Energy requirements of urban Chinese adults with manual or sedentary occupations, determined using the doubly labeled water method.
Energy requirements of urban Chinese adults with manual or sedentary occupations, determined using the doubly labeled water method.
复制标题
使用双标记水法测定中国城市从事体力或久坐职业的成年人的能量需求。
DOI：
10.1038/sj.ejcn.1601361
复制
发表时间：
2002
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Roberts,SB
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Yao,M;McCrory,MA;Ma,G;Li,Y;Dolnikowski,GG;Roberts,SB
Objective: To examine total energy expenditure (TEE) in relation to occupation and reported leisure time activities in free-living Chinese adults, and to determine whether measured TEE values differ from current international dietary energy recommendations.Setting and subjects: Seventy three weight-maintaining adults aged 35–49 y, leading unrestricted lives in urban Beijing, with a wide variety of occupations.Design and methods: A cross-sectional study in which TEE was determined by doubly labeled water, body composition by deuterium oxide (2 H 2 O) dilution, resting energy expenditure (pREE) by prediction equations, and occupational and leisure time activities by questionnaire.Results: For men and women respectively, TEE averaged 12.10±0.32 and 9.53±0.23 MJ/day (P< 0.001), and physical activity level (PAL= TEE/pREE) was 1.77±0.04 and 1.66±0.02 (P< 0.05). Fat-free mass (FFM) was the single best predictor of TEE (adjusted r 2= 0.71, P< 0.001). Occupational category (light, moderate and heavy) further predicted TEE, independent of FFM (adjusted multiple r 2= 0.82, P< 0.001). Both TEE adjusted for weight and PAL increased with occupational category. Measured TEE was slightly but significantly higher than the 1985 FAO/WHO/UNU estimates for women with light occupations, but did not differ from estimates for men with light occupations, or for adults with moderate or heavy occupations.Conclusion: Level of occupational activity, but not duration or type of leisure activity, significantly predicted TEE in free-living urban Chinese adults. Current energy requirement recommendations slightly underestimated the energy needs of women with light occupations but were accurate for men and women with moderate and heavy occupations.
