Current Predictive Resting Metabolic Rate Equations Are Not Sufficient to Determine Proper Resting Energy Expenditure in Olympic Young Adult National Team Athletes


Creative Commons License

Balci A., Badem E. A., YILMAZ A. E., DEVRİM LANPİR A., Akinoglu B., Kocahan T., ...Daha Fazla

FRONTIERS IN PHYSIOLOGY, cilt.12, 2021 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 12
  • Basım Tarihi: 2021
  • Doi Numarası: 10.3389/fphys.2021.625370
  • Dergi Adı: FRONTIERS IN PHYSIOLOGY
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, BIOSIS, EMBASE, Directory of Open Access Journals
  • Hacettepe Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

Predictive resting metabolic rate (RMR) equations are widely used to determine athletes' resting energy expenditure (REE). However, it remains unclear whether these predictive RMR equations accurately predict REE in the athletic populations. The purpose of the study was to compare 12 prediction equations (Harris-Benedict, Mifflin, Schofield, Cunningham, Owen, Liu's, De Lorenzo) with measured RMR in Turkish national team athletes and sedentary controls. A total of 97 participants, 49 athletes (24 females, 25 males), and 48 sedentary (28 females, 20 males), were recruited from Turkey National Olympic Teams at the Ministry of Youth and Sports. RMR was measured using a Fitmate GS (Cosmed, Italy). The results of each 12 prediction formulas were compared with the measured RMR using paired t-test. The Bland-Altman plot was performed to determine the mean bias and limits of agreement between measured and predicted RMRs. Stratification according to sex, the measured RMR was greater in athletes compared to controls. The closest equation to the RMR measured by Fitmate GS was the Harris-Benedict equation in male athletes (mean difference -8.9 (SD 257.5) kcal/day), and Liu's equation [mean difference -16.7 (SD 195.0) kcal/day] in female athletes. However, the intra-class coefficient (ICC) results indicated that all equations, including Harris-Benedict for male athletes (ICC = 0.524) and Liu's for female athletes (ICC = 0.575), had a moderate reliability compared to the measured RMR. In sedentary subjects, the closest equation to the measured RMR is the Nelson equation in males, with the lowest RMSE value of 118 kcal/day [mean difference: 10.1 (SD 117.2) kJ/day], whereas, in females, all equations differ significantly from the measured RMR. While Nelson (ICC = 0.790) had good and Owen (ICC = 0.722) and Mifflin (calculated using fat-free mass) (ICC = 0.700) had moderate reliability in males, all predictive equations showed poor reliability in females. The results indicate that the predictive RMR equations failed to accurately predict RMR levels in the participants. Therefore, it may not suitable to use them in determining total energy expenditure.