Total Energy Expenditure in Healthy Ambulatory Older Adults Aged ≥80 Years: A Doubly Labelled Water Study.

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q2 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism Pub Date : 2023-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-01-02 DOI:10.1159/000528872
Kay Nguo, Helen Truby, Judi Porter
{"title":"Total Energy Expenditure in Healthy Ambulatory Older Adults Aged ≥80 Years: A Doubly Labelled Water Study.","authors":"Kay Nguo, Helen Truby, Judi Porter","doi":"10.1159/000528872","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The life expectancy of older adults continues to increase; however, knowledge regarding their total energy requirements is lacking. This study aimed to compare the total energy expenditure (TEE) of older adults ≥80 years measured using doubly labelled water (DLW), with estimated TEE. The hypothesis was that the Mifflin, Ikeda, and Livingston equations will more closely estimate energy requirements than the commonly used Schofield equation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Resting metabolic rate (RMR) and TEE were measured using the reference methods of indirect calorimetry and DLW, respectively. Bland-Altman plots compared measured RMR and TEE with predicted RMR using equations (Mifflin, Ikeda, Livingston, Schofield) and predicted TEE (predicted RMR × physical activity level).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-one older adults (age range 80.7-90.1 years, BMI 26.1 ± 5.5 kg/m2) were included. The Schofield equation demonstrated the greatest bias from measured RMR, overestimating approximately up to double the mean difference (865 ± 662 kJ/day) compared with the three other equations. The Schofield equation exhibited the greatest bias (overestimation of 641 ± 1,066 kJ/day) compared with measured TEE. The other three equations underestimated TEE, with the least bias from Ikeda (37 ± 1,103 kJ/day), followed by Livingston (251 ± 1,108 kJ/day), and Mifflin (354 ± 1,140 kJ/day). Data are mean ± SD.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In older adults ≥80 years, the Ikeda, Mifflin, and Livingston equations provide closer estimates of TEE than the widely used Schofield equation. The development of nutrition guidelines therefore should consider the utilization of equations which more accurately reflect age-specific requirements.</p>","PeriodicalId":8269,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000528872","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The life expectancy of older adults continues to increase; however, knowledge regarding their total energy requirements is lacking. This study aimed to compare the total energy expenditure (TEE) of older adults ≥80 years measured using doubly labelled water (DLW), with estimated TEE. The hypothesis was that the Mifflin, Ikeda, and Livingston equations will more closely estimate energy requirements than the commonly used Schofield equation.

Methods: Resting metabolic rate (RMR) and TEE were measured using the reference methods of indirect calorimetry and DLW, respectively. Bland-Altman plots compared measured RMR and TEE with predicted RMR using equations (Mifflin, Ikeda, Livingston, Schofield) and predicted TEE (predicted RMR × physical activity level).

Results: Twenty-one older adults (age range 80.7-90.1 years, BMI 26.1 ± 5.5 kg/m2) were included. The Schofield equation demonstrated the greatest bias from measured RMR, overestimating approximately up to double the mean difference (865 ± 662 kJ/day) compared with the three other equations. The Schofield equation exhibited the greatest bias (overestimation of 641 ± 1,066 kJ/day) compared with measured TEE. The other three equations underestimated TEE, with the least bias from Ikeda (37 ± 1,103 kJ/day), followed by Livingston (251 ± 1,108 kJ/day), and Mifflin (354 ± 1,140 kJ/day). Data are mean ± SD.

Conclusions: In older adults ≥80 years, the Ikeda, Mifflin, and Livingston equations provide closer estimates of TEE than the widely used Schofield equation. The development of nutrition guidelines therefore should consider the utilization of equations which more accurately reflect age-specific requirements.

年龄≥80 岁的健康非卧床老年人的总能量消耗:双标记水研究
简介老年人的预期寿命在不断延长,但对他们的总能量需求却缺乏了解。本研究旨在比较使用双标记水(DLW)测量的≥80 岁老年人的总能量消耗(TEE)与估计的总能量消耗。假设米夫林、池田和利文斯顿方程比常用的肖菲尔德方程更接近估计能量需求:方法:分别使用间接热量计和 DLW 的参考方法测量静息代谢率(RMR)和 TEE。将测得的 RMR 和 TEE 与使用方程(Mifflin、Ikeda、Livingston、Schofield)预测的 RMR 和预测的 TEE(预测的 RMR × 体力活动水平)进行比较,绘制 Bland-Altman 图:共纳入 21 名老年人(年龄范围为 80.7-90.1 岁,体重指数为 26.1 ± 5.5 kg/m2)。Schofield 公式与测量的 RMR 之间的偏差最大,与其他三个公式相比,高估了大约两倍的平均差异(865 ± 662 千焦/天)。与测量的 TEE 相比,Schofield 方程的偏差最大(高估了 641 ± 1,066 千焦/天)。其他三个方程低估了 TEE,其中池田方程的偏差最小(37 ± 1,103 千焦/天),其次是利文斯顿方程(251 ± 1,108 千焦/天)和米夫林方程(354 ± 1,140 千焦/天)。数据为平均值 ± SD:对于年龄≥80 岁的老年人,池田方程、米夫林方程和利文斯顿方程比广泛使用的肖菲尔德方程能提供更接近的 TEE 估计值。因此,在制定营养指南时应考虑使用能更准确反映特定年龄需求的方程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism
Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism 医学-内分泌学与代谢
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
55
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: ''Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism'' is a leading international peer-reviewed journal for sharing information on human nutrition, metabolism and related fields, covering the broad and multidisciplinary nature of science in nutrition and metabolism. As the official journal of both the International Union of Nutritional Sciences (IUNS) and the Federation of European Nutrition Societies (FENS), the journal has a high visibility among both researchers and users of research outputs, including policy makers, across Europe and around the world.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信