4.7 Article

Development and validation of new predictive equations for resting energy expenditure in physically active boys

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 13, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-31661-1

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Measurement or estimation of resting energy expenditure (REE) is crucial for determining energy demand in physically active boys. This study developed and validated new equations for estimating REE in male children and adolescents who play soccer. The equations showed good predictive accuracy and are recommended for estimating REE in physically active boys, when other methods are not feasible.
Measurement or estimation of resting energy expenditure (REE) should be the first step in determining energy demand in physically active boys. The purpose of this study was to develop and validate new equations for resting energy expenditure in male children and adolescents practicing soccer. The cross-sectional studywas carried out among 184 boys in the derivation group and 148 boys in the validation group (mean age 13.20 +/- 2.16 years and 13.24 +/- 1.75 years, respectively). The calorimeter and device for assessing body composition by bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) were used. Model of multiple regression showed that REE can be predicted in this population with Eq. (1) (with height and weight data) or Eq. (2) (with age, height, and fat free mass data). Predictive Eq. (1) had an average error of 51 +/- 199 kcal and predictive Eq. (2) -39 +/- 193 kcal. Cohen's d coefficient was 0.2, which confirms the small difference. The bias was 4.7% and 3.9%, respectively. The accuracy was 61.2% in the population for predictive Eq. (1) and 66.2% for predictive Eq. (2). Therefore, the new equations developed and validated in this study are recommended for the estimation of REE in physically active boys, when the use of IC is not feasible or available.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available