Nutrition (Burbank, Los Angeles County, Calif.) · 2026
Total energy expenditure and its components in healthy young adults from Southwest China using doubly labeled water, indirect calorimetry, accelerometry, and energy intake.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Nie Xiangzhen, Liu Ronghan, Yan Xiantao, Tian Ying, Al-Dalali Sam, Jiang Mengchao, Ni Xinling
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Energy requirement (ER) in young adults is commonly estimated from predicted resting metabolic rate (RMR) and assumed physical activity level (PAL). These assumptions may not fully reflect free-living total energy expenditure (TEE) in healthy young adults from Southwest China with low-activity daily routines.
OBJECTIVE: This study compared doubly labeled water (DLW)-measured TEE with factorial TEE based on measured RMR and with equation-estimated TEE, interpreted as estimated ER, derived from Chinese and FAO/WHO/UNU RMR prediction equations. Measured and predicted RMR, TEE partitioning, and energy intake-TEE agreement were also examined.
METHODS: Twenty healthy adults aged 18-30 years from Southwest China completed a 7-d free-living assessment. TEE was measured using DLW, and RMR was measured by indirect calorimetry. Physical activity was assessed using triaxial accelerometry with activity records. Dietary intake was measured using the duplicate-portion method and laboratory analysis. PAL was calculated as TEE/RMR, and thermic effect of food (TEF) was estimated by difference. Agreement was further evaluated using Bland-Altman analysis.
RESULTS: DLW-measured TEE was 2039.63 ± 304.43 kcal/d and did not differ significantly from factorial TEE or equation-estimated TEE derived using the Chinese and FAO/WHO/UNU equations. However, Chinese equation-predicted RMR was significantly lower than measured RMR (1584.29 ± 232.97 kcal/d, p < 0.05), whereas FAO/WHO/UNU-predicted RMR was comparable with measured RMR. Measured PAL was low (1.29 ± 0.12), and RMR, physical activity energy expenditure (PAEE), and TEF accounted for 78.0%, 12.9%, and 9.1% of TEE, respectively. Energy intake was broadly comparable with DLW-measured TEE at the group level, although Bland-Altman analysis indicated individual-level variability.
CONCLUSIONS: Equation-estimated TEE, interpreted as estimated ER, was broadly comparable with DLW-measured TEE at the group level. However, this apparent agreement depended on both RMR prediction and PAL assumptions. The findings support component-based evaluation of ER in young Chinese adults, with attention to RMR, PAL, PAEE, TEF, FQ, and energy balance.
OBJECTIVE: This study compared doubly labeled water (DLW)-measured TEE with factorial TEE based on measured RMR and with equation-estimated TEE, interpreted as estimated ER, derived from Chinese and FAO/WHO/UNU RMR prediction equations. Measured and predicted RMR, TEE partitioning, and energy intake-TEE agreement were also examined.
METHODS: Twenty healthy adults aged 18-30 years from Southwest China completed a 7-d free-living assessment. TEE was measured using DLW, and RMR was measured by indirect calorimetry. Physical activity was assessed using triaxial accelerometry with activity records. Dietary intake was measured using the duplicate-portion method and laboratory analysis. PAL was calculated as TEE/RMR, and thermic effect of food (TEF) was estimated by difference. Agreement was further evaluated using Bland-Altman analysis.
RESULTS: DLW-measured TEE was 2039.63 ± 304.43 kcal/d and did not differ significantly from factorial TEE or equation-estimated TEE derived using the Chinese and FAO/WHO/UNU equations. However, Chinese equation-predicted RMR was significantly lower than measured RMR (1584.29 ± 232.97 kcal/d, p < 0.05), whereas FAO/WHO/UNU-predicted RMR was comparable with measured RMR. Measured PAL was low (1.29 ± 0.12), and RMR, physical activity energy expenditure (PAEE), and TEF accounted for 78.0%, 12.9%, and 9.1% of TEE, respectively. Energy intake was broadly comparable with DLW-measured TEE at the group level, although Bland-Altman analysis indicated individual-level variability.
CONCLUSIONS: Equation-estimated TEE, interpreted as estimated ER, was broadly comparable with DLW-measured TEE at the group level. However, this apparent agreement depended on both RMR prediction and PAL assumptions. The findings support component-based evaluation of ER in young Chinese adults, with attention to RMR, PAL, PAEE, TEF, FQ, and energy balance.