4.3 Article

Validation of prediction equations for resting energy expenditure in Singaporean Chinese men

期刊

OBESITY RESEARCH & CLINICAL PRACTICE
卷 8, 期 3, 页码 E283-E290

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.orcp.2013.05.002

关键词

Prediction equation; Resting energy expenditure; Validity; Ethnicity; Chinese

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Accurate prediction of resting energy expenditure (REE) is important in establishing adequate dietary intake goals for effective weight management. Previous studies have shown that the validity of an energy prediction equation may depend on the ethnicity of the population. Validation studies are lacking in the Singaporean Chinese population. A total of 96 healthy Singaporean Chinese males of age 21-40 years and body mass index (BMI) 18.5-30.0 kg/m(2) participated in this study. REE was measured by indirect calorimetry and compared with REE predicted using existing equations. Validity was evaluated on the basis of mean bias and percentage of subjects predicted within +/- 10% of REE measured. In addition, Bland and Altman analyses were performed. No significant difference was observed between the mean Levels of measured and predicted REE derived from the Owen equation. The Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization/United Nations University (FAO/WHO/UNU), Harris-Benedict and Mifflin equations significantly overestimated the mean measured REE by 7.5%, 6.0% and 2.4% respectively. Percentage of valid predictions for FAO/WHO/UNU, Harris-Benedict, Mifflin and Owen equations were 60%, 67%, 75% and 73% respectively. Bland and Altman analyses demonstrated poor agreement for all equations. The Owen equation provided a valid estimation of REE in Singaporean Chinese men at a group level. However, the individual errors of the equations were unacceptable high and may have limited utility in making clinical decisions on nutritional requirements. (C) 2013 Asian Oceanian Association for the Study of Obesity. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据