Interdisciplinary Laboratory of Intervention in Health Promotion, Cesumar University, Maringá 87050-390, Paraná, Brazil.
Department of Physiological Sciences, State University of Maringá, Maringá 87020-900, Paraná, Brazil.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2024 Jul 9;21(7):891. doi: 10.3390/ijerph21070891.
This study aimed to investigate the resting metabolic rate (RMR) in cross-training practitioners (advanced and novice) using indirect calorimetry (IC) and compare it with predictive equations proposed in the scientific literature.
A cross-sectional and comparative study analyzed 65 volunteers, both sexes, practicing cross-training (CT). Anthropometry and body composition were assessed, and RMR was measured by IC (FitMate PRO), bioimpedance (BIA-InBody 570), and six predictive equations. Data normality was tested by the Kolgomorov-Smirnov test and expressed as mean ± standard deviation with 95% confidence intervals (CI), chi-square test was performed to verify ergogenic resources, and a Bland-Altman plot (B&A) was made to quantify the agreement between two quantitative measurements. One-way ANOVA was applied to body composition parameters, two-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc was used to compare the RMR between groups, and two-way ANCOVA was used to analyze the adjusted RMR for body and skeletal muscle mass. The effect size was determined using Cohen's d considering the values adjusted by ANCOVA. If a statistical difference was found, post hoc Bonferroni was applied. The significance level was < 0.05 for all tests.
The main results indicated that men showed a higher RMR than women, and the most discrepant equations were Cunningham, Tinsley (b), and Johnstone compared to IC. Tinsley's (a) equation indicated greater precision in measuring the RMR in CM overestimated it by only 1.9%, and BIA and the Harris-Benedict in CW overestimated RMR by only 0.1% and 3.4%, respectively.
The BIA and Harris-Benedict equation could be used reliably to measure the RMR of females, while Tinsley (a) is the most reliable method to measure the RMR of males when measuring with IC is unavailable. By knowing which RMR equations are closest to the gold standard, these professionals can prescribe a more assertive diet, training, or ergogenic resources. An assertive prescription increases performance and can reduce possible deleterious effects, maximizing physical sports performance.
本研究旨在使用间接测热法（IC）测量交叉训练者（高级和新手）的静息代谢率（RMR），并将其与文献中提出的预测方程进行比较。
本横断面和对比研究分析了 65 名志愿者，男女均有，均进行交叉训练（CT）。对人体测量学和身体成分进行评估，并使用 IC（FitMate PRO）、生物电阻抗（BIA-InBody 570）和 6 个预测方程测量 RMR。数据正态性采用 Kolgomorov-Smirnov 检验，用均值±标准差表示 95%置信区间（CI），采用卡方检验验证增效资源，并用 Bland-Altman 图（B&A）量化两种定量测量之间的一致性。采用单因素方差分析（ANOVA）比较身体成分参数，采用双向方差分析（ANOVA）和 Bonferroni 事后检验比较各组间 RMR，采用双向协方差分析（ANCOVA）分析调整身体和骨骼肌质量后的 RMR。采用 Cohen's d 确定效应大小，考虑 ANCOVA 调整后的数值。如果发现统计学差异，应用事后 Bonferroni 检验。所有检验的显著性水平均为 < 0.05。
主要结果表明，男性的 RMR 高于女性，与 IC 相比，Cunningham、Tinsley（b）和 Johnstone 方程最不准确。Tinsley（a）方程在测量 CM 中的 RMR 时具有更高的精度，仅高估了 1.9%，而 BIA 和 Harris-Benedict 在 CW 中仅高估了 0.1%和 3.4%。
BIA 和 Harris-Benedict 方程可用于可靠地测量女性的 RMR，而当无法使用 IC 进行测量时，Tinsley（a）是测量男性 RMR 最可靠的方法。了解哪些 RMR 方程最接近金标准，这些专业人员可以开出更有把握的饮食、训练或增效资源处方。有把握的处方可以提高表现，减少可能的有害影响，最大限度地提高身体运动表现。
