Cargando…

Cross-Validation of a New General Population Resting Metabolic Rate Prediction Equation Based on Body Composition

Current prediction equations for resting metabolic rate (RMR) were validated in a relatively small sample with high-individual variance. This study determined the accuracy of five common RMR equations and proposed a novel prediction equation, including body composition. A total of 3001 participants...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kfir, Aviv, Lahav, Yair, Gepner, Yftach
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9960966/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36839163
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu15040805
Descripción
Sumario:Current prediction equations for resting metabolic rate (RMR) were validated in a relatively small sample with high-individual variance. This study determined the accuracy of five common RMR equations and proposed a novel prediction equation, including body composition. A total of 3001 participants (41 ± 13 years; BMI 28.5 ± 5.5 kg/m(2); 48% males) from nutrition clinics in Israel were measured by indirect calorimetry to assess RMR. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry were used to evaluate fat mass (FM) and free-fat mass (FFM). Accuracy and mean bias were compared between the measured RMR and the prediction equations. A random training set (75%, n = 2251) and a validation set (25%, n = 750) were used to develop a new prediction model. All the prediction equations underestimated RMR. The Cunningham equation obtained the largest mean deviation [−16.6%; 95% level of agreement (LOA) 1.9, −35.1], followed by the Owen (−15.4%; 95% LOA 4.2, −22.6), Mifflin–St. Jeor (−12.6; 95% LOA 5.8, −26.5), Harris–Benedict (−8.2; 95% LOA 11.1, −27.7), and the WHO/FAO/UAU (−2.1; 95% LOA 22.3, −26.5) equations. Our new proposed model includes sex, age, FM, and FFM and successfully predicted 73.5% of the explained variation, with a bias of 0.7% (95% LOA −18.6, 19.7). This study demonstrates a large discrepancy between the common prediction equations and measured RMR and suggests a new accurate equation that includes both FM and FFM.