Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Canada.
CancerControl Alberta, Alberta Health Services, Canada.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2019 Mar 1;109(3):554-565. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/nqy312.
Accurate assessment of energy expenditure may support weight-management recommendations. Measuring energy expenditure for each postpartum woman is unfeasible; therefore, accurate predictive equations are needed.
This study compared measured with predicted resting energy expenditure (REE) and total energy expenditure (TEE) in postpartum women.
This was a longitudinal observational study. REE was measured at 3 mo postpartum (n = 52) and 9 mo postpartum (n = 49), whereas TEE was measured once at 9 mo postpartum (n = 43) by whole body calorimetry (WBC). Measured REE (REEWBC) was compared with 17 predictive equations; measured TEE plus breast milk energy output (ERWBC) was compared with the estimated energy requirements/Dietary Reference Intakes equation (EERDRI). Fat and fat-free mass were measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Group-level agreement was assessed by the Pearson correlation, paired t test, and Bland-Altman (bias) analyses. Individual-level accuracy was assessed with the use of Bland-Altman limits of agreement, and by the percentage of women with predicted energy expenditure within 10% of measured values ("accuracy").
The cohort was primarily Caucasian (90%). At a group level, the best equation predicting REEWBC was the DRI at 3 mo postpartum (-7 kcal, -0.1%; absolute and percentage bias, respectively), and the Harris-Benedict at 9 mo postpartum (-17 kcal, -0.5%). At an individual level, the Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization/United Nations University (FAO/WHO/UNU) height and weight equation was the most accurate at 3 mo postpartum (100% accuracy) and 9 mo postpartum (98% accuracy), with the smallest limits of agreement. Equations including body composition variables were not more accurate. Compared with ERWBC, EERDRI bias was -36 kcal, with inaccurate predictions in 33% of women.
Many REE predictive equations were accurate for group assessment, with the FAO/WHO/UNU height and weight equation having the highest accuracy for individuals. EERDRI performed well at a group level, but inaccurately for 33% of women. A greater understanding of the physiology driving energy expenditure in the postpartum period is needed to better predict TEE and ultimately guide effective weight-management recommendations.
准确评估能量消耗有助于提供体重管理建议。对每个产后女性进行能量消耗测量是不可行的;因此,需要准确的预测方程。
本研究比较了产后女性测量的与预测的静息能量消耗(REE)和总能量消耗(TEE)。
这是一项纵向观察性研究。在产后 3 个月(n=52)和 9 个月(n=49)时测量 REE,在产后 9 个月(n=43)时通过全身热量计(WBC)测量 TEE。测量的 REE(REEWBC)与 17 个预测方程进行比较;测量的 TEE 加上母乳能量输出(ERWBC)与估计的能量需求/膳食参考摄入量方程(EERDRI)进行比较。通过双能 X 射线吸收法测量脂肪和去脂体重。使用 Pearson 相关系数、配对 t 检验和 Bland-Altman(偏差)分析评估组水平的一致性。使用 Bland-Altman 允许误差限和预测能量消耗在实测值的 10%范围内的女性比例(“准确性”)评估个体水平的准确性。
该队列主要为白种人(90%)。在组水平上,预测 REEWBC 的最佳方程是产后 3 个月的 DRIs(-7 千卡,-0.1%;绝对和百分比偏差),以及产后 9 个月的 Harris-Benedict 方程(-17 千卡,-0.5%)。在个体水平上,粮农组织/世界卫生组织/联合国大学(FAO/WHO/UNU)身高和体重方程在产后 3 个月(100%准确性)和 9 个月(98%准确性)时最准确,允许误差限最小。包含身体成分变量的方程并不更准确。与 ERWBC 相比,EERDRI 的偏差为-36 千卡,33%的女性预测不准确。
许多 REE 预测方程在组评估中是准确的,FAO/WHO/UNU 身高和体重方程对个体的准确性最高。EERDRI 在组水平上表现良好,但对 33%的女性不准确。需要更深入地了解产后期间推动能量消耗的生理学,以更好地预测 TEE,并最终为有效的体重管理建议提供指导。