31
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Energy balance measurement: when something is not better than nothing.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Energy intake (EI) and physical activity energy expenditure (PAEE) are key modifiable determinants of energy balance, traditionally assessed by self-report despite its repeated demonstration of considerable inaccuracies. We argue here that it is time to move from the common view that self-reports of EI and PAEE are imperfect, but nevertheless deserving of use, to a view commensurate with the evidence that self-reports of EI and PAEE are so poor that they are wholly unacceptable for scientific research on EI and PAEE. While new strategies for objectively determining energy balance are in their infancy, it is unacceptable to use decidedly inaccurate instruments, which may misguide health-care policies, future research and clinical judgment. The scientific and medical communities should discontinue reliance on self-reported EI and PAEE. Researchers and sponsors should develop objective measures of energy balance.

          Related collections

          Most cited references21

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Energy balance and its components: implications for body weight regulation.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Assessment of physical activity - a review of methodologies with reference to epidemiological research: a report of the exercise physiology section of the European Association of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation.

            Physical activity has a fundamental role in the prevention and treatment of chronic disease. The precise measurement of physical activity is key to many surveillance and epidemiological studies investigating trends and associations with disease. Public health initiatives aimed at increasing physical activity rely on the measurement of physical activity to monitor their effectiveness. Physical activity is multidimensional, and a complex behaviour to measure; its various domains are often misunderstood. Inappropriate or crude measures of physical activity have serious implications, and are likely to lead to misleading results and underestimate effect size. In this review, key definitions and theoretical aspects, which underpin the measurement of physical activity, are briefly discussed. Methodologies particularly suited for use in epidemiological research are reviewed, with particular reference to their validity, primary outcome measure and considerations when using each in the field. It is acknowledged that the choice of method may be a compromise between accuracy level and feasibility, but the ultimate choice of tool must suit the stated aim of the research. A framework is presented to guide researchers on the selection of the most suitable tool for use in a specific study.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Pooled results from 5 validation studies of dietary self-report instruments using recovery biomarkers for energy and protein intake.

              We pooled data from 5 large validation studies of dietary self-report instruments that used recovery biomarkers as references to clarify the measurement properties of food frequency questionnaires (FFQs) and 24-hour recalls. The studies were conducted in widely differing US adult populations from 1999 to 2009. We report on total energy, protein, and protein density intakes. Results were similar across sexes, but there was heterogeneity across studies. Using a FFQ, the average correlation coefficients for reported versus true intakes for energy, protein, and protein density were 0.21, 0.29, and 0.41, respectively. Using a single 24-hour recall, the coefficients were 0.26, 0.40, and 0.36, respectively, for the same nutrients and rose to 0.31, 0.49, and 0.46 when three 24-hour recalls were averaged. The average rate of under-reporting of energy intake was 28% with a FFQ and 15% with a single 24-hour recall, but the percentages were lower for protein. Personal characteristics related to under-reporting were body mass index, educational level, and age. Calibration equations for true intake that included personal characteristics provided improved prediction. This project establishes that FFQs have stronger correlations with truth for protein density than for absolute protein intake, that the use of multiple 24-hour recalls substantially increases the correlations when compared with a single 24-hour recall, and that body mass index strongly predicts under-reporting of energy and protein intakes.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Int J Obes (Lond)
                International journal of obesity (2005)
                1476-5497
                0307-0565
                Jul 2015
                : 39
                : 7
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Infection and Obesity Laboratory, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA, USA.
                [2 ] Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.
                [3 ] Nutrition Obesity Research Center & Office of Energetics, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
                [4 ] Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA, USA.
                [5 ] Department of Mathematical Sciences, Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ, USA.
                [6 ] The Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Basic Metabolic Research, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark and Institute of Preventive Medicine, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospitals-Part of Copenhagen University Hospital, The Capital Region, Denmark.
                [7 ] Institute of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Aberdeen, United Kingdom and Institute of Genetics and Developmental Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.
                [8 ] Nutrition Obesity Research Center, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL USA.
                Article
                ijo2014199 NIHMS643264
                10.1038/ijo.2014.199
                25394308
                85d80332-f2ba-4975-b7f5-57b12aba42ff
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article