Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T18:09:18.825Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Predicting energy intake with an accelerometer-based intake-balance method

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 October 2022

Paul R. Hibbing Open the ORCID record for Paul R. Hibbing [Opens in a new window] ,
Robin P. Shook ,
Satchidananda Panda ,
Emily N. C. Manoogian ,
Douglas G. Mashek  and
Lisa S. Chow
Paul R. Hibbing*
Affiliation:
Center for Children’s Healthy Lifestyles & Nutrition, Children’s Mercy Kansas City, Kansas City, MO 64108, USA
Robin P. Shook
Affiliation:
Center for Children’s Healthy Lifestyles & Nutrition, Children’s Mercy Kansas City, Kansas City, MO 64108, USA School of Medicine, University of MO-Kansas City, Kansas City, MO, USA
Satchidananda Panda
Affiliation:
Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, CA, USA
Emily N. C. Manoogian
Affiliation:
Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, CA, USA
Douglas G. Mashek
Affiliation:
Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology, and Metabolism, Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, MN, USA
Lisa S. Chow
Affiliation:
Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology, and Metabolism, Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, MN, USA
*
*Corresponding author: Dr P. R. Hibbing, fax +816 302 9977, email prhibbing@cmh.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Nutritional interventions often rely on subjective assessments of energy intake (EI), but these are susceptible to measurement error. To introduce an accelerometer-based intake-balance method for assessing EI using data from a time-restricted eating (TRE) trial. Nineteen participants with overweight/obesity (25–63 years old; 16 females) completed a 12-week intervention (NCT03129581) in a control group (unrestricted feeding; n 8) or TRE group (n 11). At the start and end of the intervention, body composition was assessed by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and daily energy expenditure (EE) was assessed for 2 weeks via wrist-worn accelerometer. EI was back-calculated as the sum of net energy storage (from DXA) and EE (from accelerometer). Accelerometer-derived EI estimates were compared against estimates from the body weight planner of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK). Mean EI for the control group declined by 138 and 435 kJ/day for the accelerometer and NIDDK methods, respectively (both P ≥ 0·38), v. 1255 and 1469 kJ/day, respectively, for the TRE group (both P < 0·01). At follow-up, the accelerometer and NIDDK methods showed excellent group-level agreement (mean bias of −297 kJ/day across arms; standard error of estimate 1054 kJ/day) but high variability at the individual level (limits of agreement from −2414 to +1824 kJ/day). The accelerometer-based intake-balance method showed plausible sensitivity to change, and EI estimates were biologically and behaviourally plausible. The method may be a viable alternative to self-report EI measures. Future studies should assess criterion validity using doubly labelled water.

Keywords

Energy balanceWeight lossAccelerometryInterventionsOverweight/obesity
Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 130 , Issue 2 , 28 July 2023 , pp. 344 - 352
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Nutrition Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Vijan, S, Stuart, NS, Fitzgerald, JT, et al. (2015) Barriers to following dietary recommendations in Type 2 diabetes. Diabet Med 22, 32–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franz, MJ, VanWormer, JJ, Crain, AL, et al. (2007) Weight-loss outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of weight-loss clinical trials with a minimum 1-year follow-up. J Am Diet Assoc 107, 1755–1767.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
LeBlanc, ES, Patnode, CD, Webber, EM, et al. (2018) Behavioral and pharmacotherapy weight loss interventions to prevent obesity-related morbidity and mortality in adults: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US preventive services task force. JAMA 320, 1172–1191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chow, LS, Manoogian, ENC, Alvear, A, et al. (2020) Time-restricted eating effects on body composition and metabolic measures in humans who are overweight: a feasibility study. Obesity 28, 860–869.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gabel, K, Hoddy, KK, Haggerty, N, et al. (2018) Effects of 8-h time restricted feeding on body weight and metabolic disease risk factors in obese adults: a pilot study. Nutr Healthy Aging 4, 345–353.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilkinson, MJ, Manoogian, ENC, Zadourian, A, et al. (2020) Ten-hour time-restricted eating reduces weight, blood pressure, and atherogenic lipids in patients with metabolic syndrome. Cell Metab 31, 92–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winkler, JT (2005) The fundamental flaw in obesity research. Obes Rev 6, 199–202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Archer, E, Hand, GA & Blair, SN (2013) Validity of U.S. nutritional surveillance: national health and nutrition examination survey caloric energy intake data, 1971–2010. PLOS ONE 8, e76632.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dhurandhar, NV, Schoeller, D, Brown, AW, et al. (2015) Energy balance measurement: when something is not better than nothing. Int J Obes 39, 1109–1113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freedman, LS, Commins, JM, Moler, JE, et al. (2014) Pooled results from 5 validation studies of dietary self-report instruments using recovery biomarkers for energy and protein intake. Am J Epidemiol 180, 172–188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trabulsi, J & Schoeller, DA (2001) Evaluation of dietary assessment instruments against doubly labeled water, a biomarker of habitual energy intake. Am J Physiol-Endocrinol Metab 281, E891–E899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClung, HL, Ptomey, LT, Shook, RP, et al. (2018) Dietary intake and physical activity assessment: current tools, techniques, and technologies for use in adult populations. Am J Prev Med 55, e93–e104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schoeller, DA (2009) The energy balance equation: looking back and looking forward are two very different views. Nutr Rev 67, 249–254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Racette, SB, Das, SK, Bhapkar, M, et al. (2012) Approaches for quantifying energy intake and %calorie restriction during calorie restriction interventions in humans: the multicenter CALERIE study. Am J Physiol-Endocrinol Metab 302, E441–E448.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heymsfield, SB, Peterson, CM, Thomas, DM, et al. (2017) Establishing energy requirements for body weight maintenance: validation of an intake-balance method. BMC Res Notes 10, 220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ravelli, MN & Schoeller, DA (2021) An objective measure of energy intake using the principle of energy balance. Int J Obes 45, 725–732.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shook, RP, Hand, GA, O’Connor, DP, et al. (2018) Energy intake derived from an energy balance equation, validated activity monitors, and dual X-ray absorptiometry can provide acceptable caloric intake data among young adults. J Nutr 148, 490–496.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shook, RP, Yeh, H-W, Welk, GJ, et al. (2021) Commercial devices provide estimates of energy balance with varying degrees of validity in free-living adults. J Nutr 152, 630–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murakami, H, Kawakami, R, Nakae, S, et al. (2019) Accuracy of 12 wearable devices for estimating physical activity energy expenditure using a metabolic chamber and the doubly labeled water method: validation study. JMIR MHealth UHealth 7, e13938.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ries, D, Carriquiry, A & Shook, R (2018) Modeling energy balance while correcting for measurement error via free knot splines. PLOS ONE 13, e0201892.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
White, T, Westgate, K, Hollidge, S, et al. (2019) Estimating energy expenditure from wrist and thigh accelerometry in free-living adults: a doubly labelled water study. Int J Obes 43, 2333–2342.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hibbing, PR & van Hees, VT (2018) AGread: Read Data Files from ActiGraph Monitors. R Package. https://github.com/paulhibbing/AGread (accessed September 6, 2022).Google Scholar
Chen, KY & Bassett, DR (2005) The technology of accelerometry-based activity monitors: current and future. Med Sci Sports Exerc 37, Suppl. 11, S490–S500.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ellingson, LD, Hibbing, PR, Kim, Y, et al. (2017) Lab-based validation of different data processing methods for wrist-worn ActiGraph accelerometers in young adults. Physiol Meas 38, 1045–1060.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hildebrand, M, Van Hees, VT, Hansen, BH, et al. (2014) Age group comparability of raw accelerometer output from wrist- and hip-worn monitors. Med Sci Sports Exerc 46, 1816–1824.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lusk, G (1924) Animal calorimetry, twenty-fourth paper: analysis of the oxidation of mixtures of carbohydrate and fat. J Biol Chem 59, 41–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, L, Liu, Z, Matthews, CE, et al. (2011) Validation of accelerometer wear and nonwear time classification algorithm. Med Sci Sports Exerc 43, 357–364.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Choi, L, Beck, C, Liu, Z, et al. (2018) Physical Activity: Process Accelerometer Data for Physical Activity Measurement. R Package. https://cran.r-project.org/package=PhysicalActivity (accessed December 29, 2020).Google Scholar
Tracy, JD, Acra, S, Chen, KY, et al. (2018) Identifying bedrest using 24-h waist or wrist accelerometry in adults. PLOS ONE 13, e0194461.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tracy, JD, Xu, Z, Acra, S, et al. (2020) PhysActBedRest: Marks Periods of “Bedrest” in ActiGraph Accelerometer Data. R Package. https://cran.r-project.org/package=PhysActBedRest (accessed September 4, 2020).Google Scholar
Schofield, WN (1984) Predicting basal metabolic rate: new standards and review of previous work. Hum Nutr Clin Nutr 39C, Suppl. 1, 5–41.Google Scholar
Hall, KD, Sacks, G, Chandramohan, D, et al. (2011) Quantification of the effect of energy imbalance on bodyweight. Lancet 378, 826–837.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dixon, PM, Saint-Maurice, PF, Kim, Y, et al. (2018) A Primer on the use of equivalence testing for evaluating measurement agreement. Med Sci Sports Exerc 50, 837–845.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bland, J & Altman, D (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 327, 307–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bland, JM & Altman, DG (1999) Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 8, 135–160.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benjamini, Y & Hochberg, Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Ser B Methodol 57, 289–300.Google Scholar
Faul, F, Erdfelder, E, Lang, A-G, et al. (2007) G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 39, 175–191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schoeller, DA, Thomas, D, Archer, E, et al. (2013) Self-report-based estimates of energy intake offer an inadequate basis for scientific conclusions. Am J Clin Nutr 97, 1413–1415.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Subar, AF, Freedman, LS, Tooze, JA, et al. (2015) Addressing current criticism regarding the value of self-report dietary data. J Nutr 145, 2639–2645.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
LaMunion, SR, Fitzhugh, EC & Crouter, SE (2020) Challenges and opportunities related to the objective assessment of physical activity within United States surveillance systems. Ann Epidemiol 43, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Migueles, JH, Rowlands, AV, Huber, F, et al. (2019) GGIR: a research community–driven open source R package for generating physical activity and sleep outcomes from multi-day raw accelerometer data. J Meas Phys Behav 2, 188–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welk, G, Kim, Y, Shook, RP, et al. (2017) Validation of a noninvasive, disposable activity monitor for clinical applications. J Phys Act Health 14, 546–551.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wijndaele, K, Westgate, K, Stephens, SK, et al. (2015) Utilization and harmonization of adult accelerometry data: review and expert consensus. Med Sci Sports Exerc 47, 2129–2139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farrahi, V, Niemelä, M, Kangas, M, et al. (2019) Calibration and validation of accelerometer-based activity monitors: a systematic review of machine-learning approaches. Gait Posture 68, 285–299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evenson, KR, Goto, MM & Furberg, RD (2015) Systematic review of the validity and reliability of consumer-wearable activity trackers. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 12, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siddall, AG, Powell, SD, Needham-Beck, SC, et al. (2019) Validity of energy expenditure estimation methods during 10 d of military training. Scand J Med Sci Sports 29, 1313–1321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Driscoll, R, Turicchi, J, Beaulieu, K, et al. (2018) How well do activity monitors estimate energy expenditure? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the validity of current technologies. Br J Sports Med 54, 332–340.Google ScholarPubMed
O’Driscoll, R, Turicchi, J, Hopkins, M, et al. (2020) The validity of two widely used commercial and research-grade activity monitors, during resting, household and activity behaviours. Health Technol 10, 637–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Jonge, L, DeLany, JP, Nguyen, T, et al. (2007) Validation study of energy expenditure and intake during calorie restriction using doubly labeled water and changes in body composition. Am J Clin Nutr 85, 73–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rothney, MP, Martin, F-P, Xia, Y, et al. (2012) Precision of GE Lunar iDXA for the measurement of total and regional body composition in nonobese adults. J Clin Densitom 15, 399–404.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dordevic, A, Bonham, M, Ghasem-Zadeh, A, et al. (2018) Reliability of compartmental body composition measures in weight-stable adults using GE iDXA: implications for research and practice. Nutrients 10, 1484.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: PDF

Hibbing et al. supplementary material

Hibbing et al. supplementary material

Download Hibbing et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 292.2 KB