4.6 Article

Quantification of the energy gap in young overweight children. The PIAMA birth cohort study

期刊

BMC PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 11, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-326

关键词

-

资金

  1. Netherlands Asthma Fund
  2. Ministry of the Environment, Zorg Onderzoek Nederland
  3. National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM)
  4. Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Overweight develops gradually as a result of a long term surplus on the balance between energy intake and energy expenditure. Aim of this study was to quantify the positive energy balance responsible for excess body weight gain (energy gap) in young overweight children. Methods: Reported data on weight and height were used of 2190 Dutch children participating in the PIAMA birth cohort study. Accumulated body energy was estimated from the weight gain observed between age 2 and age 5-7. Energy gap was calculated as the difference in positive energy balance between children with and without overweight assuming an energy efficiency of 50%. Results: Ten percent of the children were overweight at the age of 5-7 years. For these children, median weight gain during 4-years follow-up was 13.3 kg, as compared to 8.5 kg in the group of children who had a normal weight at the end of the study. A daily energy gap of 289-320 kJ (69-77 kcal) was responsible for the excess weight gain or weight maintenance in the majority of the children who were overweight at the age of 5-7 years. The increase in daily energy requirement to maintain the 4.8 kilograms excess weight gain among overweight children at the end of the study was approximately 1371 kJ. Conclusions: An energy gap of about 289-320 kJ per day over a number of years can make the difference between normal weight and overweight in young children. Closing the energy gap in overweight children can be achieved by relatively small behavior changes. However, much more effort is required to lose the excess weight gained.

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

4.6
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