Literature DB >> 10822285

Within- and between-subject variation in energy expenditure measured by the doubly-labelled water technique: implications for validating reported dietary energy intake.

A E Black1, T J Cole.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the total (CVt), within-subject (CVw) and between-subject (CVb) variation in free-living energy expenditure as measured by the doubly-labelled water (DLW) technique. To examine the limitation of the DLW measurement of energy expenditure for evaluating reported energy intake. To estimate the probable minimum and maximum 'habitual' energy expenditures for a sustainable lifestyle.
DESIGN: Review and analysis of individual data from 25 studies with repeat DLW measurements of energy expenditure (EE).
RESULTS: Pooled mean CVw derived from 21 studies was 11.8% for EE and 12.3% for physical activity level (PAL). Multiple regression analysis of CVw in 25 studies found a positive association with time span between measurements. At zero time CVw for EE was 8.2% rising to 9.6% at 13 weeks and 15.4% at 52 weeks. At the same time points CVw for PAL was 9.1%, 10.0% and 13.4% respectively. Pooled mean CVt was 13.0% for EE and 10.7% for PAL. CVb calculated from pooled mean CVt and CVw was 20.6% for EE and 7.2% for PAL. 95% confidence limits of PAL in 11 age-sex groups averaged 1.2 to 2.2.
CONCLUSIONS: The analysis supported previous estimates of 8% for within-subject variation in DLW measurements including analytic plus inherent biologic variation. Variation that included changes in weight, season and activity increased with increased time between measurements to about 15% at a time span of 12 months. Confidence limits of agreement between EE and reported energy intake were estimated to range from +/-15% to +/-32%. Estimates of the range of usual EE for normally active persons ranged from 1.3 to 2.2.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10822285     DOI: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1600970

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Clin Nutr        ISSN: 0954-3007            Impact factor:   4.016


  60 in total

Review 1.  Limits to the measurement of habitual physical activity by questionnaires.

Authors:  R J Shephard
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 13.800

2.  Prediction of daily energy expenditure during a feeding trial using measurements of resting energy expenditure, fat-free mass, or Harris-Benedict equations.

Authors:  C Lawrence Kien; Figen Ugrasbul
Journal:  Am J Clin Nutr       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 7.045

3.  Use of accelerometer data in prediction equations for capturing implausible dietary intakes in adolescents.

Authors:  Sabrina E Noel; Calum Mattocks; Pauline Emmett; Chris J Riddoch; Andrew R Ness; P K Newby
Journal:  Am J Clin Nutr       Date:  2010-09-29       Impact factor: 7.045

4.  Day-to-day variability in voluntary wheel running among genetically differentiated lines of mice that vary in activity level.

Authors:  Joey C Eisenmann; Eric E Wickel; Scott A Kelly; Kevin M Middleton; Theodore Garland
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2009-04-19       Impact factor: 3.078

5.  Misreport of energy intake assessed with food records and 24-h recalls compared with total energy expenditure estimated with DLW.

Authors:  T S Lopes; R R Luiz; D J Hoffman; E Ferriolli; K Pfrimer; A S Moura; R Sichieri; R A Pereira
Journal:  Eur J Clin Nutr       Date:  2016-06-08       Impact factor: 4.016

6.  Predictors of measurement error in energy intake during pregnancy.

Authors:  Eric Nowicki; Anna-Maria Siega-Riz; Amy Herring; Ka He; Alison Stuebe; Andy Olshan
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2011-01-27       Impact factor: 4.897

7.  Validation of an inexpensive and accurate mathematical method to measure long-term changes in free-living energy intake.

Authors:  Arjun Sanghvi; Leanne M Redman; Corby K Martin; Eric Ravussin; Kevin D Hall
Journal:  Am J Clin Nutr       Date:  2015-06-03       Impact factor: 7.045

Review 8.  The ActivityStat hypothesis: the concept, the evidence and the methodologies.

Authors:  Sjaan R Gomersall; Alex V Rowlands; Coralie English; Carol Maher; Tim S Olds
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 11.136

9.  Maternal macronutrient and energy intakes in pregnancy and offspring intake at 10 y: exploring parental comparisons and prenatal effects.

Authors:  Marie-Jo A Brion; Andy R Ness; Imogen Rogers; Pauline Emmett; Victoria Cribb; George Davey Smith; Debbie A Lawlor
Journal:  Am J Clin Nutr       Date:  2010-01-06       Impact factor: 7.045

10.  Dietary energy density affects fat mass in early adolescence and is not modified by FTO variants.

Authors:  Laura Johnson; Cornelia H M van Jaarsveld; Pauline M Emmett; Imogen S Rogers; Andy R Ness; Andrew T Hattersley; Nicholas J Timpson; George Davey Smith; Susan A Jebb
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-03-04       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.