↓ Skip to main content

Establishing energy requirements for body weight maintenance: validation of an intake-balance method

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
18 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Establishing energy requirements for body weight maintenance: validation of an intake-balance method
Published in
BMC Research Notes, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13104-017-2546-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Steven B. Heymsfield, Courtney M. Peterson, Diana M. Thomas, Michael Hirezi, Bo Zhang, Steven Smith, George Bray, Leanne Redman

Abstract

Experimentally establishing a group's body weight maintenance energy requirement is an important component of metabolism research. At present, the reference approach for measuring the metabolizable energy intake (MEI) from foods required for body weight maintenance in non-confined subjects is the doubly-labeled water (DLW)-total energy expenditure (TEE) method. In the current study, we evaluated an energy-intake weight balance method as an alternative to DLW that is more flexible and practical to apply in some settings. The hypothesis was tested that MEI from foods observed in a group of subjects maintaining a constant energy intake while keeping their weight within ±1 kg over 10 days is non-significantly different from DLW-measured TEE (TEEDLW). Six non-obese subjects evaluated as part of an earlier study completed the inpatient protocol that included a 3-day initial adjustment period. The group body weight coefficient of variation (X ± SD) during the 10-day balance period was 0.38 ± 0.10% and the slope of the regression line for body weight versus protocol day was non-significant at 1.8 g/day (R(2), 0.002, p = 0.98). MEI from foods observed during the 10-day balance period (2390 ± 543 kcal/day) was non-significantly different (p = 0.96) from TEE measured by DLW (2373 ± 713 kcal/day); the MEI/TEEDLW ratio was 1.03 ± 0.15 (range 0.87-1.27) and the correlation between MEI from foods and TEEDLW was highly significant (R(2), 0.88, p = 0.005). A carefully managed 10-day protocol that includes a constant MEI level from foods with weight stability (±1 kg) will provide a group's body weight maintenance energy requirement similar to that obtained with DLW. This approach opens the possibility of conducting affordable weight balance studies, shorter in duration than those previously reported, that are needed to answer a wide range of questions in clinical nutrition. Trial registration The study is registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01672632; August 20, 2012).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 19%
Student > Master 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Researcher 3 7%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 14 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Sports and Recreations 4 10%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Engineering 2 5%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 17 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 March 2018.
All research outputs
#1,214,426
of 23,310,485 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#132
of 4,306 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,256
of 316,363 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#5
of 124 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,310,485 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,306 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,363 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 124 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.