Year-end Sale % OFF 
Abstract
Estimation of RMR using prediction equations is the basis for calculating energy requirements. In the present study, RMR was predicted by Harris-Benedict, Schofield, Henry, Mifflin-St Jeor and Owen equations and measured by indirect calorimetry in 125 healthy adult women of varying BMI (17-44 kg/m2). Agreement between methods was assessed by Bland-Altman analyses and each equation was assessed for accuracy by calculating the percentage of individuals predicted within ± 10 % of measured RMR. Slopes and intercepts of bias as a function of average RMR (mean of predicted and measured RMR) were calculated by regression analyses. Predictors of equation bias were investigated using univariate and multivariate linear regression. At group level, bias (the difference between predicted and measured RMR) was not different from zero only for Mifflin-St Jeor (0 (sd 153) kcal/d (0 (sd 640) kJ/d)) and Henry (8 (sd 163) kcal/d (33 (sd 682) kJ/d)) equations. Mifflin-St Jeor and Henry equations were most accurate at the individual level and predicted RMR within 10 % of measured RMR in 71 and 66 % of participants, respectively. For all equations, limits of agreement were wide, slopes of bias were negative, and intercepts of bias were positive and significantly (P < 0⋅05) different from zero. Increasing age, height and BMI were associated with underestimation of RMR, but collectively these variables explained only 15 % of the variance in estimation bias. Overall accuracy of equations for prediction of RMR is low at the individual level, particularly in women with low and high RMR. The Mifflin-St Jeor equation was the most accurate for this dataset, but prediction errors were still observed in about one-third of participants.
Highlights
Estimation of RMR using prediction equations is the basis for calculating energy requirements
The Mifflin–St Jeor and Henry equations were most accurate on an individual basis, and predicted RMR was within 10 % of measured values in 71 and 66 % of the participants, respectively
In the present study conducted on healthy females with varying BMI, there was considerable room for improvement in the performance of each of the prediction equations at individuallevel assessment, though good agreement between measured and predicted RMR was observed at group level using the Mifflin–St Jeor and Henry equations
Summary
Estimation of RMR using prediction equations is the basis for calculating energy requirements. RMR was predicted by Harris–Benedict, Schofield, Henry, Mifflin–St Jeor and Owen equations and measured by indirect calorimetry in 125 healthy adult women of varying BMI (17–44 kg/m2). Bias (the difference between predicted and measured RMR) was not different from zero only for Mifflin–St Jeor (0 (SD 153) kcal/d (0 (SD 640) kJ/d)) and Henry (8 (SD 163) kcal/d (33 (SD 682) kJ/d)) equations. Prediction equations offer a practical alternative to measuring RMR by indirect calorimetry since energy requirements can be calculated using routinely available measures such as weight, age, sex and height. Since accurate measurement of FFM is not routinely available, RMR equations usually rely on body weight as the dominant predictor, and consider age, sex and sometimes height[2]. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the validity of several RMR prediction equations, by comparing RMR measured by indirect calorimetry with RMR predicted by equation, in a group of healthy women with varying BMI
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
