4.5 Article

Energy expenditure measured by doubly labeled water, activity recall, and diet records in the rural elderly

期刊

NUTRITION
卷 18, 期 7-8, 页码 568-573

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0899-9007(02)00804-3

关键词

diet records; energy intake; physical activity; energy expenditure; rural elderly

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether energy expenditure estimated from physical activity and energy intake were equivalent to total daily energy expenditure in an elderly rural population. METHODS: Twenty-seven elderly male (n = 14) and female (n = 13) subjects (mean age. 74 y) were recruited from a rural Pennsylvania population. Over a 2-wk period, total daily energy expenditure was measured by doubly labeled water (TEE) and estimated from 7-d physical activity recall factors multiplied by A eight (PA(WT)). estimated basal metabolic rate (PA(BMR)) and resting energy expenditure from indirect calorimetry, (PA(REE)). and energy intake from 3-d self-reported diet records (EI). Analysis of variance was used to determine significant %vithin-subject differences in physical activity, energy intake, and energy expenditure. RESULTS: PA(REE) (men: 13.69 +/- 3.23 MJ, women: 9.51 +/- 2.40 MJ) and PA(BMR) (men: 13.69 +/- 2.99 MJ, women: 10.15 +/- 2.21 MJ) were not significantly different from TEE (men: 12.43 +/- 1.63 MJ, women: 9.44 +/- 0.90 MJ). EI (men: 8.66 +/- 2.34 MJ. women: 7.12 +/- 0.93 MJ) was significantly less than TEE, and PA(WT) (men: 17.03 +/- 4.07 MJ. women: 12.86 +/- 3.41 MJ) was significantly greater than TEE. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas 7-d physical activity recall determined with an age-and gender-specific estimate of resting metabolic rate or measured using indirect calorimetry accurately estimated TEE for this group of rural elderly, self-reported diet records consistently underestimated and physical activity recall determined with weight alone consistently overestimated energy expenditure measured by doubly labeled water.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据