OBJECTIVES: To measure resting metabolic rate (RMR) in old-old adults living in the community and examine the association between measured RMR and frailty status and compare it with expected RMR generated by a predictive equation. DESIGN: Physiological substudy conducted as a home visit within an observational cohort study. SETTING: Baltimore City and County, Maryland. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-seven women aged 83 to 93 enrolled in the Women's Health and Aging Study II. MEASUREMENTS: Resting metabolic rate with indirect calorimetry, frailty status, fat-free mass, ambient and body temperature, expected RMR according to the Mifflin-St. Jeor equation. RESULTS: Average RMR was 1,119 ± 205 kcal/d (range 595-1,560 kcal/d). Agreement between observed and expected RMR was biased and poor (between-subject coefficient of variation 38.0%, 95% confidence interval = 35.1-40.8). Variability of RMR was greater in frail individuals (heteroscedasticity F-test P = .02). Low and high RMR were associated with being frail (odds ratio 5.4, P = .04) and slower self-selected walking speed (P < .001) after adjustment for covariates. CONCLUSION: Equations to predict RMR that are not validated in old-old adults appear to correlate poorly with measured RMR. RMR is highly variable in old-old women, with deviations from the mean predicting clinical frailty. These exploratory findings suggest a pathway to clinical frailty through high or low RMR.
OBJECTIVES: To measure resting metabolic rate (RMR) in old-old adults living in the community and examine the association between measured RMR and frailty status and compare it with expected RMR generated by a predictive equation. DESIGN: Physiological substudy conducted as a home visit within an observational cohort study. SETTING: Baltimore City and County, Maryland. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-seven women aged 83 to 93 enrolled in the Women's Health and Aging Study II. MEASUREMENTS: Resting metabolic rate with indirect calorimetry, frailty status, fat-free mass, ambient and body temperature, expected RMR according to the Mifflin-St. Jeor equation. RESULTS: Average RMR was 1,119 ± 205 kcal/d (range 595-1,560 kcal/d). Agreement between observed and expected RMR was biased and poor (between-subject coefficient of variation 38.0%, 95% confidence interval = 35.1-40.8). Variability of RMR was greater in frail individuals (heteroscedasticity F-test P = .02). Low and high RMR were associated with being frail (odds ratio 5.4, P = .04) and slower self-selected walking speed (P < .001) after adjustment for covariates. CONCLUSION: Equations to predict RMR that are not validated in old-old adults appear to correlate poorly with measured RMR. RMR is highly variable in old-old women, with deviations from the mean predicting clinical frailty. These exploratory findings suggest a pathway to clinical frailty through high or low RMR.
Authors: Christopher Bell; Danielle S Day; Pamela P Jones; Demetra D Christou; Darby S Petitt; Kris Osterberg; Christopher L Melby; Douglas R Seals Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: G S Francis; C Benedict; D E Johnstone; P C Kirlin; J Nicklas; C S Liang; S H Kubo; E Rudin-Toretsky; S Yusuf Journal: Circulation Date: 1990-11 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Pedro Abizanda; Luis Romero; Pedro M Sánchez-Jurado; Teresa Flores Ruano; Sergio Salmerón Ríos; Miguel Fernández Sánchez Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2015-10-13 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Elisa Fabbri; Yang An; Jennifer A Schrack; Marta Gonzalez-Freire; Marco Zoli; Eleanor M Simonsick; Jack M Guralnik; Cynthia M Boyd; Stephanie A Studenski; Luigi Ferrucci Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2014-11-18 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Angela K Beckert; Megan Huisingh-Scheetz; Katherine Thompson; Amy D Celauro; Jordan Williams; Paul Pachwicewicz; Mark K Ferguson Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2016-10-06 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Asier Mañas; Ignacio Ara; Javier Leal-Martín; Miguel Muñoz-Muñoz; Sarah Kozey Keadle; Francisco Amaro-Gahete; Luis M Alegre Journal: Sports Med Date: 2021-08-21 Impact factor: 11.928
Authors: Sangkyu Kim; David A Welsh; Eric Ravussin; Michael A Welsch; Katie E Cherry; Leann Myers; S Michal Jazwinski Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2013-10-25 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Michael D Gurven; Benjamin C Trumble; Jonathan Stieglitz; Gandhi Yetish; Daniel Cummings; Aaron D Blackwell; Bret Beheim; Hillard S Kaplan; Herman Pontzer Journal: Am J Phys Anthropol Date: 2016-07-04 Impact factor: 2.868