Robert G McMurray1, Jesus Soares, Carl J Caspersen, Thomas McCurdy. 1. 1University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC; 2Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, GA; and 3U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Research Triangle Park, NC.
Abstract
PURPOSE: There has not been a recent comprehensive effort to examine existing studies on the resting metabolic rate (RMR) of adults to identify the effect of common population demographic and anthropometric characteristics. Thus, we reviewed the literature on RMR (kcal·kg(-1)·h(-1)) to determine the relationship of age, sex, and obesity status to RMR as compared with the commonly accepted value for the metabolic equivalent (MET; e.g., 1.0 kcal·kg(-1)·h(-1)). METHODS: Using several databases, scientific articles published from 1980 to 2011 were identified that measured RMR, and from those, others dating back to 1920 were identified. One hundred and ninety-seven studies were identified, resulting in 397 publication estimates of RMR that could represent a population subgroup. Inverse variance weighting technique was applied to compute means and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: The mean value for RMR was 0.863 kcal·kg(-1)·h(-1) (95% CI = 0.852-0.874), higher for men than women, decreasing with increasing age, and less in overweight than normal weight adults. Regardless of sex, adults with BMI ≥ 30 kg·m(-2) had the lowest RMR (<0.741 kcal·kg(-1)·h(-1)). CONCLUSIONS: No single value for RMR is appropriate for all adults. Adhering to the nearly universally accepted MET convention may lead to the overestimation of the RMR of approximately 10% for men and almost 15% for women and be as high as 20%-30% for some demographic and anthropometric combinations. These large errors raise questions about the longstanding adherence to the conventional MET value for RMR. Failure to recognize this discrepancy may result in important miscalculations of energy expended from interventions using physical activity for diabetes and other chronic disease prevention efforts.
PURPOSE: There has not been a recent comprehensive effort to examine existing studies on the resting metabolic rate (RMR) of adults to identify the effect of common population demographic and anthropometric characteristics. Thus, we reviewed the literature on RMR (kcal·kg(-1)·h(-1)) to determine the relationship of age, sex, and obesity status to RMR as compared with the commonly accepted value for the metabolic equivalent (MET; e.g., 1.0 kcal·kg(-1)·h(-1)). METHODS: Using several databases, scientific articles published from 1980 to 2011 were identified that measured RMR, and from those, others dating back to 1920 were identified. One hundred and ninety-seven studies were identified, resulting in 397 publication estimates of RMR that could represent a population subgroup. Inverse variance weighting technique was applied to compute means and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: The mean value for RMR was 0.863 kcal·kg(-1)·h(-1) (95% CI = 0.852-0.874), higher for men than women, decreasing with increasing age, and less in overweight than normal weight adults. Regardless of sex, adults with BMI ≥ 30 kg·m(-2) had the lowest RMR (<0.741 kcal·kg(-1)·h(-1)). CONCLUSIONS: No single value for RMR is appropriate for all adults. Adhering to the nearly universally accepted MET convention may lead to the overestimation of the RMR of approximately 10% for men and almost 15% for women and be as high as 20%-30% for some demographic and anthropometric combinations. These large errors raise questions about the longstanding adherence to the conventional MET value for RMR. Failure to recognize this discrepancy may result in important miscalculations of energy expended from interventions using physical activity for diabetes and other chronic disease prevention efforts.
Authors: B E Ainsworth; W L Haskell; M C Whitt; M L Irwin; A M Swartz; S J Strath; W L O'Brien; D R Bassett; K H Schmitz; P O Emplaincourt; D R Jacobs; A S Leon Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Barbara E Ainsworth; William L Haskell; Stephen D Herrmann; Nathanael Meckes; David R Bassett; Catrine Tudor-Locke; Jennifer L Greer; Jesse Vezina; Melicia C Whitt-Glover; Arthur S Leon Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: David Liska; Sylvie Dufour; Tosca L Zern; Sara Taksali; Anna M G Calí; James Dziura; Gerald I Shulman; Bridget M Pierpont; Sonia Caprio Journal: PLoS One Date: 2007-06-27 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Malini S Iyer; Rebecca L Paszkiewicz; Richard N Bergman; Joyce M Richey; Orison O Woolcott; Isaac Asare-Bediako; Qiang Wu; Stella P Kim; Darko Stefanovski; Cathryn M Kolka; Deborah J Clegg; Morvarid Kabir Journal: Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab Date: 2019-06-25 Impact factor: 4.310
Authors: Danilo Iannetta; Daniel A Keir; Federico Y Fontana; Erin Calaine Inglis; Anmol T Mattu; Donald H Paterson; Silvia Pogliaghi; Juan M Murias Journal: Sports Med Date: 2021-04-26 Impact factor: 11.136
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: Katherine S Hall; Miriam C Morey; Chhanda Dutta; Todd M Manini; Arthur L Weltman; Miriam E Nelson; Amy L Morgan; Jane G Senior; Chris Seyffarth; David M Buchner Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Gary J Farkas; Alicia Sneij; David W McMillan; Eduard Tiozzo; Mark S Nash; David R Gater Journal: Br J Nutr Date: 2021-09-23 Impact factor: 4.125