ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2024
Comparison between Measured and Predicted Resting Metabolic Rate Equations in Cross-Training Practitioners.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Performance Prediction Criteria Based on Yearling Training Cycle Data for World-Class Athletes' Tiny 1000-Meter Kayak Teams: A Case Study.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the resting metabolic rate (RMR) in cross-training practitioners (advanced and novice) using indirect calorimetry (IC) and compare it with predictive equations proposed in the scientific literature.
methodsA cross-sectional and comparative study analyzed 65 volunteers, both sexes, practicing cross-training (CT). Anthropometry and body composition were assessed, and RMR was measured by IC (FitMate PRO
resultsThe main results indicated that men showed a higher RMR than women, and the most discrepant equations were Cunningham, Tinsley (b), and Johnstone compared to IC. Tinsley's (a) equation indicated greater precision in measuring the RMR in CM overestimated it by only 1.9%, and BIA and the Harris-Benedict in CW overestimated RMR by only 0.1% and 3.4%, respectively.
conclusionsThe BIA and Harris-Benedict equation could be used reliably to measure the RMR of females, while Tinsley (a) is the most reliable method to measure the RMR of males when measuring with IC is unavailable. By knowing which RMR equations are closest to the gold standard, these professionals can prescribe a more assertive diet, training, or ergogenic resources. An assertive prescription increases performance and can reduce possible deleterious effects, maximizing physical sports performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.