Nazli Namazi1,2, Soghra Aliasgharzadeh1,2, Reza Mahdavi2, Fariba Kolahdooz3. 1. a Student Research Committee, Faculty of Nutrition, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences , Tabriz , IRAN. 2. b Nutrition Research Center, Faculty of Nutrition, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences , Tabriz , IRAN. 3. c Aboriginal and Global Health Research Group, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry , University of Alberta , Edmonton , Alberta , CANADA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to determine the accuracy of commonly used predictive formulas of resting metabolic rate (RMR) compared to measured RMR in normal and overweight young females. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, 98 female university students aged 18-30 years with body mass index 18 to 30 kg/m(2) were recruited. Anthropometric indices and body compositions were measured. RMR was measured by indirect calorimetry (FitMate, Cosmed, Rome, Italy) and estimated by 11 predictive formulas. The accuracy of the RMR formulas and mean percentage differences between estimated and measured values were calculated. Paired t test was used to compare estimated and measured RMRs. RESULT: There were no significant differences between measured and estimated RMR by the 4 commonly used formulas (Mifflin, Cunningham, and World Health Organization [WHO]/Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO]). Among all of the equations, the Mifflin formula showed the lowest bias (-2.97 ± 116.43 kcal/day) at the group level and was the most accurate formula (80.23%) in normal and overweight participants. The over- and underestimated values were about 14% and 5.5%, respectively. In normal and overweight females, Mifflin was the most accurate formula, with 75.51% and 84.61% accuracy, respectively. CONCLUSION: Given the current lack of a standardized formula that consistently delivers accurate results, the Mifflin formula can be recommended for estimating energy requirements in normal and overweight females in clinical practice.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to determine the accuracy of commonly used predictive formulas of resting metabolic rate (RMR) compared to measured RMR in normal and overweight young females. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, 98 female university students aged 18-30 years with body mass index 18 to 30 kg/m(2) were recruited. Anthropometric indices and body compositions were measured. RMR was measured by indirect calorimetry (FitMate, Cosmed, Rome, Italy) and estimated by 11 predictive formulas. The accuracy of the RMR formulas and mean percentage differences between estimated and measured values were calculated. Paired t test was used to compare estimated and measured RMRs. RESULT: There were no significant differences between measured and estimated RMR by the 4 commonly used formulas (Mifflin, Cunningham, and World Health Organization [WHO]/Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO]). Among all of the equations, the Mifflin formula showed the lowest bias (-2.97 ± 116.43 kcal/day) at the group level and was the most accurate formula (80.23%) in normal and overweight participants. The over- and underestimated values were about 14% and 5.5%, respectively. In normal and overweight females, Mifflin was the most accurate formula, with 75.51% and 84.61% accuracy, respectively. CONCLUSION: Given the current lack of a standardized formula that consistently delivers accurate results, the Mifflin formula can be recommended for estimating energy requirements in normal and overweight females in clinical practice.
Entities:
Keywords:
normal weight; overweight; predictive formula; resting metabolic rate; woman
Authors: Erik A Willis; Stephen D Herrmann; Lauren T Ptomey; Jeffery J Honas; Christopher T Bessmer; Joseph E Donnelly; Richard A Washburn Journal: Obes Res Clin Pract Date: 2015-07-22 Impact factor: 2.288