{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.033707865168539325, 'fraction_numerical': 0.013879709187045605, 'mean_word_length': 5.47008547008547, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 2, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Accuracy of predictive equations for estimating resting metabolic rate (RMR) in overweight women

Caloric restriction is used as a cornerstone of weight reduction in overweight individuals. To estimate an individual's minimal energy requirement, predictive equations of RMR are frequently used. Agreement between predicted and measured RMR can vary in different sectors of the population. The aim of this project was to assess the accuracy of established predictive equations against measured RMR in overweight women. Method: RMR in 34 overweight women (BMI >25 kg/m2) was measured by indirect calorimetry and compared to the equations of Harris‐Benedict, Livingston, Mifflin St‐Jeor, and Robertson & Reid. Statistical analyses used to compare measured and predicted RMR were prediction accuracy (±10%), Bland Altman analyses, and intra‐class correlation coefficients. Results: The Livingston equation had the highest prediction accuracy (59%), while Mifflin St‐Jeor had the largest intra‐class correlation coefficient (0.482) and smallest bias (46.2 kcal/day). The 95% confidence intervals of all equations were wide suggesting a large variability in the level of agreement. The limits of agreement were > 400 kcal/day in each equation showing a large variation between predicted and measured RMR. Conclusions: No equation accurately predicted RMR to an acceptable standard in the present study. Further studies need to be undertaken to develop accurate RMR equations for use in the overweight female population.