Validity of resting energy expenditure predictive equations before and after an energy-restricted diet intervention in obese women

Abstract

Background: We investigated the validity of REE predictive equations before and after 12-week energy-restricted diet intervention in Spanish obese (30 kg/m(2)>BMI<40 kg/m(2)) women.

Methods: We measured REE (indirect calorimetry), body weight, height, and fat mass (FM) and fat free mass (FFM, dual X-ray absorptiometry) in 86 obese Caucasian premenopausal women aged 36.7±7.2 y, before and after (n = 78 women) the intervention. We investigated the accuracy of ten REE predictive equations using weight, height, age, FFM and FM.

Results: At baseline, the most accurate equation was the Mifflin et al. (Am J Clin Nutr 1990; 51: 241-247) when using weight (bias:-0.2%, P = 0.982), 74% of accurate predictions. This level of accuracy was not reached after the diet intervention (24% accurate prediction). After the intervention, the lowest bias was found with the Owen et al. (Am J Clin Nutr 1986; 44: 1-19) equation when using weight (bias:-1.7%, P = 0.044), 81% accurate prediction, yet it provided 53% accurate predictions at baseline.

Conclusions: There is a wide variation in the accuracy of REE predictive equations before and after weight loss in non-morbid obese women. The results acquire especial relevance in the context of the challenging weight regain phenomenon for the overweight/obese population.

Figure 1. Percentage bias for 10 resting energy predictive equations in Spanish obese women before (baseline, n = 78) and after a 12-week energy-restricted diet intervention (post 12-week diet intervention, n = 78).

Data are sorted by mean values at baseline. FFM indicates fat free mass; FM, fat mass; W, weight; W&H, weight and height.

Figure 2. Root mean squared error for 10 resting energy predictive equations in Spanish obese women before (baseline, n = 78) and after a 12-week energy-restricted diet intervention (post 12-week diet intervention, n = 78).

Data are sorted by mean values at baseline. FFM indicates fat free mass; FM, fat mass; W, weight; W&H, weight and height.

Figure 3. Bland Altman plots for the Mifflin et al. (34) for resting energy expenditure predictive equations in Spanish obese women before a 12-week energy-restricted diet intervention (baseline, n = 78).

Solid line represents the mean difference (bias) between predicted and measured resting energy expenditure (REE). Upper and lower dashed lines represent the 95% limits of agreement (mean difference ±1.96 SD of the difference).

Figure 4. Bland Altman plots for the Mifflin et al. (34) (weight) for resting energy expenditure predictive equations in Spanish obese women after a 12-week energy-restricted diet intervention (post 12-week diet intervention, n = 78).

Solid line represents the mean difference (bias) between predicted and measured resting energy expenditure (REE). Upper and lower dashed lines represent the 95% limits of agreement (mean difference ±1.96 SD of the difference).

Figure 5. Bland Altman plots for the Owen et al. (33) (weight) for resting energy expenditure predictive equations in Spanish obese women before a 12-week energy-restricted diet intervention (baseline, n = 78).

Solid line represents the mean difference (bias) between predicted and measured resting energy expenditure (REE). Upper and lower dashed lines represent the 95% limits of agreement (mean difference ±1.96 SD of the difference).

Figure 6. Bland Altman plots for the Owen et al. (33) (weight) for resting energy expenditure predictive equations in Spanish obese women after a 12-week energy-restricted diet intervention (post 12-week diet intervention, n = 78).

Solid line represents the mean difference (bias) between predicted and measured resting energy expenditure (REE). Upper and lower dashed lines represent the 95% limits of agreement (mean difference ±1.96 SD of the difference).

Figure 7. Bland Altman plots for the HB 1919 (32) for resting energy expenditure predictive equations in Spanish obese women before a 12-week energy-restricted diet intervention (baseline, n = 78).

Solid line represents the mean difference (bias) between predicted and measured resting energy expenditure (REE). Upper and lower dashed lines represent the 95% limits of agreement (mean difference ±1.96 SD of the difference).

Figure 8. Bland Altman plots for the HB 1919 (32) for resting energy expenditure predictive equations in Spanish obese women after a 12-week energy-restricted diet intervention (post 12-week diet intervention, n = 78).

Solid line represents the mean difference (bias) between predicted and measured resting energy expenditure (REE). Upper and lower dashed lines represent the 95% limits of agreement (mean difference ±1.96 SD of the difference).