Home > Journals > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness > Past Issues > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 1999 September;39(3) > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 1999 September;39(3):213-9

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe PROMO
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Reprints
Permissions

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLES   

The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 1999 September;39(3):213-9

Copyright © 2000 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

A new predictive equation to calculate resting metabolic rate in athletes

De Lorenzo A. 1, 2, Bertini I. 1, Candeloro N. 1, Piccinelli R. 1, Innocente I. 1, Brancati A. 1

1 Human Physiology, University of Rome “Tor Vergata”, Rome, Italy; 2 Scientific Institute “S. Lucia”, Rome, Italy


PDF


Background. The pur­pos­es of the ­present ­study ­were: 1) to exam­ine the accu­ra­cy and pre­ci­sion of sev­en pub­lished equa­tions for pre­dict­ing rest­ing meta­bol­ic ­rate (RMR) in ­male ath­letes and 2) to devel­op a pop­u­la­tion-spe­cif­ic equa­tion. Setting: The ­study ­occurred dur­ing a non-inten­sive train­ing peri­od. The meas­ure­ments ­were per­formed at the Human Physiology labor­a­to­ry. Participants: Fifty-one ­male ath­letes (22 water­po­lo, 12 ­judo, 17 ­karatè) who exer­cised reg­u­lar­ly at ­least ­three ­hours per day. Measures: RMR was meas­ured (mRMR) ­using indi­rect cal­o­rim­e­try (ven­ti­lat­ed ­hood ­system). Besides, mRMR was com­pared ­with val­ues pre­dict­ed (pRMR) ­using equa­tions of FAO/WHO/UNU, Harris and Benedict, Mifflin et al., Owen et al., Cunningham, Robertson and Reid, Fleisch. Statistical anal­y­ses. mRMR was com­pared ­with pRMR by ­means of Student’s ­paired “t” ­tests, lin­e­ar regres­sion anal­y­sis and the Bland-Altman ­test. Relationships ­between mRMR and the dif­fer­ent pre­dic­tive var­i­ables ­were eval­u­at­ed by Pearson cor­re­la­tion coef­fi­cients. The ­best sub­set was ­used to devel­op the pre­dic­tive equa­tion for RMR.
Results. mRMR was sig­nif­i­cant­ly under­es­ti­mat­ed by six of the sev­en equa­tions in ­this sam­ple of ath­letes. Only the Cunningham equa­tion over­sti­mat­ed (+59 ­kcal/d) the actu­al RMR. Bland-Altman 95% lim­its of agree­ment ­were ­wide (±200-300 ­kcal/d) for all equa­tions. RMR cor­re­lat­ed ­best ­with ­body sur­face ­area (r=0.88), ­body ­weight (r=0.84) and ­height (r=0.81). The ­best-fit equa­tion for the ­entire ­data includ­ed ­both ­weight and ­height and it was giv­en by: RMR (­kcal/d)=-857+9.0 (Wt in kg)+11.7 (Ht in cm) (R2=0.78; SEE=91 ­kcal/d; 95% IC: -226, 228).
Conclusions. For an indi­vid­u­al rest­ing meta­bol­ic ­rate eval­u­a­tion, the use of indi­rect cal­o­rim­e­try is rec­om­mend­ed. In con­di­tions ­where ­this tech­nique can­not be ­used, our devel­oped equa­tion can pre­dict the RMR of ath­letes bet­ter ­than any of the cur­rent­ly avail­able pre­dic­tion equa­tions.

top of page