Adequacy of the “pocket formulas” for measuring total energy expenditure in healthy women compared with the new DRI equation: A doubly labeled water study

• Published in: Nutrition (Burbank, Los Angeles County, Calif.) Los Angeles County, Calif.), 2023-12, Vol.116, p.112183, Article 112183
• Main Authors: Macena, Mateus de Lima, Pereira, Micnéias Roberth, Carvalho, Guilherme César de Oliveira, Santos, João Victor Laurindo dos, Silva Júnior, André Eduardo da, Praxedes, Dafiny Rodrigues Silva, Pfrimer, Karina, Ferriolli, Eduardo, de Menezes Toledo, Telma Maria, Bueno, Nassib Bezerra
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Accelerometers; Adequacy; Adult; Alternative energy sources; Bias; Body composition; Body Mass Index; Body size; Body Weight; Classification; Clinical medicine; Doubly labeled water; Energy; Energy expenditure; Energy Metabolism; Enteral nutrition; Exercise; Female; Formulas (mathematics); Hormone replacement therapy; Humans; Mathematical analysis; Methods; Nutrition; Obesity; Overweight; Physical activity; Predictive equations; Recommended Dietary Allowances; Software; Water
• ISSN: 0899-9007; 1873-1244; 1873-1244
• DOI: 10.1016/j.nut.2023.112183

•For the general sample, the × 30 pocket formula had the lowest bias (–6%).•For the entire sample, the × 30 pocket formula had the highest precision (42%).•The × 35 pocket formula was the most adequate for normal-weight individuals.•The × 30 pocket formula was most suitable for women who were overweight or obese. “Pocket formulas” are practical alternatives for calculating an individual's total energy expenditure (TEE). Typically, more sophisticated predictive equations are used, such as the new equations proposed in the Dietary Reference Intakes (DRI). Nevertheless, these new equations necessitate estimating physical activity levels (PALs). The aim of this study was to compare the use of pocket formulas (kcal/kg of body weight) with the new predictive equations for energy expenditure proposed by the DRI (2023) in healthy women and with the doubly labeled water (DLW) method to predict TEE. The TEEs of healthy adult women were measured by DLW and calculated using the pocket formulas (× 20, × 25, × 30, and × 35 kcal/kg of body weight) and the new DRI equation. PALs by triaxial accelerometers were also collected. The study included 55 women. For the entire sample, the × 30 pocket formula had the lowest bias (–6%; limits of agreement [LOAs]: –39.8; 27.5; root mean square error: 373.4) and the highest precision (42%). The pocket formulas showed reasonable agreement in the different body mass index categories compared with the results found by the 2023 DRI proposal. For individuals with normal weight, the agreement was × 35 kcal/kg: bias (%) = –4.8; LoA = –41.5; 31.8, with overweight, it was × 30 kcal/kg: bias (%) = –2.2; LoA = –25.1; 20.6, and with obesity, it was × 30 kcal/kg: bias (%) = 4.2; LoA = –21.1; 29.4. Pocket formulas provide a reasonable agreement with TEE in healthy, sedentary, or low-active adult women, which may be a more simplistic strategy when there is no PAL data for calculating the DRI equations.