Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Current predictive resting metabolic rate equations are not sufficient to determine proper resting energy expenditure in Olympic Young Adult National Team Athletes


Balci, Aydın; Badem, Ebru Arslanoğlu; Yılmaz, Ayfer Ezgi; Devrim-Lanpir, Aslı; Akınoğlu, Bihter; Kocahan, Tuğba; Hasanoğlu, Adnan; Hill, Lee; Rosemann, Thomas; Knechtle, Beat (2021). Current predictive resting metabolic rate equations are not sufficient to determine proper resting energy expenditure in Olympic Young Adult National Team Athletes. Frontiers in Physiology, 12:625370.

Abstract

Predictive resting metabolic rate (RMR) equations are widely used to determine athletes’ resting energy expenditure (REE). However, it remains unclear whether these predictive RMR equations accurately predict REE in the athletic populations. The purpose of the study was to compare 12 prediction equations (Harris-Benedict, Mifflin, Schofield, Cunningham, Owen, Liu’s, De Lorenzo) with measured RMR in Turkish national team athletes and sedentary controls. A total of 97 participants, 49 athletes (24 females, 25 males), and 48 sedentary (28 females, 20 males), were recruited from Turkey National Olympic Teams at the Ministry of Youth and Sports. RMR was measured using a Fitmate GS (Cosmed, Italy). The results of each 12 prediction formulas were compared with the measured RMR using paired <jats:italic>t</jats:italic>-test. The Bland-Altman plot was performed to determine the mean bias and limits of agreement between measured and predicted RMRs. Stratification according to sex, the measured RMR was greater in athletes compared to controls. The closest equation to the RMR measured by Fitmate GS was the Harris-Benedict equation in male athletes (mean difference -8.9 (SD 257.5) kcal/day), and Liu’s equation [mean difference -16.7 (<jats:italic>SD</jats:italic> 195.0) kcal/day] in female athletes. However, the intra-class coefficient (ICC) results indicated that all equations, including Harris-Benedict for male athletes (ICC = 0.524) and Liu’s for female athletes (ICC = 0.575), had a moderate reliability compared to the measured RMR. In sedentary subjects, the closest equation to the measured RMR is the Nelson equation in males, with the lowest RMSE value of 118 kcal/day [mean difference: 10.1 (<jats:italic>SD</jats:italic> 117.2) kJ/day], whereas, in females, all equations differ significantly from the measured RMR. While Nelson (ICC = 0.790) had good and Owen (ICC = 0.722) and Mifflin (calculated using fat-free mass) (ICC = 0.700) had moderate reliability in males, all predictive equations showed poor reliability in females. The results indicate that the predictive RMR equations failed to accurately predict RMR levels in the participants. Therefore, it may not suitable to use them in determining total energy expenditure.

Abstract

Predictive resting metabolic rate (RMR) equations are widely used to determine athletes’ resting energy expenditure (REE). However, it remains unclear whether these predictive RMR equations accurately predict REE in the athletic populations. The purpose of the study was to compare 12 prediction equations (Harris-Benedict, Mifflin, Schofield, Cunningham, Owen, Liu’s, De Lorenzo) with measured RMR in Turkish national team athletes and sedentary controls. A total of 97 participants, 49 athletes (24 females, 25 males), and 48 sedentary (28 females, 20 males), were recruited from Turkey National Olympic Teams at the Ministry of Youth and Sports. RMR was measured using a Fitmate GS (Cosmed, Italy). The results of each 12 prediction formulas were compared with the measured RMR using paired <jats:italic>t</jats:italic>-test. The Bland-Altman plot was performed to determine the mean bias and limits of agreement between measured and predicted RMRs. Stratification according to sex, the measured RMR was greater in athletes compared to controls. The closest equation to the RMR measured by Fitmate GS was the Harris-Benedict equation in male athletes (mean difference -8.9 (SD 257.5) kcal/day), and Liu’s equation [mean difference -16.7 (<jats:italic>SD</jats:italic> 195.0) kcal/day] in female athletes. However, the intra-class coefficient (ICC) results indicated that all equations, including Harris-Benedict for male athletes (ICC = 0.524) and Liu’s for female athletes (ICC = 0.575), had a moderate reliability compared to the measured RMR. In sedentary subjects, the closest equation to the measured RMR is the Nelson equation in males, with the lowest RMSE value of 118 kcal/day [mean difference: 10.1 (<jats:italic>SD</jats:italic> 117.2) kJ/day], whereas, in females, all equations differ significantly from the measured RMR. While Nelson (ICC = 0.790) had good and Owen (ICC = 0.722) and Mifflin (calculated using fat-free mass) (ICC = 0.700) had moderate reliability in males, all predictive equations showed poor reliability in females. The results indicate that the predictive RMR equations failed to accurately predict RMR levels in the participants. Therefore, it may not suitable to use them in determining total energy expenditure.

Statistics

Citations

Dimensions.ai Metrics

Altmetrics

Downloads

1 download since deposited on 19 Feb 2021
1 download since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > University Hospital Zurich > Institute of General Practice
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Uncontrolled Keywords:Physiology (medical), Physiology
Language:English
Date:4 February 2021
Deposited On:19 Feb 2021 16:04
Last Modified:24 Feb 2021 02:27
Publisher:Frontiers Research Foundation
ISSN:1664-042X
OA Status:Gold
Free access at:Publisher DOI. An embargo period may apply.
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2021.625370

Download

Gold Open Access

Download PDF  'Current predictive resting metabolic rate equations are not sufficient to determine proper resting energy expenditure in Olympic Young Adult National Team Athletes'.
Preview
Content: Published Version
Language: English
Filetype: PDF
Size: 910kB
View at publisher
Licence: Creative Commons: Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)