Biology of Sport
eISSN: 2083-1862
ISSN: 0860-021X
Biology of Sport
Current Issue Manuscripts accepted About the journal Editorial board Abstracting and indexing Archive Ethical standards and procedures Contact Instructions for authors Journal's Reviewers Special Information
Editorial System
Submit your Manuscript
SCImago Journal & Country Rank
3/2023
vol. 40
 
Share:
Share:
Review paper

Predicting resting energy expenditure among athletes: a systematic review

Diogo V. Martinho
1, 2, 3
,
Robert J. Naughton
4
,
Ana Faria
2, 3
,
André Rebelo
5, 6
,
Hugo Sarmento
1

  1. University of Coimbra, Research Unit for Sport and Physical Activity, Faculty of Sport Sciences and Physical Education, Coimbra, Portugal
  2. Polytechnic of Coimbra, Coimbra Health School, Dietetics and Nutrition, Coimbra, Portugal
  3. Laboratory for Applied Health Research (LabinSaúde), Coimbra, Portugal
  4. School of Human and Health Sciences, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK
  5. CIDEFES, Centro de Investigação em Desporto, Educação Física e Exercício e Saúde, Universidade Lusófona, Lisboa, Portugal
  6. COD, Center of Sports Optimization, Sporting Clube de Portugal, Lisbon, Portugal
Biol Sport. 2023;40(3):787–804
Online publish date: 2022/11/18
Article file
- 20_02781_Article.pdf  [1.45 MB]
Get citation
 
PlumX metrics:
 

INTRODUCTION

The ability to estimate total energy expenditure (TEE) accurately is frequently desired by athletes and practitioners alike. Access to this information can help in the design of optimal fuelling strategies for training and competition, supporting training adaptation and performance [1]. There are three components of TEE: resting energy expenditure (REE), thermic effect of exercise and diet induced thermogenesis. Basal metabolic rate (BMR) and REE are often used as interchange terms but, represent different concepts. BMR is defined as the minimal amount of energy to maintain the vital functions such as respiration, heartbeat, normal body temperature while, REE represents the energy to maintain the body functions at rest. Briefly, the assessment of BMR requires more standardized conditions and it is more challenging to measure than REE [2]. REE among athletes needs particular attention given the substantial contribution of REE to determine TEE [3]. Additionally, REE has been used as a parameter to define energy deficiency in sport participants [4]. Considering the preceding, the measurement of REE needs to follow a standardized protocol. The REE is typically obtained during the morning from continuous measures of VO2 and VCO2 at rest and athletes are instructed to avoid exercise 12 hours before REE testing. The participant is positioned in the supine position for 30–45 minutes with a mask or mouthpiece attached and then, 5–10 additional minutes of VO2 and VCO2 measures are obtained to assess REE [2]. The mentioned protocol requires considerable equipment, time, exercise restriction and knowledge [2]. Therefore, indirect estimations of REE have been for non-sport participants [5] and athletes [3].

The Harris-Benedict [6] and Cunningham [7] equations emerged as potential predictive estimations of REE in athletes [1]. Additionally, metabolic active tissue, expressed by fat-free mass (FFM) or lean soft tissue (LST), accounted for 60–70% of REE [8] and by inference should be considered a key factor in estimation of REE. The Harris-Benedict equation [6] did not measure metabolic active tissues while in the Cunningham equation [7] lean body mass was estimated based on body mass and age. The Harris-Benedict equation was developed 124 years ago, in 239 healthy participants (136 males, 103 female) and incorporated age, stature and body mass as explanatory predictors [6]. In parallel, Cunningham reanalysed the data of 223 participants from Harris and Benedict [6] and excluded 16 trained athletes. In this equation, estimated lean body mass accounted for 70% of REE [7]. Interestingly, both equations are systematically used to estimate REE but, they are not specifically design for athletes. Consequently, the generalization and application of these equations among athletes are questionable.

The development and application of athletic-specific and sport-specific equations has not received much consideration within sports nutrition literature although it has been previously recognized that population specific estimations are needed [1]. Multiple equations to predict REE has been developed among athletes that participated in different sports [911]. Nevertheless, the validation of sport-specific equations to estimate REE in independent samples is lacking. Considering the contribution of REE to estimate TEE and the frequent use of equations validated in general population in sport participants, the aim of this systematic review is to compare estimated REE with measured REE in athletes. This review also summarized the models used in athlete populations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present systematic review followed the Cochrane guidelines [12] and it was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review (PRISMA) instructions [13].

Eligibility criteria

The manuscripts included in the current systematic review followed PICO (population, intervention, comparator and outcome) criteria [12]: population comprised of participants involved in organized sport; intervention was defined as REE measured by calorimetry – requirements for REE assessment needed to be described; equations to predict REE were used as a comparator; outcomes described comparisons between REE measured and REE estimated or potential equations to predict REE; cross-sectional and cohort studies were included in this review. Published manuscripts or abstracts in English were considered for the present study. No filter was applied to year of publication. Manuscripts that did not presented descriptive statistics for REE were eligible to the review because provide qualitative information about the accuracy of equations. Authors of the papers included in the review were contacted where relevant data were not present within the manuscript.

Information source and search strategy

Three electronic databases were consulted (i.e. Web of Science all databases, PubMed and Scopus) prior to 1th January of 2022. The search strategy included the keywords: (“resting energy expenditure” OR “resting metabolic rate” OR “basal metabolic rate” OR “basal energy expenditure” OR REE OR “basal metabolism”) AND (“predictive equation*” OR “prediction equation*” OR equation* OR prediction*) AND (athlete* OR sport*). Potential search terms were identified taking into account previous words used in the titles, abstract and keywords. Two specialists (DVM/AF) developed the search strategy that was supervised by an experienced author in systematic reviews and meta-analysis (HS). Afterwards, a reference manager software (EndNoteTMX9, Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, PA, USA) was used to export the studies.

Selection process

The initial screening by two independent authors (DVM and HS) according to the title and abstract. Then, full-text manuscripts were assessed to check if they met eligibility criteria. Discordances between authors were solved by consensus and if necessary a third independent reviewer (AF) was consulted.

Data collection process

Data extrapolation

Two authors (DVM/HS) extracted the information from eligible studies. Data was organized and summarized on adapted template of Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group [14]. The list of parameters included in the previous spreadsheet were: (1) number of participants, (2) sport, (3) sex, (4) age, (5) competitive level, (6) measurement of REE, (7) equation studied, (8) potential independent variables, (9) statistical parameters about the model, (10) main findings, (11) limitations. Among adolescent Brazilian soccer players [15], means and standard deviations of WHO/FAO/ UNU, Harris-Benedict, Henry and Cunningham equations were calculated consulting the supplementary material from the original study.

Data Items

The main outcomes extracted were categorized in two different groups: (1) measured and predicted REE; (2) equation to estimate REE. Moreover, any equation to predict REE was contrasted with measured REE. The agreement of predicted REE was determined within 5% or 10% intervals of the measured REE. Since authors anticipated that few equations to predict REE were developed among athletes, predictive models of REE were extracted and summarized as an outcome domain.

Study risk of bias

According to a recent study [16], the Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies developed jointly the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) and Research Triangle Institute International to examine individually the quality of studies [17] and was implemented in the current manuscript. The tool included fourteen questions and an overall approach (i.e. good, fair or poor). Items reflecting the following parameters: (1) research question; (2,3) study population; (4) groups recruited from the same population and uniform eligibly criteria; (5) sample size justification; (6) exposure assessed prior to outcome of measurement; (7) sufficient timeframe to see an effect; (8) different levels of the exposure effect; (9) exposures measurement; (10) repeated exposure assessment; (11) outcomes measurement; (12) blinding of outcomes assessors; (13) follow-up rate; (14) statistical analysis. Two independent observers completed the tool (DVM/HS) and possible disagreements were solved by a third reviewer (AF).

RESULTS

Study selection

The databases searches identified 482 entries. Subsequently, duplicates were automatically and manually removed (n = 193). A total of 289 records were screened according to title and abstract, resulting in the exclusion of 238 records. The remaining 51 articles were read in full and 17 did not follow the eligible criteria: (1) the sample not clearly described as participants involved in organized sports (n = 7); (2) the manuscript did not show any comparison with equations or present a potential model for predicting REE (n = 7); (3) manuscripts were reviews (n = 2); (4) manuscript was not written in English (n = 1). Finally, 34 studies were selected to the current systematic review (Figure 1).

FIG. 1

Identification of studies via databases and registers.

From: Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71. For more information, visit: http://www.prisma-statement.org/

/f/fulltexts/BS/47939/JBS-40-119986-g001_min.jpg

Study characteristics

The characteristics of studies (sample, age, stature, body mass, FFM or LST) included in the present review are summarized separately by age group and sex in Supplementary Table 1. Twenty-one and seven studies included male adult [4, 911, 1834] and youth sport participants [15, 3540], respectively. Female adult athletes participated in 19 studies [4, 10, 18, 19, 2125, 3034, 4145] while, five studies used samples of young athletes [35, 37, 38, 40, 46].

Risk of bias in studies

Based on Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies the risk of bias of studies was individually examined as shown in Supplementary Material 2. In general, studies did not estimate a priori sample size to examine differences between measured REE and estimated REE or to create an equation to extrapolate REE. In parallel, the inclusion criteria in each study were not described in some of the studies used in this systematic review. The overall quality rating of 28 studies was fair, 3 studies were classified as poor and 3 studies as good.

Results of individual studies

The comparison of measured REE with predicted values was noted in twelves studies of adults [4, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 30, 41, 42, 43] and analysed in seven studies of young athletes [15, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 46] as shown in Table 1. Of interest, Harris-Benedict, Cunningham and WHO/FAO/UNU were the main equations examined. Contrasting findings across studies are notable. For example, among ultra-endurance [21] and high-levels athletes [22], Harris-Benedict tended to underestimate measured REE while among Royal ballet dancers [4] predicted REE was overestimated in comparison to measured REE. Regarding the Cunningham equation, it tended to overestimate measured REE in Olympic male and female athletes [18] and underestimate measured REE in ultra-endurance athletes [21]. Predicted REE by WHO/FAO/UNU equation was, on average, substantially less than measured REE among Indian male weightlifters [26] and it was considered the most appropriate estimation of REE amongst adult male soccer players from Malaysia [24]. Overall, the equations developed to predict REE in general population were not comparable to measured REE in athletic samples. The percentage of agreement reported in six studies [10, 18, 21, 23, 33, 35] was often less than 60% for Harris-Benedict [10, 18, 21, 22, 23, 33] and Cunningham [21, 22] equations in athletes. Although sport-specific equations to estimate REE had received less attention, an agreement > 60% [10, 23, 25] was obtained in three studies that used De Lorenzo et al. [9] equation (Table 2). Studies which presented equations to estimate REE are summarized in Table 3 [911, 20, 22, 23, 2528, 31, 34, 36, 37, 40, 4345]. Body weight and FFM emerged as the most determinant predictors of REE. Two studies used the sum of four [44] and seven [28] body compartments to calculate REE in 93 collegiate athletes and 10 sumo wrestlers, respectively. Recently, two equations included somatotype [22] and phase angle [11] as potential determinants of REE.

TABLE 1

Mean ± standard deviation of measured REE and predicted REE considering alternative equations presented separately for adult and young athletes.

StudySampleSex
MaleFemale

REE measured (kcal · day−1)EquationREE predicted (kcal · day−1)REE measured (kcal · day−1)EquationREE predicted (kcal · day−1)
ADULTS

Balci et al. [18]Olympic athletes1885 ± 323Harris-Benedict1864 ± 1801361 ± 232Harris-Benedict1483 ± 143
Mifflin-BMSA1778 ± 138Mifflin-BMSA1425 ± 148
Mifflin-FFM1727 ± 149Mifflin-FFM1149 ± 111
Schofield1828 ± 186Schofield1466 ± 198
Cunningham (1991)1969 ± 167Cunningham (1991)1534 ± 124
Owen1644 ± 126Owen1325 ± 145
Liu1723 ± 180Liu1383 ± 184
De Lorenzo1911 ± 147De Lorenzo1597 ± 164
Bernstein1511 ± 154Bernstein1597 ± 128
Nelson1706 ± 201Nelson1339 ± 1635
Johnstone1838 ± 187Johnstone1229 ± 164
Roza1874 ± 85Roza1483 ± 69

Carlsohn et al. [19]rowing and canoe racing2675 ± 526Harris-Benedict2133 ± 1881577 ± 253Harris-Benedict1737±200
Cunningham (1980)2260 ± 181Cunningham (1980)1734 ± 147

Cocate et al.[20]cycling2051 ± 169Harris-Benedict1699 ± 95
Schofield1699 ± 85
FAO/WHO/UNU1702 ± 85
Henry1562 ± 76

Devrim-Lanpirendurance sports2041 ± 301Harris-Benedict1701 ± 1201788 ± 341Harris-Benedict1322 ± 82
et al. [21]Mifflin2038 ± 126Mifflin1602 ± 59
Cunningham (1991)1894 ± 141Cunningham (1991)1497 ± 61
WHO/FAO/UNU – BMA1726 ± 86WHO/FAO/UNU – BMA1321 ±37
WHO/FAO/UNU – BM1755 ± 84WHO/FAO/UNU – BM1388 ± 41
Wang1744 ± 157Wang1289 ± 68
Sabounchi11743 ± 137Sabounchi11363 ± 62
Sabounchi11662 ±117Sabounchi11383 ± 56
Sabounchi11739 ± 89Sabounchi11158 ± 30

Freire et al. [22]high level athletes2099 ± 400Harris-Benedict1896 ± 2911577 ± 170Harris-Benedict1490±104
ten Haaf – BM2082 ± 258ten Haaf – BM1573 ± 155
ten Haaf – FFM2243 ± 326ten Haaf – FFM1695 ± 139
WHO/FAO/UNU1975 ± 302WHO/FAO/UNU1429 ± 132
De Lorenzo2046 ± 242De Lorenzo1683 ± 165
Wong1969 ± 262Wong1505 ± 127
Jagim2435 ± 392Jagim1645 ± 205
Cunningham (1980)2170 ± 309Cunningham (1980)1650 ± 132
Cunningham (1991)2039 ±309Cunningham (1991)1519 ± 132

Joseph et al. [26]weightlifting2217 ± 515Katch-McArdle1687 ± 198
Cunningham (1980)1842 ± 202
WHO/FAO/UNU1821 ± 226
ICMR1727 ± 215
Harris-Benedict1791 ± 221
Mifflin1699 ± 172
Owen1580 ± 148
Nelson1294 ± 263

Mackay et al. [41]recreational and sub-elite athletes1452 ± 267Harris-Benedict1438 ± 113
Mifflin1392 ± 140
WHO/FAO/UNU1460 ± 133

Mackenzie-Shalders et al. [27]rugby2389 ± 263Cunningham2287 ± 176
Harris-Benedict22242 ± 233
Harris-Benedict22213 ± 226

Marques et al. [42]karate1689 ± 286WHO/FAO/UNU1401 ± 89
Harris-Benedict1449 ± 54
Cunningham (1980)1552 ± 122
Henry1326 ± 69

O'Neil et al. [43]rugby1651 ± 167Cunningham (1980)1665 ± 124
Harris-Benedict1545 ± 117
ten Haaf – FFM1690 ± 129
ten Haaf – BM1679 ± 166
Jagim1830 ± 219
Watson – FFM1520 ± 65
Watson – BM1623 ± 99

Sena et al. [30]CrossFit1885 ± 416Harris-Benedict1869 ± 1881403 ± 258Harris-Benedict1397 ± 108
WHO/FAO/UNU1878 ± 154WHO/FAO/UNU1380 ± 105
Henry1708 ± 151Henry1307 ± 108
Cunningham (1980)2031 ± 165Cunningham (1980)1521 ± 126
Cunningham (1991)1873 ± 162Cunningham (1991)1373 ± 124
Mifflin1771 ± 147Mifflin1309 ± 164

Staal et al. [4]ballet dancers1692 ±103Cunningham (1980)1967 ± 1041215 ±106Cunningham (1980)1504 ± 108
Harris-Benedict1896 ± 135Harris-Benedict1355 ± 127
Koehler1813 ± 73Koehler1378 ± 69

Tinsley et al. [31]muscular physique2337 ± 3103Hayes2166 ± 1991566 ± 1333Hayes1438 ± 126
2408 ± 3503Cunningham (1980)2245 ± 1701633 ± 1823Cunningham (1980)1581 ± 107
Cunningham (1991)2083 ± 167Cunningham (1991)1432 ± 105
Mifflin – FFM1975 ± 152Mifflin – FFM1381 ± 96
Mifflin – BM1944 ± 144Mifflin – BM1396 ± 95
Owen2058 ± 172Owen1302 ± 96
ten Haaf – FFM2290 ± 176ten Haaf – FFM1604 ± 110
ten Haaf – BM2192 ± 168ten Haaf – BM1566 ± 112
Harris-Benedict2086 ± 176Harris-Benedict1454 ± 70
WHO/FAO/UNU2102 ± 160WHO/FAO/UNU1417 ± 77
De Lorenzo2032 ± 180De Lorenzo1677 ± 107

Watson et al. [45]National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) collegiate athletes1466 ± 150Harris-Benedict1528 ± 98
Schofield1483 ± 132
Mifflin1472 ± 134
Owen1278 ± 64
WHO/FAO/UNU1496 ± 141
Cunningham (1980)1588 ± 129
Taguchi1366 ± 157

Wong et al. [24]elite athletes1715 ± 204WHO/FAO/UNU1690 ± 1301384 ± 147WHO/FAO/UNU1311 ± 83
Ismail1461 ± 130Ismail1185 ± 72
De Lorenzo1734 ± 111Cunningham (1980)1451 ± 81
Cunningham (1980)1760 ± 163Harris-Benedict1387 ± 57
Harris-Benedict1684 ± 140

YOUTH

Cherian et al. [35]IOM1308 ± 63
soccer1343 ± 297Cunningham (1980)1375 ± 1971135 ±117Cunningham (1980)1252 ± 83
Henry1428 ± 205Henry1262 ± 73
Soares – BMA1357 ± 124Soares-FFM1135 ± 80
Soares – FFM1252 ± 190Patil-BM1085 ± 74
Patil – BM1402 ± 137Patil-BMSA1100 ± 77
Patil – BMSA1184 ± 186Wong1317 ± 119
De Lorenzo1429 ± 223ten Haaf:1263 ± 8
Wong ten1334 ± 201
ten Haaf1390 ± 204

Hannon et al. [36]soccer1858 ± 215Cunningham (1980)1578 ± 281
De Lorenzo1769 ± 263
Henry1758 ± 272
Kim1466 ± 191
Wong1693 ± 193

Loureiro et al. [38]pentathlon1559 ± 203WHO/FAO/UNU1679 ± 1521357 ± 140WHO/FAO/UNU1376 ± 110
Harris-Benedict1610 ± 149Harris-Benedict1366 ± 89
Henry1667 ± 172Henry1279 ± 92
Cunningham (1980)1580 ± 171Cunningham (1980)1344±194

Łouszczki et al. [39]soccer1844 ± 328Harris-Benedict1513 ± 256
WHO/FAO/UNU1567 ± 260
IMNA1662 ± 303
Cunningham (1991)1450 ± 264
Mifflin1481 ± 224
Owen1413 ± 147
Altman and Dittmer1534 ± 283
Maffeis1368 ± 150
Schofield1589 ± 253
Molnar1469 ± 239
De Lorenzo1520 ± 298

Kim et al. [37]soccer1648 ± 111Harris-Benedict1556 ± 581365 ± 186Harris-Benedict1418 ± 56
WHO/FAO/UNU1577 ± 65WHO/FAO/UNU1431 ± 63
IMNA1538 ± 70IMNA1367 ± 65
Cunningham (1991)1677 ± 95Cunningham (1991)1309 ± 58
Mifflin1543 ± 78Mifflin1342 ± 76
Owen1284 ± 38Owen1198 ± 37
Altman and Dittmer1867 ± 101Altman and Dittmer1640 ± 98
Maffeis1470 ± 60Maffeis1321 ± 58
Schofield1593 ± 63Schofield1431 ± 62
De Lorenzo1826 ± 99De Lorenzo1564 ± 97
Park1648 ± 51Park1590 ± 365

Oliveira et al. [15]soccer1717 ± 203WHO/FAO/UNU1854 ± 131
Harris-Benedict1760 ± 126
Henry1864 ± 148
Cunningham (1980)1728 ± 129

FAO/WHO/UNU (Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health/United Nations University); IMNA (Institute of Medicine of the National Academies); ICMR (Indian Council of Medical Research); IOM (Institute of Medicine); BMA (body mass, age); FFM (fat-free mass); BM (body mass); BMSA (body mass, stature, age).

1 Specific population-equation derived from meta-regression.

2 REE was estimated using different constants from Harris-Benedict equation.

3 REE was measured using two calorimetry devices.

TABLE 2

Percentage of agreement and disagreement between measured REE and predicted REE.

Studynequationagreementover-predictedunder-predicted
ADULTS – MALE

Balci et al. [18]25Harris-Benedict40%36%24%
Mifflin-BMSA40%24%36%
Mifflin-FFM60%8%32%
Schofield11%28%28%
Cunningham10%52%8%
Owen12%4%48%
Liu12%12%40%
De Lorenzo10%40%20%
Bernstein5%0%80%
Nelson15%8%32%
Johnstone13%24%24%
Roza6%44%32%

Devrim-Lanpir et al. [21]*15Harris-Benedict20%7%73%
Mifflin47%27%27%
Cunningham47%33%20%
WHO/FAO/UNU – BMA20%7%73%
WHO/FAO/UNU – BM20%7%73%
Wang27%7%67%
Sabounchi127%7%67%
Sabounchi113%7%80%
Sabounchi120%7%73%

Freire et al. [22]**58Harris-Benedict36%
ten Haaf – BM45%
ten Haaf – FFM29%
FAO/WHO/UNU33%
De Lorenzo38%
Wong29%
Jagim7%
Cunningham (1980)50%
Cunningham (1991)50%

Freire et al. [22]*58Harris-Benedict67%
ten Haaf – BM72%
ten Haaf – FFM59%
FAO/WHO/UNU64%
De Lorenzo69%
Wong64%
Jagim24%
Cunningham (1980)71%
Cunningham (1991)78%

Frings-Meuthen et al. [23]79Harris-Benedict48%0%52%
FAO/WHO/UNU63%0%37%
Muller66%6%28%
Muller-FFM66%1%33%
Cunningham68%25%7%
De Lorenzo72%10%18%

ten Haaf and Weijs [10]*53Cunningham84.9%
De Lorenzo77.4%

Van Grouwn etal. [33]*16Mifflin56.3%
Harris-Benedict43.8%

ADULTS – FEMALE

Balci et al. [18]24Harris-Benedict50%42%8%
Mifflin71%17%13%
Mifflin58%17%25%
Schofield54%38%8%
Cunningham54%38%8%
Owen38%58%4%
Liu67%21%12%
De Lorenzo42%58%0%
Bernstein17%8%75%
Nelson33%8%58%
Johnstone54%29%17%
Roza38%63%0%

Devrim-Lanpir et al. [21]*15Harris-Benedict13%0%87%
Mifflin53%13%33%
Cunningham20%13%67%
WHO/FAO/UNU – BMA13%0%87%
WHO/FAO/UNU – BM27%0%73%
Wang13%0%87%
Sabounchi (2013)120%0%80%
Sabounchi (2013)127%0%73%
Sabounchi (2013)17%0%93%

Freire et al. [22]**44Harris-Benedict30%
ten Haaf – BM39%
ten Haaf – FFM25%
FAO/WHO/UNU25%
De Lorenzo36%
Wong36%
Jagim39%
Cunningham (1980)41%
Cunningham (1991)43%

Freire et al. [21]*44Harris-Benedict59%
ten Haaf – BM66%
ten Haaf – FFM59%
FAO/WHO/UNU57%
De Lorenzo75%
Wong68%
Jagim59%
Cunningham (1980)70%
Cunningham (1991)73%

Frings-Meuthen et al. [23]34Harris-Benedict47%3%50%
FAO/WHO/UNU41%6%53%
[23]Muller47%3%50%
Muller-FFM46%3%52%
Cunningham64%36%0%
De Lorenzo62%27%12%

ten Haaf and Weijs [10]37Cunningham78.4%
De Lorenzo59.5%

Van Grouwn et al. [33]*17Mifflin82.2%
Harris-Benedict52.3%

YOUTH

Cherian et al. [35]*male21Cunningham71.4%
Henry57.1%
Soares – BMA61.9%
Soares – FFM42.9%
Patil – BMA61.9%
Patil – BMSA38.1%
De Lorenzo61.9%
Wong76.2%
ten Haaf66.7%

Cherianfemale19Cunningham42.1%
Henry47.9%
Soares94.7%
Patil – BMA78.9%
Patil – BMSA89.5%
Wong21.1%
ten Haaf42.1%

* percentage of accurate REE predictions (within 10% of the measured REE);

** percentage of accurate REE predictions (within 5% of the measured REE).

1 Specific population-equation derived from meta-regression. BMA (body mass, age); FFM (fat-free mass); BMSA (body mass, stature, age); WHO/FAO/UNU (Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health). Sena et al. combined male and female CrossFit participants.

TABLE 3

Equations developed among athletes to estimate REE.

StudysexsampleEquation REE
Cocate et al. [20]malecyclingREE = -12888.2 + 485.846 × FFM – 3.7846 × FFM2–24.0092 × age

De Lorenzo et al. [9]malewater polo, judo, karateREE = -857 + 9.0 × body mass + (11.7 × stature

Freire et al. [22]male and femalehigh level athletesREE = 729.50 + 175.64 × sex – 7.23 × age + 15.87 × body mass + 1.08 × stature

REE = -2688.12 + 521.08 × sex + 42.86 × age + 18.98 × body mass + 16.76 × stature + 85.47 × mesomorphy + 140.54 × endomorphy – 8.24 × body mass × sex + 1.53 × body mass × endomorphy – 0.65 × body mass × age

Frings-Meuthen et al. [23]male and femalemaster athletic athletesREE = -222.088 + 18.577 × FFM + 6.753 × FM + 23.910 × temperature + 78.479 × sex

Hannon et al. [36]maleyouth soccerREE = 1315 + 11.1 × FFM
REE = 1254 + 9.5 × body mass

Jagim et al. [25]male and femaleNational Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) collegiate athletesREE = 19.46 × body mass + 775.33 (males)
REE = 21.10 × body mass + 288.6 (females)

Joseph et al. [26]maleweightliftingREE = -164.065 + 0.039 × LBM

Kim et al. [37]male and femaleyouth soccerREE = 502.7 + (8.6 × body mass) + (9.7 × VO2max)
REE = 730.4 + 15 × FFM

Marra et al. [11]maleelite athletesREE = 17.2 × body mass – 5.95 × age + 748
REE = 16.3 × body mass + 95.4 × phase angle – 93

MacKenzie-Shalders et al. [27]malerugbyREE = 29.71 × LBM – 24.56 (beginning of pre-season) REE = 26.75 × LBM + 145.44 (prior to competition)

Midorikawa et al. [28]malesumo wrestlersREE* = (13 × skeletal muscle mass) + (4.5 × adipose tissue mass) + (240 × brain mass)
+ (200 × liver mass) + (440 × kidney mass) + (440 × heart mass) + (12 × residual mass)

O’Neil et al. [43]femalerugbyREE = 649.6 + 18.91 × FFM
REE = 150.1–6.858 × age – 2.946 × stature + 11.21 × body mass

Reale et al. [40]male and femaledifferent sportsREE = body mass × 11.1 + stature × 8.4–339.7 (males)
REE = FFM × 14.5 + FM + 8.6 + stature × 5.7–35.9 (males)
REE = body mass × 11.1 + stature × 8.4–537.1 (females)
REE = FFM × 14.5 + FM + 8.6 + stature × 5.7–203.9 (females)

Taguchi et al. [44]femalecollegiate athletesREE = 17.8 × body mass + 243
REE = 26.9 × FFM + 36
REE* = (2.3 × body mass) + (4.5 × adipose tissue) + (13 × skeletal muscle) + (54 × residual mass)

ten Haaf and Weijs [10]male and femaledifferent sportsREE = 11.936 × body mass + 587.7 x stature – 8.129 × age + 191.027 × sex + 29.279
REE = 22.771 × FFM + 484.264

Tinsley et al. [31]male and femalemuscular physiqueREE = 25.9 × FFM + 284
REE = 24.8 × body mass + 10

Watson et al. [45]femaleNational Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) collegiate athletesREE = 88.1 + 2.53 × stature + 8.42 × body mass + 19.46 × age

REE = 120.81 + 4.88 × stature + 8.24 × FFM + 5.71 × age

Wong et al. [34]male and femaleelite athletesREE = 669 + 13 × body mass + 192 × sex

REE (resting energy expenditure); FFM (fat-free mass); VO2max (maximal oxygen uptake); LBM (lean body mass); FM (fat mass).

* These equations were developed by other authors.

DISCUSSION

The aim of the present study was to review the agreement between measured REE and predicted REE using estimative equations. Additionally, the current systemic review summarized estimations of REE obtained using participants involved in organized sports. In general, across different samples of sport participants, measured REE was not comparable with REE predicted from equations developed in general population. Consistent results were noted among participants classified as overweight and obese [47] as well in healthy older adults aged ≥ 60 years [24]. Two equations, De Lorenzo et al. [9] and ten Haaf and Weijs [10], included athletes from different sports. Although few studies tested the precision of these equations, an agreement of 72% and 68% was noted with measured REE in male [23] and female [22] athletes, respectively. Therefore, the De Lorenzo and ten Haaf equations seems to be acceptable alternatives to estimate REE in athletes. Although Harris-Benedict and Cunningham equations were claimed to estimate REE among athletes, population-specific equations are needed [1].

Among 49 Turkish Olympic athletes differences between measured REE and predicted REE by Harris-Benedict equation were, on average, negligible however, only 40% and 50% of males and females, respectively, were within 10% of the measured REE [18]. Conversely studies using the Cunningham equation provided inconsistent results – underestimating REE in 83% of adolescent athletes aged 13–19 years [40] while, among 90 adult sport participants [10] an acceptable agreement between measured REE and predicted REE was reported in males (84.9%) and females (78.4%). Recently, the application of the Cunningham equation was recommended for use in female athletes but not be considered in males [24]. The equation explained 34% of variance in measured REE and an error 15% of with Cunningham model was noted among males [24]. In general, predicted REE by the Cunningham equation should not be generalized for athletic samples. This equation estimated lean body mass based on age and body mass [48]. Studies about REE estimation in athletes applied different methods to determine body composition. ten Haaf and Weijs [10] used air displacement plethysmography technique in 90 adult athletes while a recent study in Premier League soccer academy athletes used DXA methodology obtain FFM [36]. Considering the preceding, few studies that analysed Cunningham equation adopted the same methodology to estimate metabolic active tissues as original author [7]. The Cunningham equation was reviewed in 1991 but inconsistent results to predict REE were also noted [49].

The Mifflin equation [50] also emerged as a potential model to provide sex-specific estimates of REE in sport [51]. Fat mass and FFM were estimated from skinfold subcutaneous adipose tissue measurements [52, 53] and final sex-specific equations incorporated age, body mass and stature. The original sample included 247 females (ranging 20–76 years-old) and 251 males (age ranging 19–78 years-old). Of those, 112 females and 122 males were classified as obese [50]. Not surprisingly, predicted REE by the Mifflin equation tended to underestimate -114 kcal and -94 kcal measured REE among males and females CrossFit athletes, respectively [30]. In a sample of 9 power-lifters and 3 weightlifters Mifflin equation differed 11% of measured REE and it was supported that WHO/ ONU/UNU should be used to predict REE [29]. The sample of WHO/ ONU/UNU derived from the 7173 European and North American data points. Even though 3338 data points were obtained from active Italian participants with an elevated REE [54] this equation seems to be not applicable in athletes. Differences between measured REE and predicted REE using WHO/ONU/UNU equation ranged 466–287 kcal · day−1 in 30 ultra-endurance athletes aged 23–55 years [21]. Overall, the equations developed in general population should not be generalized for participants involved in organized sport. As a result, studies involving athletes proposed new predictive models to estimate REE.

Two potential equations to predict REE among athletes [9, 10] were compared with indirect calorimetry. Based on 126 male elite athletes from different sports minimal differences (21 kcal · day−1 and 60 kcal · day−1) were reported between the De Lorenzo et al. [9] and ten Haaf and Weijs [10] equations and measured REE [11]. The latter equation successfully predicted REE (within ± 10%) in 31 out of 36 female adult rugby players [43]. However, REE was underestimated by the De Lorenzo equation in young male soccer players [34, 36]. Three particular issues need highlighting: (1) De Lorenzo and ten Haaf models were validated in sport participants but received little consideration in sports nutrition literature and practice; (2) both equations combined adult athletes from different sports; (3) equations were developed in adults should not be generalized for youth sport participants.

Although the considerable number of studies extracted in the current review, a possible limitation is the inclusion of only English records. Additionally, grey literature was not also considered. Only one estimated a priori sample size necessary to create predictive models of REE. Future studies need to cross-validate the equations which used athletes from different modalities in larger sport-specific samples. Of note, predictions of REE only using female athletes are available in the literature and future research is required. The sex-specific equation proposed by ten Haaf and Weijs [10] is also adequate to predict REE in female athletes. The equation developed by De Lorenzo et al. [9] only included male participants from different sports hence, it is a valid alternative to estimate REE in male athletes. Specific equations were developed for youth involved in different sports [16] and soccer players [39, 44] thereby, should be adopted in studies of young athletes.

Findings of current review are crucial for nutritionists and/or staff providing nutrition support within sport in order to optimise total daily energy intake. The use of indirect equations in athletes, especially those that were developed in general population, tended to produce different values of measured REE which in turn has impact on TEE (obtained by multiplying REE and an appropriate physical activity factor). In summary, De Lorenzo et al. [9] and ten Haaf and Weijs [10] seem to be the most appropriate equations to predict REE among adult athletes and needed particular attention by sport nutritionists. Validation of predictive models to estimate REE required future research particularly in sport-specific samples and youth athletes.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

REFERENCES

1 

Thomas DT, Erdman KA, Burke LM. American College of Sports Medicine Joint Position Statement. Nutrition and Athletic Performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2016 Mar; 48(3):543–68. [Erratum in: Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2017 Jan; 49(1):222.]

2 

McMurray RG. Laboratory methods for determining energy expenditure of athletes. In Driskell JA, Wolinsky I, editors. Nutritional Assessment of Athletes. Florida: CRC press.

3 

Manore MM, Thompson JL. Energy requirements of the athlete: assessment and evidence of energy efficiency. In Burke L, Deakin V, editors. Clinical Sports Nutrition. Sidney: McGraw-Hill; 2015. p.93–113.

4 

Staal S, Sjödin A, Fahrenholtz I, Bonnesen K, Melin AK. Low RMRratio as a Surrogate Marker for Energy Deficiency, the Choice of Predictive Equation Vital for Correctly Identifying Male and Female Ballet Dancers at Risk. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2018; 28(4):412–18.

5 

Bendavid I, Lobo DN, Barazzoni R, Cederholm T, Coëffier M, de van der Schueren M, Fontaine E, Hiesmayr M, Laviano A, Pichard C, Singer P. The centenary of the Harris-Benedict equations: How to assess energy requirements best? Recommendations from the ESPEN expert group. Clin Nutr. 2021; 40(3):690–701.

6 

Harris JA, Benedict FG. A Biometric Study of Human Basal Metabolism. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1918; 4(12):370–3

7 

Cunningham JJ. A reanalysis of the factors influencing basal metabolic rate in normal adults. Am J Clin Nutr. 1980; 33(11):2372–4.

8 

Johnstone AM, Murison SD, Duncan JS, Rance KA, Speakman JR. Factors influencing variation in basal metabolic rate include fat-free mass, fat mass, age, and circulating thyroxine but not sex, circulating leptin, or triiodothyronine. Am J Clin Nutr. 2005; 82(5):941–8.

9 

De Lorenzo A, Bertini I, Candeloro N, Piccinelli R, Innocente I, Brancati A. A new predictive equation to calculate resting metabolic rate in athletes. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 1999; 39(3):213–9.

10 

ten Haaf T, Weijs PJ. Resting energy expenditure prediction in recreational athletes of 18–35 years: confirmation of Cunningham equation and an improved weight-based alternative. PLoS One. 2014 Oct 2; 9(9):e108460.

11 

Marra M, Di Vincenzo O, Cioffi I, Sammarco R, Morlino D, Scalfi L. Resting energy expenditure in elite athletes: development of new predictive equations based on anthropometric variables and bioelectrical impedance analysis derived phase angle. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2021; 18(1):68.

12 

Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. John Wiley & Sons. 2019.

13 

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hróbjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S, McGuinness LA, Stewart LA, Thomas J, Tricco AC, Welch VA, Whiting P, Moher D. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021 Mar 29; 372:n71.

14 

Group CCCR. Data Extraction Template for Included Studies. 2016.

15 

Oliveira TM, Penna-Franca PA, Dias-Silva CH, Bittencourt VZ, Cahuê FFLC, Fonseca-Junior SJ, Pierucci APTR. Predictive equations for resting metabolic rate are not appropriate to use in Brazilian male adolescent football athletes. PLoS One. 2021; 16(1):e0244970.

16 

Cioffi I, Marra M, Pasanisi F, Scalfi L. Prediction of resting energy expenditure in healthy older adults: A systematic review. Clin Nutr. 2021; 40(5):3094–103.

17 

National Institution of Health: U. S Department of Health and Human Services. Quality assessment tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies. 2014.

18 

Balci A, Badem EA, Yılmaz AE, Devrim-Lanpir A, Akınoğlu B, Kocahan T, Hasanoğlu A, Hill L, Rosemann T, Knechtle B. Current Predictive Resting Metabolic Rate Equations Are Not Sufficient to Determine Proper Resting Energy Expenditure in Olympic Young Adult National Team Athletes. Front Physiol. 2021; 12:625370. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2021.625370.

19 

Carlsohn A, Scharhag-Rosenberger F, Cassel M, Mayer F. Resting metabolic rate in elite rowers and canoeists: difference between indirect calorimetry and prediction. Ann Nutr Metab. 2011; 58(3):239–44.

20 

Cocate PG, Alfenas RDCG, Pereira LG, Marins JCB, Bressan J, Cecon PR. Resting metabolic rate of cyclists estimated by mathematical equations and obtained by indirect calorimetry. Rev. Bras. de Medicina do Esporte. 2009; 15:360–64.

21 

Devrim-Lanpir A, Kocahan T, Deliceoðlu G, Tortu E, Bilgic P. Is there any predictive equation to determine resting metabolic rate in ultra-endurance athletes. Prog. Nutr. 2019; 21:25–33.

22 

Freire R, Pereira G, Alcantara JM, Santos R, Hausen M, Itaborahy A. New Predictive Resting Metabolic Rate Equations for High-Level Athletes: A Cross-validation Study. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2021. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000002851

23 

Frings-Meuthen P, Henkel S, Boschmann M, Chilibeck PD, Alvero Cruz JR, Hoffmann F, Möstl S, Mittag U, Mulder E, Rittweger N, Sies W, Tanaka H, Rittweger J. Resting Energy Expenditure of Master Athletes: Accuracy of Predictive Equations and Primary Determinants. Front Physiol. 2021; 12:641455.

24 

Jagim AR, Camic CL, Kisiolek J, Luedke J, Erickson J, Jones MT, Oliver JM. Accuracy of Resting Metabolic Rate Prediction Equations in Athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2018; 32(7):1875–81.

25 

Jagim AR, Camic CL, Askow A, Luedke J, Erickson J, Kerksick CM, Jones MT, Oliver JM. Sex Differences in Resting Metabolic Rate Among Athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2019; 33(11):3008–14.

26 

Joseph M, Gupta RD, Prema L, Inbakumari M, Thomas N. Are Predictive Equations for Estimating Resting Energy Expenditure Accurate in Asian Indian Male Weightlifters? Indian J Endocrinol Metab. 2017; 21(4):515–19.

27 

MacKenzie-Shalders KL, Byrne NM, King NA, Slater GJ. Are increases in skeletal muscle mass accompanied by changes to resting metabolic rate in rugby athletes over a pre-season training period? Eur J Sport Sci. 2019; 19(7):885–92.

28 

Midorikawa T, Kondo M, Beekley MD, Koizumi K, Abe T. High REE in Sumo wrestlers attributed to large organ-tissue mass. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2007; 39(4):688–93.

29 

Moore JL, Travis SK, Lee ML. Comparing Predictive Equations To Measured Resting Energy Expenditure In Male Strength And Power Athletes. In Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise; 2021. Vol. 53, No. 8, p. 2.

30 

Sena MS, de Souza MLR, Junior VLMC. Resting Energy Expenditure in CrossFit® Participants: Predictive Equations versus Indirect Calorimetry. International Journal of Kinesiology and Sports Science. 2021; 9(2):7–13.

31 

Tinsley GM, Graybeal AJ, Moore ML. Resting metabolic rate in muscular physique athletes: validity of existing methods and development of new prediction equations. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2019; 44(4):397–406.

32 

Thompson J, Manore MM. Predicted and measured resting metabolic rate of male and female endurance athletes. J Am Diet Assoc. 1996; 96(1):30–4.

33 

Van Grouw JM, Kelley RC, Alessio F, Volpe SL. Accuracy of Commonly Used Prediction Equations to Estimate Resting Metabolic Rate in Masters Athletes: 2227. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2015; 47(5S):589.

34 

Wong JE, Poh BK, Nik Shanita S, Izham MM, Chan KQ, Tai MD, Ng WW, Ismail MN. Predicting basal metabolic rates in Malaysian adult elite athletes. Singapore Med J. 2012; 53(11):744–9.

35 

Cherian KS, Shahkar F, Sainoji A, Balakrishna N, Yagnambhatt VR. Resting metabolic rate of Indian Junior Soccer players: Testing agreement between measured versus selected predictive equations. Am J Hum Biol. 2018; 30(1). doi: 10.1002/ajhb.23066.

36 

Hannon MP, Carney DJ, Floyd S, Parker LJF, McKeown J, Drust B, Unnithan VB, Close GL, Morton JP. Cross-sectional comparison of body composition and resting metabolic rate in Premier League academy soccer players: Implications for growth and maturation. J Sports Sci. 2020; 38(11–12):1326–334.

37 

Kim JH, Kim MH, Kim GS, Park JS, Kim EK. Accuracy of predictive equations for resting metabolic rate in Korean athletic and non-athletic adolescents. Nutr Res Pract. 2015; 9(4):370–8.

38 

Loureiro LL, Fonseca S Jr, Castro NG, Dos Passos RB, Porto CP, Pierucci AP. Basal Metabolic Rate of Adolescent Modern Pentathlon Athletes: Agreement between Indirect Calorimetry and Predictive Equations and the Correlation with Body Parameters. PLoS One. 2015; 10(11):e0142859.

39 

Łuszczki E, Sokal A, Jarmakiewicz-Czaja S, Bartosiewicz A, Dereń K, Kuchciak M, Jagielski P, Mazur A. Resting Energy Expenditure of Physically Active Boys in Southeastern Poland-The Accuracy and Validity of Predictive Equations. Metabolites. 2020; 10(12):493.

40 

Reale RJ, Roberts TJ, Lee KA, Bonsignore JL, Anderson ML. Metabolic Rate in Adolescent Athletes: The Development and Validation of New Equations, and Comparison to Previous Models. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2020; 30(4):249–57.

41 

Mackay KJ, Schofield KL, Sims ST, McQuillan JA, Driller MW. The Validity of Resting Metabolic Rate-Prediction Equations and Reliability of Measured RMR in Female Athletes. Int J Exerc Sci. 2019; 12(2):886–97.

42 

Marques LR. Basal metabolic rate for high-performance female karate athletes. Nutr Hosp. 2021; 38(3):563–567.

43 

O’Neill JERG, Walsh CS, McNulty SJ, Gantly HC, Corish ME, Crognale D, Horner K. Resting Metabolic Rate in Female Rugby Players: Differences in Measured Versus Predicted Values. J Strength Cond Res. 2022; 36(3):845–50.

44 

Taguchi M, Ishikawa-Takata K, Tatsuta W, Katsuragi C, Usui C, Sakamoto S, Higuchi M. Resting energy expenditure can be assessed by fat-free mass in female athletes regardless of body size. J Nutr Sci Vitaminol (Tokyo). 2011; 57(1):22–9.

45 

Watson AD, Zabriskie HA, Witherbee KE, Sulavik A, Gieske BT, Kerksick CM. Determining a Resting Metabolic Rate Prediction Equation for Collegiate Female Athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2019; 33(9):2426–32.

46 

Branco MC, Alves FD, Zanella PB, de Souza CG. Comparison between equations for estimation of resting energy expenditure and indirect calorimetry in gymnasts. Revista Brasileira de Nutrição Esportiva. 2018; 12(70):195–203.

47 

Madden AM, Mulrooney HM, Shah S. Estimation of energy expenditure using prediction equations in overweight and obese adults: a systematic review. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2016; 29(4):458–76.

48 

Moore FD. The body cell mass and its supporting environment: body composition in health and disease. WB Saunders Company; 1963.

49 

Cunningham JJ. Body composition as a determinant of energy expenditure: a synthetic review and a proposed general prediction equation. Am J Clin Nutr. 1991; 54(6):963–9.

50 

Mifflin MD, St Jeor ST, Hill LA, Scott BJ, Daugherty SA, Koh YO. A new predictive equation for resting energy expenditure in healthy individuals. Am J Clin Nutr. 1990; 51(2):241–7.

51 

Schofield KL, Thorpe H, Sims ST. Resting metabolic rate prediction equations and the validity to assess energy deficiency in the athlete population. Exp Physiol. 2019; 104(4):469–75.

52 

Jackson AS, Pollock ML, Ward A. Generalized equations for predicting body density of women. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1980; 12(3):175–81.

53 

Jackson AS, Pollock ML. Generalized equations for predicting body density of men. Br J Nutr. 1978 Nov; 40(3):497–504.

54 

Schofield WN. Predicting basal metabolic rate, new standards and review of previous work. Hum Nutr Clin Nutr. 1985; 39 Suppl 1:5–41.

Copyright: Institute of Sport. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons CC BY License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This license enables reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format, so long as attribution is given to the creator. The license allows for commercial use.
 
Quick links
© 2024 Termedia Sp. z o.o.
Developed by Bentus.