Author(s): Goris AH, Meijer EP, Kester A, Westerterp KR
Abstract Share this page
Abstract BACKGROUND: An easy and cheap method for validating reported energy intake (EI) is needed. OBJECTIVE: Reported EI was compared with calculated energy expenditure (EE(calc)) and with energy expenditure measured by the doubly labeled water method (EE(DLW)). DESIGN: EE was calculated on the basis of basal metabolic rate (BMR) measured with the ventilated-hood technique and physical activity (PA) measured with a triaxial accelerometer (EE(VH+PA)) and on the basis of BMR estimated by using World Health Organization equations and PA (EE(WHO+PA)): EE(calc) = -1.259 + 1.55 x BMR + 0.076 x counts/min (r(2) = 0.90, P = 0.0001). Subjects [n = 12 men and 12 women aged 60 +/- 3 y; body mass index (in kg/m(2)): 26 +/- 4] reported their food intakes for 7 d and EE(DLW), EE(VH+PA), and EE(WHO+PA) were assessed over the same 7 d. RESULTS: Reported EI (9.0 +/- 2.1 MJ/d) was lower (P: < 0.0001) than were EE(DLW) (11.3 +/- 2.3 MJ/d), EE(VH+PA) (10.8 +/- 1.7 MJ/d), and EE(WHO+PA) (10.8 +/- 1.8 MJ/d). Underreporting was 19.4 +/- 14.0\%, 16.7 +/- 13.6\%, and 16.4 +/- 15.5\% on the basis of EE(DLW), EE(VH+PA), and EE(WHO+PA), respectively. The difference of 2.7 +/- 8.0\% between EE(DLW) and EE(VH+PA) was not related to the average of both percentages and was not significantly different from zero. The percentage of underreporting calculated with EE(WHO+PA) was not significantly different from that calculated with EE(DLW). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a combination of BMR (measured or estimated) and PA is a good method for validating reported EI. There was no significant difference between the percentage of underreporting calculated with EE(VH+PA), EE(WHO+PA), or EE(DLW).
This article was published in Am J Clin Nutr
and referenced in Sports Nutrition and Therapy