Literature DB >> 30199450

Sex Differences in Resting Metabolic Rate Among Athletes.

Andrew R Jagim1, Clayton L Camic2, Andy Askow3, Joel Luedke4, Jacob Erickson5, Chad M Kerksick1, Margaret T Jones6, Jonathan M Oliver3.   

Abstract

Jagim, AR, Camic, CL, Askow, A, Luedke, J, Erickson, J, Kerksick, CM, Jones, MT, and Oliver, JM. Sex differences in resting metabolic rate among athletes. J Strength Cond Res 33(11): 3008-3014, 2019-The purpose of this study was to compare differences in resting metabolic rate (RMR) between sexes in Division III National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) collegiate athletes and to identify predictors of RMR. Sixty-eight male (M) (age: 20.1 ± 1.5 years; height: 181.8 ± 5.9 cm; body mass (BM): 93.7 ± 16.3 kg; and body fat%: 16.3 ± 8.6%) and 48 female (F) athletes (age: 19.4 ± 1.3 years; height: 166.5 ± 6.0 cm; BM: 63.4 ± 12.7 kg; and body fat%: 21.5 ± 6.3%) participated in a single day of testing, which included determination of RMR using indirect calorimetry and air displacement plethysmography to measure fat mass and fat-free mass (FFM). An independent-samples t-test was used to compare differences in body composition and RMR between sexes, and regression analysis was used to identify predictors of RMR. Men had a significantly higher absolute RMR (M: 2,481 ± 209 vs. F: 1,553 ± 193 kcals·d; p < 0.001), but when adjusted for BM (M: 25.6 ± 8.3 vs. F: 25.9 ± 2.5 kcals·kg BM per day; p = 0.82) and FFM (M: 31.1 ± 10.6 vs. F: 33.6 ± 3.8 kcals·kg FFM per day; p = 0.12), these differences became nonsignificant. Regression analysis indicated that BM in both men (β = 0.73) and women (β = 0.88) was the strongest predictor of RMR. The results of the current study indicate minimal differences in RMR between sexes among athletic populations when adjusted for BM and FFM. In the current group of athletes, BM seems to account for the largest variability in RMR.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30199450     DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002813

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Strength Cond Res        ISSN: 1064-8011            Impact factor:   3.775


  2 in total

1.  Reliability and validity of the physical activity monitor for assessing energy expenditures in sedentary, regularly exercising, non-endurance athlete, and endurance athlete adults.

Authors:  Chun-Hao Chang; Yi-Ju Hsu; Fang Li; Yu-Tsai Tu; Wei-Lun Jhang; Chih-Wen Hsu; Chi-Chang Huang; Chin-Shan Ho
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2020-08-24       Impact factor: 2.984

2.  Relationships Between Body Composition and Performance in the High-Intensity Functional Training Workout "Fran" are Modulated by Competition Class and Percentile Rank.

Authors:  Gerald T Mangine; Jacob M McDougle; Yuri Feito
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2022-05-27       Impact factor: 4.755

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.