{"title":"肥胖和非肥胖年轻健康成人静息代谢率方程的验证","authors":"Hayder Al-Domi, Alaa Al-Shorman","doi":"10.1016/j.clnesp.2018.04.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and aims</h3><p><span>Although validating resting metabolic rate (RMR) prediction equations in different populations is warranted to estimate total energy requirements, there are no data about the accuracy and applicability of RMR predictive equations in young healthy Jordanians. This study aimed to test the validity of predicted RMR using four prediction equations and its agreement with RMR measured using </span>indirect calorimetry in healthy young obese and non-obese Jordanian adults.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Predicted RMR was tested for agreement with indirect calorimetry. Harris–Benedict, Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization/United Nations University, Mifflin and Owen equations were used to predict RMR. A total of 406 (200 females, 206 males) normal bodyweight, overweight, and obese healthy young adults aged 18–25 years were included.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Of all tested equations, Harris–Benedict equation showed no significant differences compared to measured RMR using indirect calorimetry (<em>p</em> > 0.05) in normal bodyweight (1374.1 ± 72.5 vs. 1347.6 ± 333.4), overweight (1513.1 ± 66.8 vs. 1492.9 ± 374.8) and obese (1673.5 ± 178.4 vs. 1736.4 ± 386.9) females. While significant differences (p<0.05) were found in all male participants. The other studied equations showed significant differences (<em>p</em> ≤ 0.05) compared to measured RMR in gender based groups with different bodyweight status.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Only Harris–Benedict equation was the most accurate in predicting RMR among females regardless of bodyweight status. Apart from that, these equations did not perform well at the group level. The tested prediction equations further underestimated RMR. Future studies aiming at validating RMR prediction equations in different populations are warranted in order to understand the factors that could affect the accuracy of RMR prediction.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":10352,"journal":{"name":"Clinical nutrition ESPEN","volume":"26 ","pages":"Pages 91-96"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2018-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.clnesp.2018.04.008","citationCount":"14","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validation of resting metabolic rate equations in obese and non-obese young healthy adults\",\"authors\":\"Hayder Al-Domi, Alaa Al-Shorman\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.clnesp.2018.04.008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background and aims</h3><p><span>Although validating resting metabolic rate (RMR) prediction equations in different populations is warranted to estimate total energy requirements, there are no data about the accuracy and applicability of RMR predictive equations in young healthy Jordanians. This study aimed to test the validity of predicted RMR using four prediction equations and its agreement with RMR measured using </span>indirect calorimetry in healthy young obese and non-obese Jordanian adults.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Predicted RMR was tested for agreement with indirect calorimetry. Harris–Benedict, Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization/United Nations University, Mifflin and Owen equations were used to predict RMR. A total of 406 (200 females, 206 males) normal bodyweight, overweight, and obese healthy young adults aged 18–25 years were included.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Of all tested equations, Harris–Benedict equation showed no significant differences compared to measured RMR using indirect calorimetry (<em>p</em> > 0.05) in normal bodyweight (1374.1 ± 72.5 vs. 1347.6 ± 333.4), overweight (1513.1 ± 66.8 vs. 1492.9 ± 374.8) and obese (1673.5 ± 178.4 vs. 1736.4 ± 386.9) females. While significant differences (p<0.05) were found in all male participants. The other studied equations showed significant differences (<em>p</em> ≤ 0.05) compared to measured RMR in gender based groups with different bodyweight status.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Only Harris–Benedict equation was the most accurate in predicting RMR among females regardless of bodyweight status. Apart from that, these equations did not perform well at the group level. The tested prediction equations further underestimated RMR. Future studies aiming at validating RMR prediction equations in different populations are warranted in order to understand the factors that could affect the accuracy of RMR prediction.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10352,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical nutrition ESPEN\",\"volume\":\"26 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 91-96\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.clnesp.2018.04.008\",\"citationCount\":\"14\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical nutrition ESPEN\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405457717304886\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"NUTRITION & DIETETICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical nutrition ESPEN","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405457717304886","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14
摘要
背景和目的虽然在不同人群中验证静息代谢率(RMR)预测方程有必要估计总能量需求,但在年轻健康的约旦人中,没有关于RMR预测方程的准确性和适用性的数据。本研究旨在测试使用四个预测方程预测RMR的有效性,以及它与使用间接量热法测量的健康年轻肥胖和非肥胖约旦成年人RMR的一致性。方法对预测RMR与间接量热法的一致性进行检验。利用Harris-Benedict、粮食及农业组织/世界卫生组织/联合国大学、Mifflin和Owen方程预测RMR。共纳入406名(200名女性,206名男性)体重正常、超重和肥胖的18-25岁健康年轻人。结果在所有测试方程中,Harris-Benedict方程与间接量热法测量的RMR没有显著差异(p >正常体重(1374.1±72.5 vs. 1347.6±333.4)、超重(1513.1±66.8 vs. 1492.9±374.8)和肥胖(1673.5±178.4 vs. 1736.4±386.9)女性的差异(0.05)。而在所有男性参与者中发现显著差异(p<0.05)。其他研究方程与基于性别的不同体重组的RMR测量值比较,差异均有统计学意义(p≤0.05)。结论Harris-Benedict方程在预测女性RMR时最准确,且与体重无关。除此之外,这些方程在群体水平上表现不佳。经检验的预测方程进一步低估了RMR。未来的研究旨在验证不同人群的RMR预测方程,以了解可能影响RMR预测准确性的因素。
Validation of resting metabolic rate equations in obese and non-obese young healthy adults
Background and aims
Although validating resting metabolic rate (RMR) prediction equations in different populations is warranted to estimate total energy requirements, there are no data about the accuracy and applicability of RMR predictive equations in young healthy Jordanians. This study aimed to test the validity of predicted RMR using four prediction equations and its agreement with RMR measured using indirect calorimetry in healthy young obese and non-obese Jordanian adults.
Methods
Predicted RMR was tested for agreement with indirect calorimetry. Harris–Benedict, Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization/United Nations University, Mifflin and Owen equations were used to predict RMR. A total of 406 (200 females, 206 males) normal bodyweight, overweight, and obese healthy young adults aged 18–25 years were included.
Results
Of all tested equations, Harris–Benedict equation showed no significant differences compared to measured RMR using indirect calorimetry (p > 0.05) in normal bodyweight (1374.1 ± 72.5 vs. 1347.6 ± 333.4), overweight (1513.1 ± 66.8 vs. 1492.9 ± 374.8) and obese (1673.5 ± 178.4 vs. 1736.4 ± 386.9) females. While significant differences (p<0.05) were found in all male participants. The other studied equations showed significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) compared to measured RMR in gender based groups with different bodyweight status.
Conclusion
Only Harris–Benedict equation was the most accurate in predicting RMR among females regardless of bodyweight status. Apart from that, these equations did not perform well at the group level. The tested prediction equations further underestimated RMR. Future studies aiming at validating RMR prediction equations in different populations are warranted in order to understand the factors that could affect the accuracy of RMR prediction.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Nutrition ESPEN is an electronic-only journal and is an official publication of the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN). Nutrition and nutritional care have gained wide clinical and scientific interest during the past decades. The increasing knowledge of metabolic disturbances and nutritional assessment in chronic and acute diseases has stimulated rapid advances in design, development and clinical application of nutritional support. The aims of ESPEN are to encourage the rapid diffusion of knowledge and its application in the field of clinical nutrition and metabolism. Published bimonthly, Clinical Nutrition ESPEN focuses on publishing articles on the relationship between nutrition and disease in the setting of basic science and clinical practice. Clinical Nutrition ESPEN is available to all members of ESPEN and to all subscribers of Clinical Nutrition.