Search

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.O'Neill, JERG, Walsh, CS, McNulty, SJ, Gantly, HC, Corish, ME, Crognale, D, and Horner, K. Resting metabolic rate in female rugby players: differences in measured versus predicted values. J Strength Cond Res36(3): 845–850, 2022—This study investigated (a) the accuracy of resting metabolic rate (RMR) prediction equations in female rugby players and (b) factors that might explain poor prediction accuracy in some individuals. Resting metabolic rate was assessed in 36 female elite and subelite rugby players (age: 18–35 years, fat-free mass (FFM): 43–63 kg, fat mass %: 15–41%). After pretest standardization (24-hour exercise avoidance and 12-hour overnight fast), RMR was measured by indirect calorimetry and compared with predicted values determined by Harris-Benedict, Cunningham, Ten Haaf, Jagim and Watson equations. Body composition was assessed by air displacement plethysmography, muscle damage indicated by creatine kinase, and risk of low energy availability (LEA) by LEA in Females Questionnaire. Measured RMR was 1,651 ± 167 kcal·d−1. The Cunningham, Ten Haaf, and Watson (body mass) predicted values did not differ from measured (p> 0.05), while all other predicted values differed significantly (p< 0.001). Individually, prediction accuracy to within 10% varied widely depending on the equation used (range 44% [n= 16] to 86% [n= 31]). Three of the 5 individuals whose values were outside 10% of the measured value using the best performing Ten Haaf FFM equation could be explained by muscle damage or LEA. These measures may be useful to assist in understanding why measured RMR may be lower or higher than predicted in some athletes. Overall, the Ten Haaf equations showed the best accuracy, suggesting these equations may be most suitable for this population. The findings demonstrate the importance of considering the population studied when determining the most appropriate prediction equation to use.

Protein supplementation is an attractive strategy to prevent loss of muscle mass in older adults. However, it could be counterproductive due to adverse effects on appetite. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the effects of protein supplementation on appetite and/or energy intake (EI) in healthy older adults. MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched up to June 2020. Acute and longitudinal studies in healthy adults ≥60 y of age that reported effects of protein supplementation (through supplements or whole foods) compared with control and/or preintervention (for longitudinal studies) on appetite ratings, appetite-related peptides, and/or EI were included. Random-effects model meta-analysis was performed on EI, with other outcomes qualitatively reviewed. Twenty-two studies (9 acute, 13 longitudinal) were included, involving 857 participants (331 males, 526 females). In acute studies (n= 8), appetite ratings were suppressed in 7 out of 24 protein arms. For acute studies reporting EI (n= 7, n= 22 protein arms), test meal EI was reduced following protein preload compared with control [mean difference (MD): −164 kJ; 95% CI: −299, −29 kJ; P= 0.02]. However, when energy content of the supplement was accounted for, total EI was greater with protein compared with control (MD: 649 kJ; 95% CI: 438, 861 kJ; P < 0.00001). Longitudinal studies (n= 12 protein arms) showed a higher protein intake (MD: 0.29 g ⋅ kg−1⋅ d−1; 95% CI: 0.14, 0.45 g ⋅ kg−1⋅ d−1; P < 0.001) and no difference in daily EI between protein and control groups at the end of trials (MD: −54 kJ/d; 95% CI: −300, 193 kJ/d; P= 0.67). While appetite ratings may be suppressed with acute protein supplementation, there is either a positive effect or no effect on total EI in acute and longitudinal studies, respectively. Therefore, protein supplementation may represent an effective solution to increase protein intakes in healthy older adults without compromising EI through appetite suppression. This trial was registered at PROSPERO as https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42019125771(CRD42019125771).

Protein supplementation is an attractive strategy to prevent loss of muscle mass in older adults. However, it could be counterproductive due to adverse effects on appetite. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the effects of protein supplementation on appetite and/or energy intake (EI) in healthy older adults. MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched up to June 2020. Acute and longitudinal studies in healthy adults ≥60 y of age that reported effects of protein supplementation (through supplements or whole foods) compared with control and/or preintervention (for longitudinal studies) on appetite ratings, appetite-related peptides, and/or EI were included. Random-effects model meta-analysis was performed on EI, with other outcomes qualitatively reviewed. Twenty-two studies (9 acute, 13 longitudinal) were included, involving 857 participants (331 males, 526 females). In acute studies (n= 8), appetite ratings were suppressed in 7 out of 24 protein arms. For acute studies reporting EI (n= 7, n= 22 protein arms), test meal EI was reduced following protein preload compared with control [mean difference (MD): −164 kJ; 95% CI: −299, −29 kJ; P= 0.02]. However, when energy content of the supplement was accounted for, total EI was greater with protein compared with control (MD: 649 kJ; 95% CI: 438, 861 kJ; P< 0.00001). Longitudinal studies (n= 12 protein arms) showed a higher protein intake (MD: 0.29 g ⋅ kg−1⋅ d−1; 95% CI: 0.14, 0.45 g ⋅ kg−1⋅ d−1; P< 0.001) and no difference in daily EI between protein and control groups at the end of trials (MD: −54 kJ/d; 95% CI: −300, 193 kJ/d; P= 0.67). While appetite ratings may be suppressed with acute protein supplementation, there is either a positive effect or no effect on total EI in acute and longitudinal studies, respectively. Therefore, protein supplementation may represent an effective solution to increase protein intakes in healthy older adults without compromising EI through appetite suppression. This trial was registered at PROSPERO as https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42019125771(CRD42019125771).

Oral nutritional supplements (ONS) are prescribed for older adults with malnutrition and sarcopenia to prevent nutritional and functional deterioration. Studies investigating ONS effectiveness commonly provide the same ONS prescription for participants. This scoping review aimed to provide an overview of studies that have personalized ONS prescription in older adults with malnutrition or sarcopenia.