Medicine and science in sports and exercise · 2026
Resting Metabolic Rate in Collegiate Male Wrestlers: Cross-Validation and Development of Prediction Equations.
СтатьяВалидационное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Jagim Andrew R, Dobbs Ward C, Magee Meghan K, Fields Jennifer B, Sims Jesse N L, Saine Noelle D, Jones Margaret T
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The purpose of the current study was to cross-validate previously developed resting metabolic rate (RMR) prediction equations using laboratory measurements of RMR as a criterion.
METHODS: National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I (n = 60) and III (n = 113) male wrestlers participated in the current study (n = 173; Age: 19.6 ± 1.5 yrs.; Height: 176.3 ± 6.3 cm; Weight: 76.6 ± 10.9 kg; Body Fat: 11.4 ± 3.0%). Indirect calorimetry was used to measure RMR and Skinfold thickness was used to estimate body fat percentage (BF%) during the preseason period under standardized dress (underwear only), fasting, and resting conditions.
RESULTS: Mean measured RMR was 2102 ± 341 kcal·d -1 . All body mass-based RMR prediction equations significantly underestimated the measured RMR, with the exception of the Jagim and Schofield equations. The Tinsley fat-free mass (FFM) equation and the Cunningham equation had the lowest constant error values when compared with measured RMR (mean bias ± standard error: 80 ± 20 kcal and 126 ± 20 kcal·d -1 , respectively). Linear regression indicated the Tinsley FFM (R 2 = 0.422, root-mean-squared error (RMSE) = 279 kcals, %RMSE = 13.3%), and Cunningham FFM equations had the closest agreement to measured RMR (R 2 = 0.422, RMSE = 301 kcals, %RMSE = 14.3%), along with the Jagim equation for a body mass-based prediction equation (R 2 = 0.377, RMSE = 338 kcals, %RMSE = 16.1%). The standard error of the estimate (SEE) ranged from 260 to 272 kcal·d -1 across equations. Coefficients of determination (R 2 ) ranged from 37% to 42%. The new body mass and FFM-based equations exhibited good agreement based on the constant error (26 and -13 kcal·d -1 ), RMSE (274 and 252 kcal·d -1 ), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The newly developed equations demonstrated mean bias <2% of measured RMR.
METHODS: National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I (n = 60) and III (n = 113) male wrestlers participated in the current study (n = 173; Age: 19.6 ± 1.5 yrs.; Height: 176.3 ± 6.3 cm; Weight: 76.6 ± 10.9 kg; Body Fat: 11.4 ± 3.0%). Indirect calorimetry was used to measure RMR and Skinfold thickness was used to estimate body fat percentage (BF%) during the preseason period under standardized dress (underwear only), fasting, and resting conditions.
RESULTS: Mean measured RMR was 2102 ± 341 kcal·d -1 . All body mass-based RMR prediction equations significantly underestimated the measured RMR, with the exception of the Jagim and Schofield equations. The Tinsley fat-free mass (FFM) equation and the Cunningham equation had the lowest constant error values when compared with measured RMR (mean bias ± standard error: 80 ± 20 kcal and 126 ± 20 kcal·d -1 , respectively). Linear regression indicated the Tinsley FFM (R 2 = 0.422, root-mean-squared error (RMSE) = 279 kcals, %RMSE = 13.3%), and Cunningham FFM equations had the closest agreement to measured RMR (R 2 = 0.422, RMSE = 301 kcals, %RMSE = 14.3%), along with the Jagim equation for a body mass-based prediction equation (R 2 = 0.377, RMSE = 338 kcals, %RMSE = 16.1%). The standard error of the estimate (SEE) ranged from 260 to 272 kcal·d -1 across equations. Coefficients of determination (R 2 ) ranged from 37% to 42%. The new body mass and FFM-based equations exhibited good agreement based on the constant error (26 and -13 kcal·d -1 ), RMSE (274 and 252 kcal·d -1 ), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The newly developed equations demonstrated mean bias <2% of measured RMR.