Vivian Wahrlich1, Tatiana Miliante Teixeira2, Luiz Antonio Dos Anjos2. 1. Laboratório de Avaliação Nutricional e Funcional, Departamento de Nutrição Social, Universidade Federal Fluminense, Rua Mário Santos Braga 30, Sala 415, Campus do Valonguinho, 24020-140, Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Electronic address: vwahrlich@gmail.com. 2. Laboratório de Avaliação Nutricional e Funcional, Departamento de Nutrição Social, Universidade Federal Fluminense, Rua Mário Santos Braga 30, Sala 415, Campus do Valonguinho, 24020-140, Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Basal metabolic rate (BMR) is an important physiologic measure in nutrition research. In many instances it is not measured but estimated by predictive equations. The purpose of this study was to compare measured BMR (BMRm) with estimated BMR (BMRe) obtained by different equations. METHODS: A convenient sample of 148 (89 women) 20-60 year-old subjects from the metropolitan area of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil participated in the study. BMRm values were measured by an indirect calorimeter and predicted by different equations (Schofield, Henry and Rees, Mifflin-St. Jeor and Anjos. All subjects had their body composition and anthropometric variables also measured. Accuracy of the estimations was established by the percentage of BMRe falling within ±10% of BMRm and bias when the 95% CI of the difference of BMRe and BMRm means did not include zero. RESULTS: Mean BMRm values were 4833.5 (SD 583.3) and 6278.8 (SD 724.0) kJ*day-1 for women and men, respectively. BMRe values were both biased and inaccurate except for values predicted by the Anjos equation. BMR overestimation was approximately 20% for the Schofield equation which was higher comparatively to the Henry and Rees (14.5% and 9.6% for women and men, respectively) and the Mifflin-St. Jeor (approximately 14.0%) equations. BMR estimated by the Anjos equation was unbiased (95% CI = -78.1; 96.3 kJ day-1 for women and -282.6; 30.7 kJ*day-1 for men). CONCLUSIONS: Population-specific BMR predictive equations yield unbiased and accurate BMR values in adults from an urban tropical setting.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Basal metabolic rate (BMR) is an important physiologic measure in nutrition research. In many instances it is not measured but estimated by predictive equations. The purpose of this study was to compare measured BMR (BMRm) with estimated BMR (BMRe) obtained by different equations. METHODS: A convenient sample of 148 (89 women) 20-60 year-old subjects from the metropolitan area of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil participated in the study. BMRm values were measured by an indirect calorimeter and predicted by different equations (Schofield, Henry and Rees, Mifflin-St. Jeor and Anjos. All subjects had their body composition and anthropometric variables also measured. Accuracy of the estimations was established by the percentage of BMRe falling within ±10% of BMRm and bias when the 95% CI of the difference of BMRe and BMRm means did not include zero. RESULTS: Mean BMRm values were 4833.5 (SD 583.3) and 6278.8 (SD 724.0) kJ*day-1 for women and men, respectively. BMRe values were both biased and inaccurate except for values predicted by the Anjos equation. BMR overestimation was approximately 20% for the Schofield equation which was higher comparatively to the Henry and Rees (14.5% and 9.6% for women and men, respectively) and the Mifflin-St. Jeor (approximately 14.0%) equations. BMR estimated by the Anjos equation was unbiased (95% CI = -78.1; 96.3 kJ day-1 for women and -282.6; 30.7 kJ*day-1 for men). CONCLUSIONS: Population-specific BMR predictive equations yield unbiased and accurate BMR values in adults from an urban tropical setting.