TY - JOUR
T1 - Cross-Validation of a New General Population Resting Metabolic Rate Prediction Equation Based on Body Composition
AU - Kfir, Aviv
AU - Lahav, Yair
AU - Gepner, Yftach
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 by the authors.
PY - 2023/2
Y1 - 2023/2
N2 - 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/m2; 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.
AB - 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/m2; 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.
KW - body composition
KW - equation
KW - prediction
KW - resting metabolic rate
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85148908841&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3390/nu15040805
DO - 10.3390/nu15040805
M3 - ???researchoutput.researchoutputtypes.contributiontojournal.article???
C2 - 36839163
AN - SCOPUS:85148908841
SN - 2072-6643
VL - 15
JO - Nutrients
JF - Nutrients
IS - 4
M1 - 805
ER -