PURPOSE: To develop and validate a REE prediction equation for young adults. METHODS: Baseline data from two studies were pooled (N=318; women=52%) and randomly divided into development (n=159) and validation samples (n=159). REE was measured by indirect calorimetry. Stepwise regression was used to develop an equation to predict REE (University of Kansas (KU) equation). The KU equation and 5 additional REE prediction equations used in clinical practice (Mifflin-St. Jeor, Harris-Benedict, Owens, Frankenfield (2 equations)) were evaluated in the validation sample. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between predicted and measured REE using the KU equation for either men or women. The Mifflin-St. Jeor equation showed a non-significant mean bias in men; however, mean bias was statistically significant in women. The Harris-Benedict equation significantly over-predicted REE in both men and women. The Owens equation showed a significant mean bias in both men and women. Frankenfield equations #1 and #2 both significantly over-predicted REE in non-obese men and women. We found no significant differences between measured REE and REE predicted by the Frankenfield #2 equations in obese men and women. CONCLUSION: The KU equation, which uses easily assessed characteristics (age, sex, weight) may offer better estimates of REE in young adults compared with the 5 other equations. The KU equation demonstrated adequate prediction accuracy, with approximately equal rates of over and under-prediction. However, enthusiasm for recommending any REE prediction equations evaluated for use in clinical weight management is damped by the highly variable individual prediction error evident with all these equations.
PURPOSE: To develop and validate a REE prediction equation for young adults. METHODS: Baseline data from two studies were pooled (N=318; women=52%) and randomly divided into development (n=159) and validation samples (n=159). REE was measured by indirect calorimetry. Stepwise regression was used to develop an equation to predict REE (University of Kansas (KU) equation). The KU equation and 5 additional REE prediction equations used in clinical practice (Mifflin-St. Jeor, Harris-Benedict, Owens, Frankenfield (2 equations)) were evaluated in the validation sample. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between predicted and measured REE using the KU equation for either men or women. The Mifflin-St. Jeor equation showed a non-significant mean bias in men; however, mean bias was statistically significant in women. The Harris-Benedict equation significantly over-predicted REE in both men and women. The Owens equation showed a significant mean bias in both men and women. Frankenfield equations #1 and #2 both significantly over-predicted REE in non-obesemen and women. We found no significant differences between measured REE and REE predicted by the Frankenfield #2 equations in obesemen and women. CONCLUSION: The KU equation, which uses easily assessed characteristics (age, sex, weight) may offer better estimates of REE in young adults compared with the 5 other equations. The KU equation demonstrated adequate prediction accuracy, with approximately equal rates of over and under-prediction. However, enthusiasm for recommending any REE prediction equations evaluated for use in clinical weight management is damped by the highly variable individual prediction error evident with all these equations.
Authors: Joseph E Donnelly; Richard A Washburn; Bryan K Smith; Debra K Sullivan; Cheryl Gibson; Jeffery J Honas; Matthew S Mayo Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2012-04-03 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: O E Owen; J L Holup; D A D'Alessio; E S Craig; M Polansky; K J Smalley; E C Kavle; M C Bushman; L R Owen; M A Mozzoli Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 1987-12 Impact factor: 7.045