Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Hand-held indirect calorimeter offers advantages compared with prediction equations, in a group of overweight women, to determine resting energy expenditures and estimated total energy expenditures during research screening.
J Am Diet Assoc 2009; 109(5):836-45JA

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare standardized prediction equations to a hand-held indirect calorimeter in estimating resting energy and total energy requirements in overweight women.

DESIGN

Resting energy expenditure (REE) was measured by hand-held indirect calorimeter and calculated by prediction equations Harris-Benedict, Mifflin-St Jeor, World Health Organization/Food and Agriculture Organization/United Nations University (WHO), and Dietary Reference Intakes (DRI). Physical activity level, assessed by questionnaire, was used to estimate total energy expenditure (TEE).

SUBJECTS

Subjects (n=39) were female nonsmokers older than 25 years of age with body mass index more than 25.

STATISTICAL ANALYSES

Repeated measures analysis of variance, Bland-Altman plot, and fitted regression line of difference. A difference within +/-10% of two methods indicated agreement.

RESULTS

Significant proportional bias was present between hand-held indirect calorimeter and prediction equations for REE and TEE (P<0.01); prediction equations overestimated at lower values and underestimated at higher values. Mean differences (+/-standard error) for REE and TEE between hand-held indirect calorimeter and Harris-Benedict were -5.98+/-46.7 kcal/day (P=0.90) and 21.40+/-75.7 kcal/day (P=0.78); between hand-held indirect calorimeter and Mifflin-St Jeor were 69.93+/-46.7 kcal/day (P=0.14) and 116.44+/-75.9 kcal/day (P=0.13); between hand-held indirect calorimeter and WHO were -22.03+/-48.4 kcal/day (P=0.65) and -15.8+/-77.9 kcal/day (P=0.84); and between hand-held indirect calorimeter and DRI were 39.65+/-47.4 kcal/day (P=0.41) and 56.36+/-85.5 kcal/day (P=0.51). Less than 50% of predictive equation values were within +/-10% of hand-held indirect calorimeter values, indicating poor agreement.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant discrepancy between predicted and measured energy expenditure was observed. Further evaluation of hand-held indirect calorimeter research screening is needed.

Authors+Show Affiliations

College of Agriculture, Biotechnology and Natural Resources, University of Nevada, Reno, 1664 N Virginia St, Mail Stop 142, Reno, NV 89557, USA. kspears@cabnr.unr.eduNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

19394470

Citation

Spears, Karen E., et al. "Hand-held Indirect Calorimeter Offers Advantages Compared With Prediction Equations, in a Group of Overweight Women, to Determine Resting Energy Expenditures and Estimated Total Energy Expenditures During Research Screening." Journal of the American Dietetic Association, vol. 109, no. 5, 2009, pp. 836-45.
Spears KE, Kim H, Behall KM, et al. Hand-held indirect calorimeter offers advantages compared with prediction equations, in a group of overweight women, to determine resting energy expenditures and estimated total energy expenditures during research screening. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009;109(5):836-45.
Spears, K. E., Kim, H., Behall, K. M., & Conway, J. M. (2009). Hand-held indirect calorimeter offers advantages compared with prediction equations, in a group of overweight women, to determine resting energy expenditures and estimated total energy expenditures during research screening. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 109(5), pp. 836-45. doi:10.1016/j.jada.2009.02.016.
Spears KE, et al. Hand-held Indirect Calorimeter Offers Advantages Compared With Prediction Equations, in a Group of Overweight Women, to Determine Resting Energy Expenditures and Estimated Total Energy Expenditures During Research Screening. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009;109(5):836-45. PubMed PMID: 19394470.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Hand-held indirect calorimeter offers advantages compared with prediction equations, in a group of overweight women, to determine resting energy expenditures and estimated total energy expenditures during research screening. AU - Spears,Karen E, AU - Kim,Hyunsook, AU - Behall,Kay M, AU - Conway,Joan M, PY - 2008/02/19/received PY - 2008/11/18/accepted PY - 2009/4/28/entrez PY - 2009/4/28/pubmed PY - 2009/5/14/medline SP - 836 EP - 45 JF - Journal of the American Dietetic Association JO - J Am Diet Assoc VL - 109 IS - 5 N2 - OBJECTIVE: To compare standardized prediction equations to a hand-held indirect calorimeter in estimating resting energy and total energy requirements in overweight women. DESIGN: Resting energy expenditure (REE) was measured by hand-held indirect calorimeter and calculated by prediction equations Harris-Benedict, Mifflin-St Jeor, World Health Organization/Food and Agriculture Organization/United Nations University (WHO), and Dietary Reference Intakes (DRI). Physical activity level, assessed by questionnaire, was used to estimate total energy expenditure (TEE). SUBJECTS: Subjects (n=39) were female nonsmokers older than 25 years of age with body mass index more than 25. STATISTICAL ANALYSES: Repeated measures analysis of variance, Bland-Altman plot, and fitted regression line of difference. A difference within +/-10% of two methods indicated agreement. RESULTS: Significant proportional bias was present between hand-held indirect calorimeter and prediction equations for REE and TEE (P<0.01); prediction equations overestimated at lower values and underestimated at higher values. Mean differences (+/-standard error) for REE and TEE between hand-held indirect calorimeter and Harris-Benedict were -5.98+/-46.7 kcal/day (P=0.90) and 21.40+/-75.7 kcal/day (P=0.78); between hand-held indirect calorimeter and Mifflin-St Jeor were 69.93+/-46.7 kcal/day (P=0.14) and 116.44+/-75.9 kcal/day (P=0.13); between hand-held indirect calorimeter and WHO were -22.03+/-48.4 kcal/day (P=0.65) and -15.8+/-77.9 kcal/day (P=0.84); and between hand-held indirect calorimeter and DRI were 39.65+/-47.4 kcal/day (P=0.41) and 56.36+/-85.5 kcal/day (P=0.51). Less than 50% of predictive equation values were within +/-10% of hand-held indirect calorimeter values, indicating poor agreement. CONCLUSIONS: A significant discrepancy between predicted and measured energy expenditure was observed. Further evaluation of hand-held indirect calorimeter research screening is needed. SN - 1878-3570 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/19394470/Hand_held_indirect_calorimeter_offers_advantages_compared_with_prediction_equations_in_a_group_of_overweight_women_to_determine_resting_energy_expenditures_and_estimated_total_energy_expenditures_during_research_screening_ L2 - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0002-8223(09)00162-X DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -