OBJECTIVES: In studies on substrate utilization, a state of energy balance is often required. Energy requirements are based on measured or calculated sleeping metabolic rate (SMR) or basal metabolic rate (BMR). A study was performed to compare this protocol with adjustment of energy intake (EI) to 24 h energy expenditure (24 h EE). DESIGN: In part one, eight subjects spent one night and the subsequent three days in a respiration chamber. On day 1 EI was set at 1.5*SMR. On day 2 and 3 EI was set at 24 h EE of day 1. In part two of the study, an activity protocol was provided while staying in the chamber. 12 subjects spent one night and the subsequent two days in the respiration chamber. On day 1 EI was set at 1.55*SMR and on day 2 EI was set at 24 h EE of day 1. MEASUREMENTS: Sleeping metabolic rate, diet induced thermogenesis, physical activity index and 24 h expenditure were measured using a respiration chamber. SUBJECTS: Eight healthy normal-weight females (age: 22 +/- 3, BMI: 20.9 +/- 1.8) in part one and twelve healthy normal-weight males and females (age: 26 +/- 2, BMI: 21.4 +/- 0.5) in part two of the study. RESULTS: Physical activity index (PAI = 24 h EE/SMR) on day 1 (part 1) was 1.55 +/- 0.04, close to the predicted value of 1.5, but between-subject variation was large (range: 1.39-1.68). Absolute deviation from energy balance reduced significantly from 1.35 +/- 0.30 MJ/d on day 1 to 0.51 +/- 0.21 and 0.31 +/- 0.10 MJ/d on day 2 and 3 respectively (P < 0.05). The latter can be considered as near to energy balance. With the activity protocol (part 2) absolute deviation from energy balance reduced significantly from 0.93 +/- 0.20 MJ/d on day 1 to 0.27 +/- 0.11 MJ/d on day 2 (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: A three day stay in the chamber allows adjustment of energy intake to energy expenditure, in this way achieving a state close to energy balance. When prescribing an activity protocol the same results can be obtained within two days.
OBJECTIVES: In studies on substrate utilization, a state of energy balance is often required. Energy requirements are based on measured or calculated sleeping metabolic rate (SMR) or basal metabolic rate (BMR). A study was performed to compare this protocol with adjustment of energy intake (EI) to 24 h energy expenditure (24 h EE). DESIGN: In part one, eight subjects spent one night and the subsequent three days in a respiration chamber. On day 1 EI was set at 1.5*SMR. On day 2 and 3 EI was set at 24 h EE of day 1. In part two of the study, an activity protocol was provided while staying in the chamber. 12 subjects spent one night and the subsequent two days in the respiration chamber. On day 1 EI was set at 1.55*SMR and on day 2 EI was set at 24 h EE of day 1. MEASUREMENTS: Sleeping metabolic rate, diet induced thermogenesis, physical activity index and 24 h expenditure were measured using a respiration chamber. SUBJECTS: Eight healthy normal-weight females (age: 22 +/- 3, BMI: 20.9 +/- 1.8) in part one and twelve healthy normal-weight males and females (age: 26 +/- 2, BMI: 21.4 +/- 0.5) in part two of the study. RESULTS: Physical activity index (PAI = 24 h EE/SMR) on day 1 (part 1) was 1.55 +/- 0.04, close to the predicted value of 1.5, but between-subject variation was large (range: 1.39-1.68). Absolute deviation from energy balance reduced significantly from 1.35 +/- 0.30 MJ/d on day 1 to 0.51 +/- 0.21 and 0.31 +/- 0.10 MJ/d on day 2 and 3 respectively (P < 0.05). The latter can be considered as near to energy balance. With the activity protocol (part 2) absolute deviation from energy balance reduced significantly from 0.93 +/- 0.20 MJ/d on day 1 to 0.27 +/- 0.11 MJ/d on day 2 (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: A three day stay in the chamber allows adjustment of energy intake to energy expenditure, in this way achieving a state close to energy balance. When prescribing an activity protocol the same results can be obtained within two days.
Authors: Yan Y Lam; Leanne M Redman; Steven R Smith; George A Bray; Frank L Greenway; Darcy Johannsen; Eric Ravussin Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2014-02-05 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: K E Boyle; J P Canham; L A Consitt; D Zheng; T R Koves; T P Gavin; D Holbert; P D Neufer; O Ilkayeva; D M Muoio; J A Houmard Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2010-12-29 Impact factor: 5.958