PurposeThe accurate estimative of energy needs is crucial for an optimal physical performance among athletes and the basal metabolic rate (BMR) equations often are not well adjusted for adolescent athletes requiring the use of specific methods, such as the golden standard indirect calorimetry (IC). Therefore, we had the aim to analyse the agreement between the BMR of adolescents pentathletes measured by IC and estimated by commonly used predictive equations.MethodsTwenty-eight athletes (17 males and 11 females) were evaluated for BMR, using IC and the predictive equations Harris and Benedict (HB), Cunningham (CUN), Henry and Rees (HR) and FAO/WHO/UNU (FAO). Body composition was obtained using DXA and sexual maturity data were retrieved through validated questionnaires. The correlations among anthropometric variables an IC were analysed by T-student test and ICC, while the agreement between IC and the predictive equations was analysed according to Bland and Altman and by survival-agreement plotting.ResultsThe whole sample average BMR measured by IC was significantly different from the estimated by FAO (p<0.05). Adjusting data by gender FAO and HR equations were statistically different from IC (p <0.05) among males, while female differed only for the HR equation (p <0.05).ConclusionThe FAO equation underestimated athletes’ BMR when compared with IC (T Test). When compared to the golden standard IC, using Bland and Altman, ICC and Survival-Agreement, the equations underestimated the energy needs of adolescent pentathlon athletes up to 300kcal/day. Therefore, they should be used with caution when estimating individual energy requirements in such populations.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.