M Löf1. 1. Division of nutrition, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden. marie.lof@liu.se
Abstract
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: Energy costs of pregnancy approximate 320 MJ in well-nourished women, but whether or not these costs may be partly covered by modifications in activity behavior is incompletely known. In healthy Swedish women: (1) to evaluate the potential of the Intelligent Device for Energy Expenditure and Physical Activity (IDEEA) to assess energy expenditure during free-living conditions, (2) to assess activity pattern, walking pace and energy metabolism in pregnant women and non-pregnant controls, and (3) to assess the effect on energy expenditure caused by changes in physical activity induced by pregnancy. SUBJECTS/ METHODS: Activity pattern was assessed using the IDEEA in 18 women in gestational week 32 and in 21 non-pregnant women. Activity energy expenditure (AEE) was assessed using IDEEA, as well as using the doubly labelled water method and indirect calorimetry. RESULTS: AEE using the IDEEA was correlated with reference estimates in both groups (r=0.4-0.5; P<0.05). Reference AEE was 0.9 MJ/24 h lower in pregnant than in non-pregnant women. Pregnant women spent 92 min/24 h more on sitting, lying, reclining and sleeping (P=0.020), 73 min/24 h less on standing (P=0.037) and 21 min/24 h less on walking and using stairs (P=0.049), and walked at a slower pace (1.1 ± 0.1 m/s versus 1.2±0.1 m/s; P=0.014) than did non-pregnant controls. The selection of less demanding activities and slower walking pace decreased energy costs by 720 kJ/24 h and 80 kJ/24 h, respectively. CONCLUSION: Healthy moderately active Swedish women compensated for the increased energy costs of pregnancy by 0.9 MJ/24 h. The compensation was mainly achieved by selecting less demanding activities.
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: Energy costs of pregnancy approximate 320 MJ in well-nourished women, but whether or not these costs may be partly covered by modifications in activity behavior is incompletely known. In healthy Swedish women: (1) to evaluate the potential of the Intelligent Device for Energy Expenditure and Physical Activity (IDEEA) to assess energy expenditure during free-living conditions, (2) to assess activity pattern, walking pace and energy metabolism in pregnant women and non-pregnant controls, and (3) to assess the effect on energy expenditure caused by changes in physical activity induced by pregnancy. SUBJECTS/ METHODS: Activity pattern was assessed using the IDEEA in 18 women in gestational week 32 and in 21 non-pregnant women. Activity energy expenditure (AEE) was assessed using IDEEA, as well as using the doubly labelled water method and indirect calorimetry. RESULTS: AEE using the IDEEA was correlated with reference estimates in both groups (r=0.4-0.5; P<0.05). Reference AEE was 0.9 MJ/24 h lower in pregnant than in non-pregnant women. Pregnant women spent 92 min/24 h more on sitting, lying, reclining and sleeping (P=0.020), 73 min/24 h less on standing (P=0.037) and 21 min/24 h less on walking and using stairs (P=0.049), and walked at a slower pace (1.1 ± 0.1 m/s versus 1.2±0.1 m/s; P=0.014) than did non-pregnant controls. The selection of less demanding activities and slower walking pace decreased energy costs by 720 kJ/24 h and 80 kJ/24 h, respectively. CONCLUSION: Healthy moderately active Swedish women compensated for the increased energy costs of pregnancy by 0.9 MJ/24 h. The compensation was mainly achieved by selecting less demanding activities.
Authors: Hans Van Remoortel; Santiago Giavedoni; Yogini Raste; Chris Burtin; Zafeiris Louvaris; Elena Gimeno-Santos; Daniel Langer; Alastair Glendenning; Nicholas S Hopkinson; Ioannis Vogiatzis; Barry T Peterson; Frederick Wilson; Bridget Mann; Roberto Rabinovich; Milo A Puhan; Thierry Troosters Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2012-07-09 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Nathalie V Kizirian; Tania P Markovic; Roslyn Muirhead; Shannon Brodie; Sarah P Garnett; Jimmy C Y Louie; Peter Petocz; Glynis P Ross; Jennie C Brand-Miller Journal: Nutrients Date: 2016-05-06 Impact factor: 5.717
Authors: Danielle Symons Downs; Lisa Chasan-Taber; Kelly R Evenson; Jenn Leiferman; SeonAe Yeo Journal: Res Q Exerc Sport Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 2.500
Authors: Kavita Kumareswaran; Daniela Elleri; Janet M Allen; Karen Caldwell; Kate Westgate; Soren Brage; Philippa Raymond-Barker; Marianna Nodale; Malgorzata E Wilinska; Stephanie A Amiel; Roman Hovorka; Helen R Murphy Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2013-02-12 Impact factor: 19.112