Predictive Equations Overestimate Resting Metabolic Rate in Young Chilean Women with Excess Body Fat

Abstract

Underestimating/overestimating resting metabolic rate (RMR) affects energy prescription. The objective was to compare RMR by indirect calorimetry (RMR IC) and RMR estimated by predictive equations in women with excess body fat. This was an analytical cross-sectional study with 41 women aged 18–28 with overnutrition according to body composition. The RMR IC was measured and RMR estimated using the FAO/WHO/UNU (1985), FAO/WHO/UNU (2004), Harris–Benedict, and Mifflin–St Jeor equations. The percentage of adequacy (90–110%), overestimation (>110%), and underestimation (<90%) were evaluated for RMR IC. Data were described by percentiles because of non-normal distribution according to the Shapiro–Wilk test. The Kruskal–Wallis test and Bland–Altman analysis were applied at a significance level of α < 0.05. The RMR IC was 1192 and 1183 calories/day (p = 0.429) in women with obesity and overweight, respectively. The FAO/WHO/UNU (1985), FAO/WHO/UNU (2004), Harris–Benedict, and Mifflin–St Jeor equations overestimated the RMR IC by 283.2, 311.2, 292.7, and 203.0 calories/day and by 296.7, 413.8, 280.0, and 176.6 calories/day for women with overweight and obesity (p < 0.001), respectively. The Harris–Benedict adjusted weight (0.5) equation underestimated RMR IC by 254.7 calories/day. The predictive equations overestimated RMR IC in women with excess body fat. The Mifflin–St Jeor equation showed less overestimation and better adequacy, but was not exempt from inaccuracy.

Resting Metabolic Rate of Individuals

“…Briefly, in women with overweight, they observed that FAO/WHO/UNU (1985), FAO/WHO/UNU (2004), Harris–Benedict, and Mifflin–St Jeor equations overestimated the RMR. Similar results were observed for women with obesity [ 1 ]. Nevertheless, the Mifflin–St Jeor predictive equation showed the lowest overestimation of RMR in both weight status groups; thus, it is the equation recommended by the authors for this population [ 1 ].…”

“…Similar results were observed for women with obesity [ 1 ]. Nevertheless, the Mifflin–St Jeor predictive equation showed the lowest overestimation of RMR in both weight status groups; thus, it is the equation recommended by the authors for this population [ 1 ].…”

“…Regarding the estimation of RMR, Maury-Sintjago et al [ 1 ] observed, in a sample of 41 Chilean women (age ranged from 18 to 28 yrs.) with overweight or obesity, that different predictive equations overestimated the RMR (resting EE) compared to indirect calorimetry, which is the gold standard technique for assessing the RMR [ 2 , 3 , 4 ].…”

Analysis of Morphological Parameters and Body Composition in Adolescents with and without Intellectual Disability

“…However, total muscle mass, of which the skeletal mass is a primary component related primarily to the physical function of an individual, is considered, for the most part, the most significant compartment of the body in assessing the physiological and nutritional state. In addition, a recent study on children with intellectual disabilities has reported that bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) is more viable than skinfold measurements [ 12 , 13 ]. Because communication with people with ID and particularly with a severe intellectual disability is challenging and no other non-invasive body composition measuring tools are available, the feasibility and viability of BIA measurements can be more relevant.…”