We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.
In paediatric practice, mean reference energy requirements for groups are often used to predict individual infant energy requirements. References from the FAO/WHO/United Nations University are based on infants not fed according to the current infant feeding recommendations. The objective of the present study was to measure total energy expenditure (TEE) and determine energy requirements using criterion methods, and validate the use of TEE prediction equation and mean energy requirement references for predicting individual TEE and energy requirements, respectively, in infants who were exclusively breast-fed (EBF) to 6 months of age. EBF infants were included from Greater Glasgow for measurements at 3·5 (n 36) and 6 (n 33) months of age. TEE was measured using doubly labelled water and energy requirements were determined using the factorial approach. TEE and energy requirements were also predicted using equations based on body weight. Relationships between criterion methods and predictions were assessed using correlations. Paired t tests and Bland–Altman plots were used to assess agreement. At the population level, predicted and measured TEE were similar. The energy requirement reference significantly underestimated energy requirements by 7·2 % at 3·5 months at the population level, but there was no bias at 6 months. Errors at individual levels were large and energy requirements were underestimated to a larger extent for infants with higher energy requirements. This indicates that references presently used in clinical practice to estimate energy requirements may not fully account for the different growth pattern of EBF infants. More studies in infants EBF to 6 months of age are needed to understand how growth of EBF infants influences energy requirements.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.