Suppr超能文献

当前的预测静息代谢率方程不足以确定奥运会青年国家队运动员的适当静息能量消耗。

Current Predictive Resting Metabolic Rate Equations Are Not Sufficient to Determine Proper Resting Energy Expenditure in Olympic Young Adult National Team Athletes.

作者信息

Balci Aydın, Badem Ebru Arslanoğlu, Yılmaz Ayfer Ezgi, Devrim-Lanpir Aslı, Akınoğlu Bihter, Kocahan Tuğba, Hasanoğlu Adnan, Hill Lee, Rosemann Thomas, Knechtle Beat

机构信息

Department of Sports Medicine, Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University, Yenimahalle Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.

Department of Health Services, Sports General Directorship, The Ministry of Youth and Sports, Center of Athlete Training and Health Research, Ankara, Turkey.

出版信息

Front Physiol. 2021 Feb 4;12:625370. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2021.625370. eCollection 2021.

Abstract

Predictive resting metabolic rate (RMR) equations are widely used to determine athletes' resting energy expenditure (REE). However, it remains unclear whether these predictive RMR equations accurately predict REE in the athletic populations. The purpose of the study was to compare 12 prediction equations (Harris-Benedict, Mifflin, Schofield, Cunningham, Owen, Liu's, De Lorenzo) with measured RMR in Turkish national team athletes and sedentary controls. A total of 97 participants, 49 athletes (24 females, 25 males), and 48 sedentary (28 females, 20 males), were recruited from Turkey National Olympic Teams at the Ministry of Youth and Sports. RMR was measured using a Fitmate GS (Cosmed, Italy). The results of each 12 prediction formulas were compared with the measured RMR using paired -test. The Bland-Altman plot was performed to determine the mean bias and limits of agreement between measured and predicted RMRs. Stratification according to sex, the measured RMR was greater in athletes compared to controls. The closest equation to the RMR measured by Fitmate GS was the Harris-Benedict equation in male athletes (mean difference -8.9 (SD 257.5) kcal/day), and Liu's equation [mean difference -16.7 ( 195.0) kcal/day] in female athletes. However, the intra-class coefficient (ICC) results indicated that all equations, including Harris-Benedict for male athletes (ICC = 0.524) and Liu's for female athletes (ICC = 0.575), had a moderate reliability compared to the measured RMR. In sedentary subjects, the closest equation to the measured RMR is the Nelson equation in males, with the lowest RMSE value of 118 kcal/day [mean difference: 10.1 ( 117.2) kJ/day], whereas, in females, all equations differ significantly from the measured RMR. While Nelson (ICC = 0.790) had good and Owen (ICC = 0.722) and Mifflin (calculated using fat-free mass) (ICC = 0.700) had moderate reliability in males, all predictive equations showed poor reliability in females. The results indicate that the predictive RMR equations failed to accurately predict RMR levels in the participants. Therefore, it may not suitable to use them in determining total energy expenditure.

摘要

预测静息代谢率(RMR)的公式被广泛用于确定运动员的静息能量消耗(REE)。然而,这些预测性RMR公式是否能准确预测运动员群体的REE仍不清楚。本研究的目的是比较12种预测公式(哈里斯-本尼迪克特公式、米夫林公式、斯科菲尔德公式、坎宁安公式、欧文公式、刘公式、德洛伦佐公式)与土耳其国家队运动员及久坐对照组的实测RMR。共有97名参与者,其中49名运动员(24名女性,25名男性)和48名久坐者(28名女性,20名男性),从土耳其青年和体育部的国家奥林匹克队招募。使用Fitmate GS(意大利科美公司)测量RMR。使用配对t检验将12种预测公式的结果与实测RMR进行比较。绘制布兰德-奥特曼图以确定实测RMR与预测RMR之间的平均偏差和一致性界限。按性别分层,运动员的实测RMR高于对照组。对于男性运动员,与Fitmate GS测量的RMR最接近的公式是哈里斯-本尼迪克特公式(平均差值-8.9(标准差257.5)千卡/天),对于女性运动员是刘公式[平均差值-16.7(195.0)千卡/天]。然而,组内系数(ICC)结果表明,所有公式,包括男性运动员的哈里斯-本尼迪克特公式(ICC = 0.524)和女性运动员的刘公式(ICC = 0.575),与实测RMR相比可靠性中等。在久坐受试者中,与实测RMR最接近的公式是男性的尼尔森公式,RMSE值最低,为118千卡/天[平均差值:10.1(117.2)千焦/天],而在女性中,所有公式与实测RMR均有显著差异。虽然尼尔森公式(ICC = 0.790)在男性中可靠性良好,欧文公式(ICC = 0.722)和米夫林公式(使用去脂体重计算)(ICC = 0.700)在男性中可靠性中等,但所有预测公式在女性中可靠性都很差。结果表明,预测性RMR公式未能准确预测参与者的RMR水平。因此,在确定总能量消耗时可能不适宜使用它们。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/1a79/7890252/29e74d0e939c/fphys-12-625370-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验