AJCN North Carolina Research Campus
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Warwick, P. M.
Right arrow Articles by Baines, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Warwick, P. M.
Right arrow Articles by Baines, J.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Warwick, P. M.
Right arrow Articles by Baines, J.

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol 63, 15-21, Copyright © 1996 by The American Society for Clinical Nutrition, Inc

ORIGINAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS

Energy expenditure in free-living smokers and nonsmokers: comparison between factorial, intake-balance, and doubly labeled water measures

PM Warwick and J Baines
Department of Biochemistry, Microbiology and Nutrition, University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales, Australia.

Free-living energy expenditure (EE) was measured in 11 smokers (6 females, 5 males) and 10 nonsmokers (6 females, 4 males) by using three methods. Factorial measures (FEE) used measured basal metabolic rate (BMR), records of time spent in six activity categories over 28 d, and average published energy costs of activities. Intake-balance measures (IBEE) used recorded dietary energy intake and changes in energy stores over 28 d. Doubly labeled water measures (DLWEE) used a two-point method over 8-12 d. Level of activity (1.54 +/- 0.07 and 1.55 +/- 0.06 x BMR) and FEE (9573 +/- 1501 and 9540 +/- 1663 kJ/d) were not different between smokers and nonsmokers, respectively. DLWEE was higher than FEE in both smokers (25.9 +/- 13.5%, P < 0.001) and nonsmokers (10.4 +/- 13.8%, P < 0.05), suggesting factorial underestimation in both groups, although the difference between DLWEE and FEE was significantly greater in smokers than in nonsmokers (P < 0.02). IBEE was higher than FEE in smokers (7.5 +/- 10.1%, P < 0.05) but not different from FEE in nonsmokers (2.7 +/- 16.6%), suggesting factorial underestimation in smokers only. DLWEE was higher than IBEE in smokers (13.8 +/- 12.6%, P < 0.01) but not significantly different from IBEE in nonsmokers (6.2 +/- 16.0%). The discrepancies between DLWEE and IBEE in smokers and DLWEE and FEE in nonsmokers preclude conclusion about absolute levels of daily EE. However, both DLWEE-FEE and IBEE-FEE comparisons suggest that our factorial method underestimates free-living EE in smokers relative to nonsmokers, although the effect is larger with the DLWEE-FEE than with the IBEE-FEE comparison.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Nutr.Home page
M. B. E. Livingstone and A. E. Black
Markers of the Validity of Reported Energy Intake
J. Nutr., March 1, 2003; 133(3): 895S - 920.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1996 by The American Society for Nutrition