数学比率会导致关于静息代谢率的年龄和性别差异的虚假结论。

Mathematical ratios lead to spurious conclusions regarding age- and sex-related differences in resting metabolic rate.

作者信息

Poehlman E T, Toth M J

机构信息

Department of Medicine, University of Maryland, Baltimore.

出版信息

Am J Clin Nutr. 1995 Mar;61(3):482-5. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/61.3.482.

DOI:10.1093/ajcn/61.3.482

PMID:7872210

Abstract

Resting metabolic rate (RMR) data have been normalized by dividing RMR by fat-free mass (FFM) (ie, ratio method), or by using a regression-based approach. We compared both data-normalization procedures on age- and sex-related differences in RMR. The ratio method showed no differences in adjusted RMR between older men (0.084 +/- 0.004 kJ.FFM-1.min-1) and younger men (0.082 +/- 0.003 kJ.FFM-1.min-1), whereas analysis of covariance showed a lower (P < 0.01) adjusted RMR in older men (4.81 +/- 0.04 kJ/min) than in younger men (5.14 +/- 0.04 kJ/min). In another example, the ratio method showed that women had a higher (P < 0.05) adjusted RMR (0.10 +/- 0.004 kJ/min) than did men (0.08 +/- 0.003 kJ/min), whereas analysis of covariance showed a lower (P < 0.01) adjusted RMR in women (4.45 +/- 0.03 kJ/min) than in men (4.62 +/- 0.03 kJ/min). The ratio method provides misleading conclusions regarding sex- and age-related differences in RMR when compared with a regression-based approach.

摘要

静息代谢率（RMR）数据已通过将RMR除以去脂体重（FFM）（即比率法）或使用基于回归的方法进行了标准化处理。我们比较了这两种数据标准化程序在RMR的年龄和性别相关差异方面的情况。比率法显示老年男性（0.084±0.004kJ·FFM⁻¹·min⁻¹）和年轻男性（0.082±0.003kJ·FFM⁻¹·min⁻¹）之间的调整后RMR没有差异，而协方差分析显示老年男性（4.81±0.04kJ/min）的调整后RMR低于年轻男性（5.14±0.04kJ/min）（P<0.01）。在另一个例子中，比率法显示女性的调整后RMR（0.10±0.004kJ/min）高于男性（0.08±0.003kJ/min）（P<0.05），而协方差分析显示女性（4.45±0.03kJ/min）的调整后RMR低于男性（4.62±0.03kJ/min）（P<0.01）。与基于回归的方法相比，比率法在RMR的性别和年龄相关差异方面提供了误导性的结论。