Gary J Farkas1, Ashraf S Gorgey, David R Dolbow, Arthur S Berg, David R Gater. 1. From the Department of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Science, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California (GJF); Spinal Cord Injury and Disorders Center, Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia (ASG); Department of Physical Therapy, William Carey University, Hattiesburg, Mississippi (DRD); Department of Public Health Sciences, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania (ASB); and Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania (DRG).
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aims of the study were to evaluate the influence of level of spinal cord injury (SCI) on caloric intake relative to total daily energy expenditure (TDEE) and body composition, and to develop a SCI-specific correction factor for the TDEE estimation. DESIGN: Individuals with paraplegia (PARA, n = 28) and tetraplegia (TETRA, n = 13) were analyzed. Daily caloric intake, basal metabolic rate, and TDEE were obtained using dietary recall, indirect calorimetry, and prediction equations, respectively. Caloric intake and TDEE were adjusted to bodyweight. Body composition was assessed using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. RESULTS: Total caloric (PARA 1516.4 ± 548.4, TETRA 1619.1 ± 564.3 kcal/d), fat (PARA 58.6 ± 27.4, TETRA 65.8 ± 29.7 g), and protein (PARA 62.7 ± 23.2, TETRA 71.5 ± 30.9 g) intake were significantly higher in TETRA versus PARA (P < 0.05) when adjusted for bodyweight. Adjusted and unadjusted TDEE (unadjusted: PARA 1851.0 ± 405.3, TETRA 1530.4 ± 640.4 kcal/d) and basal metabolic rate (unadjusted: PARA 1516.6 ± 398.0, TETRA 1223.6 ± 390.2 kcal/d) were significantly higher in PARA versus TETRA (P < 0.05). Bone mineral content (PARA 3.17 ± 0.6, TETRA 2.71 ± 0.5 g), lean body mass (PARA 50.0 ± 8.6, TETRA 40.96 ± 8.8 kg), and regional percent body fat (PARA 36.45 ± 8.0, TETRA 41.82 ± 9.1) were different between groups (P < 0.05). The SCI-specific correction factor was 1.15. CONCLUSIONS: A dichotomy exists in caloric intake, TDEE, and body composition among TETRA and PARA. The SCI-specific correction factor of 1.15 is a promising tool to estimate TDEE in SCI. TO CLAIM CME CREDITS: Complete the self-assessment activity and evaluation online at http://www.physiatry.org/JournalCME CME OBJECTIVES: Upon completion of this article, the reader should be able to: (1) Understand the influence of spinal cord level of injury on energy expenditure and body composition; (2) Appreciate that equations used to estimate total daily energy expenditure overestimate energy expenditure in individuals with spinal cord injury; and (3) Understand the importance of normalizing caloric intake to bodyweight after spinal cord injury. LEVEL: Advanced. ACCREDITATION: The Association of Academic Physiatrists is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians.The Association of Academic Physiatrists designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1.0 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™. Physicians should only claim credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.
OBJECTIVE: The aims of the study were to evaluate the influence of level of spinal cord injury (SCI) on caloric intake relative to total daily energy expenditure (TDEE) and body composition, and to develop a SCI-specific correction factor for the TDEE estimation. DESIGN: Individuals with paraplegia (PARA, n = 28) and tetraplegia (TETRA, n = 13) were analyzed. Daily caloric intake, basal metabolic rate, and TDEE were obtained using dietary recall, indirect calorimetry, and prediction equations, respectively. Caloric intake and TDEE were adjusted to bodyweight. Body composition was assessed using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. RESULTS: Total caloric (PARA 1516.4 ± 548.4, TETRA 1619.1 ± 564.3 kcal/d), fat (PARA 58.6 ± 27.4, TETRA 65.8 ± 29.7 g), and protein (PARA 62.7 ± 23.2, TETRA 71.5 ± 30.9 g) intake were significantly higher in TETRA versus PARA (P < 0.05) when adjusted for bodyweight. Adjusted and unadjusted TDEE (unadjusted: PARA 1851.0 ± 405.3, TETRA 1530.4 ± 640.4 kcal/d) and basal metabolic rate (unadjusted: PARA 1516.6 ± 398.0, TETRA 1223.6 ± 390.2 kcal/d) were significantly higher in PARA versus TETRA (P < 0.05). Bone mineral content (PARA 3.17 ± 0.6, TETRA 2.71 ± 0.5 g), lean body mass (PARA 50.0 ± 8.6, TETRA 40.96 ± 8.8 kg), and regional percent body fat (PARA 36.45 ± 8.0, TETRA 41.82 ± 9.1) were different between groups (P < 0.05). The SCI-specific correction factor was 1.15. CONCLUSIONS: A dichotomy exists in caloric intake, TDEE, and body composition among TETRA and PARA. The SCI-specific correction factor of 1.15 is a promising tool to estimate TDEE in SCI. TO CLAIM CME CREDITS: Complete the self-assessment activity and evaluation online at http://www.physiatry.org/JournalCME CME OBJECTIVES: Upon completion of this article, the reader should be able to: (1) Understand the influence of spinal cord level of injury on energy expenditure and body composition; (2) Appreciate that equations used to estimate total daily energy expenditure overestimate energy expenditure in individuals with spinal cord injury; and (3) Understand the importance of normalizing caloric intake to bodyweight after spinal cord injury. LEVEL: Advanced. ACCREDITATION: The Association of Academic Physiatrists is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians.The Association of Academic Physiatrists designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1.0 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™. Physicians should only claim credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.
Authors: Steven C Kirshblum; Stephen P Burns; Fin Biering-Sorensen; William Donovan; Daniel E Graves; Amitabh Jha; Mark Johansen; Linda Jones; Andrei Krassioukov; M J Mulcahey; Mary Schmidt-Read; William Waring Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 1.985
Authors: Ashraf S Gorgey; Anthony E Chiodo; Eric D Zemper; Joseph E Hornyak; Gianna M Rodriguez; David R Gater Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2010 Impact factor: 1.985
Authors: L A Mollinger; G B Spurr; A Z el Ghatit; J J Barboriak; C B Rooney; D D Davidoff; R D Bongard Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 1985-07 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Gary J Farkas; Alicia Sneij; David W McMillan; Eduard Tiozzo; Mark S Nash; David R Gater Journal: Br J Nutr Date: 2021-09-23 Impact factor: 4.125
Authors: Xin-Hua Liu; Zachary A Graham; Lauren Harlow; Jiangping Pan; Daniella Azulai; William A Bauman; Joshua Yarrow; Christopher P Cardozo Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) Date: 2021-05-11 Impact factor: 5.555