OBJECTIVES: To determine the resting metabolic rate in a sample of the Italian population, and to evaluate the validity of predictive equations for resting metabolic rate (RMR) from the literature in normal and obese subjects. DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study. SETTINGS: Department of Human Physiology and Nutrition, University 'Tor Vergata', Rome. SUBJECTS: A total of 320 healthy subjects, 127 males and 193 females, aged 18-59 y. METHODS: Weight, height and resting metabolic rate by indirect calorimetry were measured. Resting metabolic rate was also predicted using equations from the literature. RESULTS: Resting metabolic rate (mean s.d.) in normal weight subjects was 7983+/-1007 kJ/24 h (males) and 6127 907 kJ/24h (females). Measured RMR and predicted RMR values using various equations from the literature were significantly different in males and females, except for the Harris-Benedict equation and the Schofield equations. Also, in overweight and obese subjects the prediction error was generally larger compared to normal-weight subjects for all formulas except for the Harris-Benedict and Schofield formulas. In overweight and obese males but not in females, RMR was lower than in normal-weight subjects after correcting for weight and age differences. Stepwise multiple regression of resting metabolic rate against weight, height and age in males and females did not reveal a prediction formula with a lower prediction error than the Harris-Benedict or Schofield formulas and thus was not further explored. CONCLUSIONS: The Harris-Benedict formula and the Schofield formula provide a valid estimation of resting metabolic rate at a group level in both normal-weight and overweight Italians. However, the individual error can be so high that for individual use a measured value has to be preferred over an estimated value.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the resting metabolic rate in a sample of the Italian population, and to evaluate the validity of predictive equations for resting metabolic rate (RMR) from the literature in normal and obese subjects. DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study. SETTINGS: Department of Human Physiology and Nutrition, University 'Tor Vergata', Rome. SUBJECTS: A total of 320 healthy subjects, 127 males and 193 females, aged 18-59 y. METHODS: Weight, height and resting metabolic rate by indirect calorimetry were measured. Resting metabolic rate was also predicted using equations from the literature. RESULTS: Resting metabolic rate (mean s.d.) in normal weight subjects was 7983+/-1007 kJ/24 h (males) and 6127 907 kJ/24h (females). Measured RMR and predicted RMR values using various equations from the literature were significantly different in males and females, except for the Harris-Benedict equation and the Schofield equations. Also, in overweight and obese subjects the prediction error was generally larger compared to normal-weight subjects for all formulas except for the Harris-Benedict and Schofield formulas. In overweight and obese males but not in females, RMR was lower than in normal-weight subjects after correcting for weight and age differences. Stepwise multiple regression of resting metabolic rate against weight, height and age in males and females did not reveal a prediction formula with a lower prediction error than the Harris-Benedict or Schofield formulas and thus was not further explored. CONCLUSIONS: The Harris-Benedict formula and the Schofield formula provide a valid estimation of resting metabolic rate at a group level in both normal-weight and overweight Italians. However, the individual error can be so high that for individual use a measured value has to be preferred over an estimated value.
Authors: Laura Di Renzo; Luigi Tonino Marsella; Francesca Sarlo; Laura Soldati; Santo Gratteri; Ludovico Abenavoli; Antonino De Lorenzo Journal: J Transl Med Date: 2014-11-29 Impact factor: 5.531
Authors: M Marra; I Cioffi; R Sammarco; C Montagnese; M Naccarato; V Amato; F Contaldo; F Pasanisi Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) Date: 2017-02-28 Impact factor: 5.095
Authors: Judi Porter; Kay Nguo; Jorja Collins; Nicole Kellow; Catherine E Huggins; Simone Gibson; Zoe Davidson; Dale Schoeller; Ross Prentice; Marian L Neuhouser; Linda Snetselaar; Helen Truby Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2019-12-01 Impact factor: 7.045