Resting metabolic rate in muscular physique athletes: validity of existing methods and development of new prediction equations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimation of resting metabolic rate (RMR) is an important step for prescribing an individual’s energy intake. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the validity of portable indirect calorimeters and RMR prediction equations in muscular physique athletes. Twenty-seven males (n = 17; body mass index (BMI): 28.8 ± 2.0 kg/m2; body fat: 12.5% ± 2.7%) and females (n = 10; BMI: 22.8 ± 1.6 kg/m2; body fat: 19.2% ± 3.4%) were evaluated. The reference RMR value was obtained from the ParvoMedics TrueOne 2400 indirect calorimeter, and the Cosmed Fitmate and Breezing Metabolism Tracker provided additional RMR estimates. Existing RMR prediction equations based on body weight (BW) or dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry fat-free mass (FFM) were also evaluated. Errors in RMR estimates were assessed using validity statistics, including t tests with Bonferroni correction, linear regression, and calculation of the standard error of the estimate, total error, and 95% limits of agreement. Additionally, new prediction equations based on BW (RMR (kcal/day) = 24.8 × BW (kg) + 10) and FFM (RMR (kcal/day) = 25.9 × FFM (kg) + 284) were developed using stepwise linear regression and evaluated using leave-one-out cross-validation. Nearly all existing BW- and FFM-based prediction equations, as well as the Breezing Tracker, did not exhibit acceptable validity and typically underestimated RMR. The ten Haaf and Weijs (PLoS ONE, 9: e1084602014 (2014)) and Cunningham (1980) (Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 33: 2372–2374 (1980)) FFM-based equations may produce acceptable RMR estimates, although the Cosmed Fitmate and newly developed BW- and FFM-based equations may be most suitable for RMR estimation in male and female physique athletes. Future research should provide additional external cross-validation of the newly developed equations to refine the ability to predict RMR in physique athletes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".