A 7-day activity diary for assessment of daily energy expenditure validated by the doubly labelled water method in adolescents

Abstract

Objectives: To validate the use of an activity diary and predicted BMR for assessment of daily total energy expenditure (TEE) and physical activity level (PAL TEE/BMR) in adolescents. Design: TEE and PAL estimated from activity diary records kept for seven days and BMR predicted from age, gender and body weight were compared with the results of doubly labelled water (DLW) measurements and indirect calorimetry performed during the same time period. Setting: The Unit of Paediatric Physiology of the Department of Clinical Physiology, University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden. Subjects: Fifty randomly selected 15 y old adolescents (25 boys and 25 girls). Results: The mean difference between TEE estimated in all adolescents by the activity diary and by DLW methods was 1.2%. The limits of agreement (mean difference 2 s.d.) were 73.47 and 3.77 MJ/d, equivalent to a coef®cient of variation of 15%. The mean difference between PAL assessed by activity diary records and by DLW measurements was 0.001, and the limits of agreement between the two methods were 0.54. Conclusions:The results imply that the activity diary method provides a close estimate of TEE and PAL in population groups.

Within- and between-individual variability in estimated energy expenditure and habitual physical activity among young adults

“…Using the Bouchard diary, categorical values 1-3 represent IA (median MET value o2.8 METs) and values 6-9 represent MVPA (median MET value X4.8 METs) (1 MET ¼ 3.5 ml O 2 /kg/min or 1 kcal/kg/h). The repeatability of this activity diary has previously been determined (r ¼ 0.97) (Bouchard et al, 1983) and a version has been validated with the doubly labeled water method in a sample of 50 adolescents over a 7-day-period with a mean difference in TEE of 1.2% between the two methods (Bratteby et al, 1997).…”

Daily energy expenditure, activity patterns, and energy costs of the various activities in French 12–16-y-old adolescents in free living conditions

“…In addition, to our knowledge information on the time spent on different categories of physical activities has only been obtained from four studies carried out with 10 -15-y-old children from activity diaries (Armstrong et al, 1990;Bratteby et al, 1997a;Henry et al, 1999;Ekelund et al, 2000). Furthermore, approximate costs of activities in adolescents have been derived from measurements in adults, and adapted for a diary of activities (Bouchard et al, 1983) or the DLW method (Bratteby et al, 1997b). Unfortunately, the estimated energy costs of high or very high intensity manual work and sport differed greatly between the two sets of data.…”

Factorial estimation of daily energy expenditure using a simplified method was improved by adjustment for excess post-exercise oxygen consumption and thermic effect of food

“…Had we applied the 30% increase in energy cost to all active activities, 94% of subjects would have shown differences of less than 712.8%. Many other studies have reported acceptable factorial estimates for groups but less acceptable estimates for individuals (Bratteby et al, 1997;Morio et al, 1997;Withers et al, 1998).…”

“…FEE was underestimated by 14.6% relative to DEE, but this was improved to 5.1% (P ¼ 0.071) when FEE was adjusted for EPOC and TEF. Some studies have also found factorial underestimation of daily EE (Haggarty et al, 1994;Leonard et al, 1997), but others have reported overestimation (Alfonzo-Gonzalez et al, 2004;Walsh et al, 2004), or no difference between FEE and DEE measures (Bratteby et al, 1997;Jones et al, 1997;Morio et al, 1997;Withers et al, 1998;Seale et al, 2002). Such discrepancies are very likely owing to differences in methods used to determine BMR and energy costs of activities, the number of activity categories used and the accuracy of estimates or records of time spent in activities, all of which affect the precision of factorial methods.…”

“…Thus, a modified factorial approach that incorporates factors to account for EPOC and TEF has been recommended (IOM, 2002). Regardless of the method used, it is difficult to accurately describe or record the myriad of activities performed throughout the day and simple approaches to diary recording are needed for subject acceptance (Bratteby et al, 1997).…”