PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
January 23, 2026Nutrients0 citationsOpen Access

Prediction Equations to Estimate Resting Metabolic Rate in Healthy, Community-Dwelling Chinese Older Adults

View Full Paper
ZCZhenghua CaiBYBochao YouSYShuyun Yu

Key Points

  • Aim to create and validate specific prediction equations for estimating resting metabolic rate in community-dwelling Chinese older adults.
  • Measured resting metabolic rate using indirect calorimetry
  • Assessed body composition with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry
  • Developed two prediction equations based on fat-free mass and demographic factors
  • Cai1 and Cai2 equations showed strong correlation with measured RMR (r=0.792 and 0.773)
  • Both equations achieved 82.5% adequacy in predicting RMR
  • Published equations significantly overestimated RMR, with biases ranging from +8.39% to +38.03%

Abstract

Background: China’s rapidly aging population demonstrates the importance of conducting an accurate resting metabolic rate (RMR, kcal/day) assessment to mitigate geriatric nutritional imbalances—amid concurrent undernutrition (e.g., ~1/3 with protein insufficiency) and overnutrition (e.g., high obesity and type 2 diabetes rates). While RMR prediction equations exist for other populations, none are specific to Chinese older adults. This study aimed to develop and validate population-specific RMR prediction equations for community-dwelling Chinese older adults. Methods: A total of 189 healthy participants (Aged 69.5 ± 6.3, range: 60–94 years; BMI: 24.0 ± 3.1 kg/m2) were recruited from the Shanghai, China, community. RMR was measured via indirect calorimetry, and body composition via dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Results: Two novel prediction equations were derived: Cai1 (fat-free mass FFM + age): RMR = 1393.019 − (11.112 × age) + (11.963 × FFM); R2 = 0.572, and Cai2 (sex + age + weight WT): RMR = 1537.513 + (91.038 × sex) − (11.515 × age) + (5.436 × WT); R2 = 0.528. Both novel prediction equations achieved 82.5% adequacy (predicted RMR within 90–110% of measured values), minimal systematic bias (%) (−0.72% and −1.08%) and strong positive correlations with measured RMR (r = 0.792 and 0.773, both p < 0.001). Bland–Altman analysis confirmed no systematic bias. In contrast, 11 widely used published prediction equations (e.g., Harris–Benedict, Mifflin–St. Jeor) exhibited significant overestimation (systematic bias +8.39% to +38.03%). Conclusion: The novel population-specific RMR equations outperform published ones, providing a clinically reliable tool for individualized energy prescription in nutritional interventions to support healthy aging in Chinese older adults.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Cai et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69730f78c8125b09b0d1f392https://doi.org/10.3390/nu18020344
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper