Background Accurate assessment of energy expenditure may support weight-management recommendations. Measuring energy expenditure for each postpartum woman is unfeasible; therefore, accurate predictive equations are needed. Objectives This study compared measured with predicted resting energy expenditure (REE) and total energy expenditure (TEE) in postpartum women. Methods This was a longitudinal observational study. REE was measured at 3 mo postpartum (n = 52) and 9 mo postpartum (n = 49), whereas TEE was measured once at 9 mo postpartum (n = 43) by whole body calorimetry (WBC). Measured REE (REEWBC) was compared with 17 predictive equations; measured TEE plus breast milk energy output (ERWBC) was compared with the estimated energy requirements/Dietary Reference Intakes equation (EERDRI). Fat and fat-free mass were measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Group-level agreement was assessed by the Pearson correlation, paired t test, and Bland-Altman (bias) analyses. Individual-level accuracy was assessed with the use of Bland-Altman limits of agreement, and by the percentage of women with predicted energy expenditure within 10% of measured values (“accuracy”). Results The cohort was primarily Caucasian (90%). At a group level, the best equation predicting REEWBC was the DRI at 3 mo postpartum (–7 kcal, –0.1%; absolute and percentage bias, respectively), and the Harris-Benedict at 9 mo postpartum (–17 kcal, –0.5%). At an individual level, the Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization/United Nations University (FAO/WHO/UNU) height and weight equation was the most accurate at 3 mo postpartum (100% accuracy) and 9 mo postpartum (98% accuracy), with the smallest limits of agreement. Equations including body composition variables were not more accurate. Compared with ERWBC, EERDRI bias was –36 kcal, with inaccurate predictions in 33% of women. Conclusions Many REE predictive equations were accurate for group assessment, with the FAO/WHO/UNU height and weight equation having the highest accuracy for individuals. EERDRI performed well at a group level, but inaccurately for 33% of women. A greater understanding of the physiology driving energy expenditure in the postpartum period is needed to better predict TEE and ultimately guide effective weight-management recommendations.
The aim of this study was to characterise changes in lean soft tissue (LST) and examine the contributions of energy intake, physical activity and breast-feeding practices to LST changes at 3 and 9 months postpartum. We examined current weight, LST (via dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry), dietary intake (3-d food diary), physical activity (Baecke questionnaire) and breast-feeding practices (3-d breast-feeding diary) in forty-nine women aged 32·9 (sd 3·8) years. Changes in LST varied from -2·51 to +2·50 kg with twenty-nine women gaining LST (1·1 (sd 0·7) kg, P<0·001) and twenty women losing LST (-0·9 (sd 0·8) kg, P<0·001). Energy intake (133 (SD 42) v. 109 (SD 33) kJ/kg, P=0·019) and % kJ from fat at 3 months postpartum was higher in women who gained LST at 9 months postpartum (gained LST=34 (sd 5) % kJ; lost LST=29 (sd 4) % kJ, P=0·002). Women who gained LST reported breast-feeding their infants more frequently (gained LST=8 (sd 3) feeds/d; lost LST=5 (sd 1) feeds/d, P=0·014) and for more time per d (gained LST=115 (sd 78) min/d; lost LST=59 (sd 34) min/d, P=0·016) at 9 months postpartum. Energy intake and % kJ from fat at 3 months were significant predictors of LST gain (β=0·08 (se 0·04) and 0·24 (se 0·09), respectively). This suggests that gain in LST may be associated with more frequent and longer episodes of breast-feeding at 9 months postpartum as well as dietary intake early in the postpartum period.
It is likely that more accurate approaches are needed to estimate energy needs during and postpregnancy, with targeted interventions to optimize body composition.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.