English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The quantification of resting energy expenditure (REE) in patients with obesity is an important measure. We aimed to evaluate the validity of predictive equations in estimating REE compared with indirect calorimetry (IC) in treatment-seeking Arab adults with overweight or obesity. Twenty-three predictive equations were compared with REE values measured by IC (Vmax Encore 229) in 89 adult participants with overweight or obesity (mean age = 40.62 ± 15.96 years and mean body mass index [BMI] = 35.02 ± 4.60 kg/m 2 ) referred to the Department of Nutrition and Dietetics of Beirut Arab University (Lebanon). The accuracy of the predictive equations was evaluated on the basis of whether the percentage prediction was within 10% of the measured REE, and the mean difference between predicted and measured values (bias). The Bland-Altman method was used to assess the agreement between the predicted and measured values. The equations that demonstrated the closest agreement with IC were the De La Cruz equation in males (accurate predictions: 68.2%; bias: -19.52 kcal/day) and the Mifflin equation in females (accurate prediction: 61.2%; bias: -36.43 kcal/day). In conclusion, we suggest that these two equations produce the least biased estimations for REE in this population.

Validation of predictive equations for resting energy expenditure in treatment-seeking adults with overweight and obesity: Measured versus estimated