Comparison of Measured Versus Predicted Resting Energy Expenditure in Individuals With Excess Body Weight release_3em4lipqffbv7mqcgj4oxq5lm4

by Julia Montenegro, Camila Oliveira, Aloys Berg, Arya Sharma, Laurie Mereu, Jens Walter, Carla Prado

Published in Current Developments in Nutrition by Oxford University Press (OUP).

2022   Issue Supplement_1, p451-451

Abstract

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Objectives</jats:title> Assessing resting energy expenditure (REE) is important for determining energy requirements. Indirect calorimetry is usually not available in clinical settings and for this reason, predictive equations for estimating REE have been developed. Body composition influences REE; therefore, body compartments such fat-free mass (FFM) and fat mass (FM) should be considered in predictive equations. The aim of this study was to compare REE measured by indirect calorimetry with REE estimated from seven predictive equations that consider body composition in individuals with excess body weight. </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Methods</jats:title> This was a preliminary baseline data from a randomized controlled trial. REE was measured in adults with overweight and obesity using a whole-body calorimetry unit. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry was used to assess FM and FFM. Measured REE (mREE) was compared to seven predictive equations that incorporated FFM and FM. Age and body composition were compared between sexes using independent-samples t-test. A paired-samples t-test was used to compare mREE versus predicted REE (pREE). Bias and limits of agreement (LOA) were accessed by Bland-Altman analysis. pREE values between 95% and 105% of mREE were considered accurate. </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Results</jats:title> Twenty-one adults (n = 15 females, age: 27 ± 7 years, BMI: 29.0 ± 2.9 kg/m2, mREE: 1769 ± 342 kcal/day) were assessed. Age, FM, and FFM were not different between sexes (P &amp;gt; 0.05). The Muller et al., 2001 (Praxis 90: 1955–1963) and Horie et al., 2007 (Obesity 19: 1090–1094) equations were considered accurate and showed small bias, but high standard deviation (33.5 ± 178.2 and −51.4 ± 208.6 kcal/day) and wide LOAs (-316 to 383 and -460 to 357 kcal/day, respectively). However, when separated by sex, only the equation by Muller et al., 2001 was accurate for males (bias: −85.3 ± 161.4; LOA: -402 to 231 kcal/day) and only the equation by Horie et al., 2007 was accurate for females (bias: 28.0 ± 162.4; LOA: -290 to 346 kcal/day). All other equations (5) underestimated mREE. </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title> The equations by Muller et al., 2001 and Horie et al., 2007 can be used for estimating REE in adults with excess body weight. The use of body composition per se in not enough to ensure accuracy of predictive equations. </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Funding Sources</jats:title> Almased® (Almased USA, Inc., Wellington, FL, USA) and Alberta Diabetes Institute (University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada). </jats:sec>
In application/xml+jats format

Archived Files and Locations

application/pdf  79.7 kB
file_377eocnbzzfinc45uvb4d5yune
watermark.silverchair.com (publisher)
web.archive.org (webarchive)
Read Archived PDF
Preserved and Accessible
Type  article-journal
Stage   published
Year   2022
Language   en ?
Container Metadata
Open Access Publication
In DOAJ
In Keepers Registry
ISSN-L:  2475-2991
Work Entity
access all versions, variants, and formats of this works (eg, pre-prints)
Catalog Record
Revision: 2dca5797-4817-4d07-ac08-8bcbce366a8f
API URL: JSON