petridis Dimitris D Tolia Maria M Tsoukalas Nikolaos N Poultsidi Antigoni A Fasoulas Aristeidis A Kyrgias George G Giaginis Constantinos C

Nutrition & metabolism 20180615

<h4>Background</h4>Many studies have been performed over time in order to determine the reliability of metabolic rate prediction equations.<h4>Purpose</h4>To evaluate the agreement, in terms of bias, absolute bias and accuracy between metabolic rate prediction equations and measured metabolic rate using indirect calorimetry system (IC), investigating also the factors affecting this agreement.<h4>Methods</h4>The anthropometric features of 383 Caucasian participants of all Body Mass Index (BMI) cl ...[more]

PMID: 29983723

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundResting metabolic rate (RMR) is a key determinant of daily caloric needs. Respirometry, a form of indirect calorimetry (IC), is considered one of the most accurate methods to measure RMR in clinical and research settings. It is impractical to measure RMR by IC in routine clinical practice; therefore, several formulas are used to predict RMR. In this study, we sought to determine the accuracy of these formulas in determining RMR and assess additional factors that may determine RMR.MethodsWe measured RMR in 114 subjects (67% female, 30% African American [AA]) using IC. Along with standard anthropometrics, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry was used to obtain fat-free mass(FFM) and total fat mass. Measured RMR (mRMR) by respirometry was compared with predicted RMR (pRMR) generated by Mifflin-St.Joer, Cunningham, and Harris-Benedict (HB) equations. Linear regression models were used to determine factors affecting mRMR.ResultsMean age, BMI, and mRMR of subjects were 46 ± 16 years (mean ± SD), 35 ± 10 kg/m2, and 1658 ± 391 kcal/day, respectively. After adjusting for age, gender, and anthropometrics, the two largest predictors of mRMR were race (p < 0.0001) and FFM (p < 0.0001). For every kg increase in FFM, RMR increased by 28 kcal/day (p < 0.0001). AA race was associated with 144 kcal/day (p < 0.0001) decrease in mRMR. The impact of race on mRMR was mitigated by adding in truncal FFM to the model. When using only clinically measured variables to predict mRMR, we found race, hip circumference, age, gender, and weight to be significant predictors of mRMR (p < 0.005). Mifflin-St.Joer and HB equations that use just age, gender, height, and weight overestimated kcal expenditure in AA by 138 ± 148 and 242 ± 164 (p < 0.0001), respectively.ConclusionWe found that formulas utilizing height, weight, gender, and age systematically overestimate mRMR and hence predict higher calorie needs among AA. The lower mRMR in AA could be related to truncal fat-free mass representing the activity of metabolically active intraabdominal organs.

Project description:BackgroundResting metabolic rate (RMR) prediction equations are often used to calculate RMR in athletes; however, their accuracy and precision can vary greatly.ObjectiveThe aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine which RMR prediction equations are (i) most accurate (average predicted values closest to measured values) and (ii) most precise (number of individuals within 10% of measured value).Data sourcesA systematic search of PubMed, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, Embase, and Web of Science up to November 2021 was conducted.Eligibility criteriaRandomised controlled trials, cross-sectional observational studies, case studies or any other study wherein RMR, measured by indirect calorimetry, was compared with RMR predicted via prediction equations in adult athletes were included.AnalysisA narrative synthesis and random-effects meta-analysis (where possible) was conducted. To explore heterogeneity and factors influencing accuracy, subgroup analysis was conducted based on sex, body composition measurement method, athlete characteristics (athlete status, energy availability, body weight), and RMR measurement characteristics (adherence to best practice guidelines, test preparation and prior physical activity).ResultsTwenty-nine studies (mixed sports/disciplines n = 8, endurance n = 5, recreational exercisers n = 5, rugby n = 3, other n = 8), with a total of 1430 participants (822 F, 608 M) and 100 different RMR prediction equations were included. Eleven equations satisfied criteria for meta-analysis for accuracy. Effect sizes for accuracy ranged from 0.04 to - 1.49. Predicted RMR values did not differ significantly from measured values for five equations (Cunningham (1980), Harris-Benedict (1918), Cunningham (1991), De Lorenzo, Ten-Haaf), whereas all others significantly underestimated or overestimated RMR (p < 0.05) (Mifflin-St. Jeor, Owen, FAO/WHO/UNU, Nelson, Koehler). Of the five equations, large heterogeneity was observed for all (p < 0.05, I2 range: 80-93%) except the Ten-Haaf (p = 0.48, I2 = 0%). Significant differences between subgroups were observed for some but not all equations for sex, athlete status, fasting status prior to RMR testing, and RMR measurement methodology. Nine equations satisfied criteria for meta-analysis for precision. Of the nine equations, the Ten-Haaf was found to be the most precise, predicting 80.2% of participants to be within ± 10% of measured values with all others ranging from 40.7 to 63.7%.ConclusionMany RMR prediction equations have been used in athletes, which can differ widely in accuracy and precision. While no single equation is guaranteed to be superior, the Ten-Haaf (age, weight, height) equation appears to be the most accurate and precise in most situations. Some equations are documented as consistently underperforming and should be avoided. Choosing a prediction equation based on a population of similar characteristics (physical characteristics, sex, sport, athlete status) is preferable. Caution is warranted when interpreting RMR ratio of measured to predicted values as a proxy of energy availability from a single measurement.Prospero registrationCRD42020218212.

Dataset Information

Estimating the agreement between the metabolic rate calculated from prediction equations and from a portable indirect calorimetry device: an effort to develop a new equation for predicting resting metabolic rate.

Publications

Estimating the agreement between the metabolic rate calculated from prediction equations and from a portable indirect calorimetry device: an effort to develop a new equation for predicting resting metabolic rate.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets