Department of Family Relations and Applied Nutrition, Macdonald Stewart Hall, Room 326, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road East, Guelph ON N1G 2W1, Canada.
J Am Coll Nutr. 2010 Jun;29(3):222-7. doi: 10.1080/07315724.2010.10719837.
To compare resting metabolic rate (RMR) measured by indirect calorimetry versus RMR predicted by several published formulas in a sample of healthy young women.
RMR was measured using indirect calorimetry and predicted using 6 commonly used equations (Nelson, 1992; Mifflin, 1990; Owen, 1986; Schofield(Weight), 1985; Schofield(Weight and Height), 1985; Harris-Benedict, 1919) in 47 reportedly healthy young females (age = 22.8 ± 2.9 years; body mass index = 21.8 ± 2.1 kg/m(2)). Comparisons between measured versus predicted RMR were conducted using paired t tests, and agreement using Pearson's correlation coefficient, analysis of variance, and the method of Bland-Altman.
All 6 equations overestimated measured RMR by 140-738 kcal/d (all p < 0.001). The proportion of subjects for whom measured versus predicted RMR differed by ±10% ranged from 74% (Nelson) to 100% (Harris-Benedict). The adjusted coefficients of determination (R(2)) between measured and predicted RMR ranged from 0.13 to 0.19 (all p < 0.05). Bland-Altman analysis R(2) values ranged from 0.03 (p = 0.233; Harris-Benedict) to 0.72 (p = 0.000; Owen). Given its continued popularity, we modified the Harris-Benedict equation (RMR(modified Harris-Benedict) (kcal/d) = 738 / (RMR(Harris-Benedict) - 738)). Doing so reduced the mean difference between measured and predicted RMR from +738 kcal/d to -0.53 kcal/d (p = 0.984).
No equation performed well, and none should be used interchangeably with measured RMR. We recommend that a new equation be validated for, and prospectively tested in, young women. In the interim, RMR should be measured in this population or predicted using the modified Harris-Benedict equation that we developed.
比较间接测热法测量的静息代谢率（RMR）与 6 种常用公式预测的健康年轻女性 RMR 的差异。
对 47 名健康年轻女性（年龄=22.8±2.9 岁；体重指数=21.8±2.1kg/m²）进行间接测热法 RMR 测量和 6 种常用公式（Nelson，1992；Mifflin，1990；Owen，1986；Schofield（Weight），1985；Schofield（Weight and Height），1985；Harris-Benedict，1919）预测 RMR，通过配对 t 检验比较实测 RMR 与预测 RMR 的差异，并采用 Pearson 相关系数、方差分析和 Bland-Altman 法评估一致性。
所有 6 种公式均高估了实测 RMR，差值为 140-738kcal/d（均 p＜0.001）。实测 RMR 与预测 RMR 差值的±10%范围为 74%（Nelson）至 100%（Harris-Benedict）。实测 RMR 与预测 RMR 之间的调整决定系数（R²）范围为 0.13-0.19（均 p＜0.05）。Bland-Altman 分析 R² 值范围为 0.03（p=0.233；Harris-Benedict）至 0.72（p=0.000；Owen）。鉴于其仍较流行，我们对 Harris-Benedict 公式进行了修正（RMR（改良 Harris-Benedict）（kcal/d）=738/（RMR（Harris-Benedict）-738））。这样做使实测 RMR 与预测 RMR 的平均差值从+738kcal/d 降低至-0.53kcal/d（p=0.984）。
没有一个公式表现良好，不应将其与实测 RMR 互换使用。我们建议为年轻女性开发新的公式，并进行前瞻性验证。在此期间，应在该人群中测量 RMR 或使用我们开发的改良 Harris-Benedict 公式进行预测。
