Suppr超能文献

能量摄入与消耗:通过心率监测、活动日记和双标水法对饮食史进行验证

Energy intake and expenditure: validation of a diet history by heart rate monitoring, activity diary and doubly labeled water.

作者信息

Rothenberg E, Bosaeus I, Lernfelt B, Landahl S, Steen B

机构信息

Department of Clinical Nutrition, Göteborg University, Gothenburg, Sweden.

出版信息

Eur J Clin Nutr. 1998 Nov;52(11):832-8. doi: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1600655.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To validate a diet history (DH).

DESIGN

Energy intake (EI) estimated by a diet history (DH) was validated against total energy expenditure (TEE) measured by doubly labeled water (DLW) (n = 12) used as reference, by heart rate monitoring (HR) and by an activity diary (AD).

SETTING

Department of Geriatric Medicine, Göteborg University, Vasa Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.

SUBJECTS

20 healthy free-living elderly subjects (73 years) from the gerontological and geriatric population studies, Gothenburg, Sweden (H70).

RESULTS

Mean value for EI was 9.02 (s.d. 2.30), for TEE by HR was 9.66 (s.d. 2.25) MJ/d, and for TEE by AD was 9.40 (s.d. 2.08) MJ/d. In the 12 individuals measured with DLW, EI was 8.62 (s.d. 2.06), TEE by DLW was 9.90 (s.d. 1.43) MJ/d, TEE by HR was 8.94 (s.d. 1.96) MJ/d, and TEE by AD was 9.24 (s.d. 2.15)MJ/d. Mean difference between DH and DLW was 1.28 (s.d. 2.17) MJ (NS) and the DH/DLW ratio was 0.88. Four subjects were identified as under-reporters and one as an over-reporter.

CONCLUSION

The DH slightly underestimated EI compared to the HR, but was in concordance with the AD. Compared to DLW, DH underestimated EI by 12%. On group level, the DH method gave comparable values to HR and AD. The DH was not valid for ranking of individuals. Compared to DLW, the HR method seemed to perform somewhat better than the AD for detection of under- and over-reporters.

摘要

目的

验证饮食史(DH)。

设计

以双标水(DLW)测量的总能量消耗(TEE)作为参考,通过心率监测(HR)和活动日记(AD),对饮食史(DH)估计的能量摄入(EI)进行验证(n = 12)。

地点

瑞典哥德堡瓦萨医院哥德堡大学老年医学系。

研究对象

来自瑞典哥德堡老年学和老年医学人群研究(H70)的20名健康的自由生活老年人(73岁)。

结果

EI的平均值为9.02(标准差2.30),HR测量的TEE为9.66(标准差2.25)MJ/天,AD测量的TEE为9.40(标准差2.08)MJ/天。在12名用DLW测量的个体中,EI为8.62(标准差2.06),DLW测量的TEE为9.90(标准差1.43)MJ/天,HR测量的TEE为8.94(标准差1.96)MJ/天,AD测量的TEE为9.24(标准差2.15)MJ/天。DH与DLW之间的平均差异为1.28(标准差2.17)MJ(无统计学意义),DH/DLW比值为0.88。确定了4名报告不足者和1名报告过度者。

结论

与HR相比,DH对EI的估计略有低估,但与AD一致。与DLW相比,DH对EI的低估了12%。在组水平上,DH方法得出的值与HR和AD相当。DH方法不适用于个体排名。与DLW相比,HR方法在检测报告不足者和报告过度者方面似乎比AD表现稍好。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验