Abstract

Underestimating/overestimating resting metabolic rate (RMR) affects energy prescription. The objective was to compare RMR by indirect calorimetry (RMR IC) and RMR estimated by predictive equations in women with excess body fat. This was an analytical cross-sectional study with 41 women aged 18–28 with overnutrition according to body composition. The RMR IC was measured and RMR estimated using the FAO/WHO/UNU (1985), FAO/WHO/UNU (2004), Harris–Benedict, and Mifflin–St Jeor equations. The percentage of adequacy (90–110%), overestimation (>110%), and underestimation (<90%) were evaluated for RMR IC. Data were described by percentiles because of non-normal distribution according to the Shapiro–Wilk test. The Kruskal–Wallis test and Bland–Altman analysis were applied at a significance level of α < 0.05. The RMR IC was 1192 and 1183 calories/day (p = 0.429) in women with obesity and overweight, respectively. The FAO/WHO/UNU (1985), FAO/WHO/UNU (2004), Harris–Benedict, and Mifflin–St Jeor equations overestimated the RMR IC by 283.2, 311.2, 292.7, and 203.0 calories/day and by 296.7, 413.8, 280.0, and 176.6 calories/day for women with overweight and obesity (p < 0.001), respectively. The Harris–Benedict adjusted weight (0.5) equation underestimated RMR IC by 254.7 calories/day. The predictive equations overestimated RMR IC in women with excess body fat. The Mifflin–St Jeor equation showed less overestimation and better adequacy, but was not exempt from inaccuracy.