These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Accuracy of four resting metabolic rate prediction equations: effects of sex, body mass index, age, and race/ethnicity.
    Author: Hasson RE, Howe CA, Jones BL, Freedson PS.
    Journal: J Sci Med Sport; 2011 Jul; 14(4):344-51. PubMed ID: 21458373.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: This study compared the accuracy of four commonly used RMR prediction equations to measured RMR obtained from the MedGem(®) metabolic analyzer. DESIGN AND METHODS: Height, weight and RMR were measured in 362 healthy individuals [51% female; body mass index (BMI): 17.6-50.6 kg m(-2); ages: 18-60 years; 17.4% non-white]. Following a 4h fast, participants rested in the supine position after which RMR was measured. RMR was estimated using four commonly used prediction equations: Harris-Benedict, Mifflin-St. Jeor, Owen, and WHO/FAO/UNU. Accuracy was determined by calculating the percentage of predicted RMR values that were within ± 10% of measured RMR values. Main effects of sex, BMI, age, and race/ethnicity were assessed using repeated measures ANCOVAs. RESULTS: For all participants combined, the Harris-Benedict, Mifflin, and WHO/FAU/UNU equations similarly predicted RMR values within ± 10% of measured RMR values (57.5, 56.4, and 55.2% of the sample, respectively). When participant data were stratified by sex, BMI, age, and race/ethnicity, the accuracy of each regression equation varied dramatically. The Harris-Benedict equation over-predicted RMR in 18-29 year olds. The Owen equation under-predicted RMR in both sexes, all three BMI categories, 18-49 year olds and White participants. The Mifflin under-predicted RMR in both sexes, normal weight individuals, 40-60 year olds, and non-Hispanic White participants. The WHO/FAO/UNU over-predicted RMR in males, overweight participants, and 50-60 year olds. CONCLUSIONS: When examining the entire sample, the Harris-Benedict, Mifflin, and WHO/FAU/UNU equations yielded similar levels of agreement with the MedGem(®) measured RMR. However, clinical judgment and caution should be used when applying these prediction equations to special populations or small groups.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]