Physical activity pattern and activity energy expenditure in healthy pregnant and non-pregnant Swedish women.
ABSTRACT Energy costs of pregnancy approximate 320 MJ in well-nourished women, but whether or not these costs may be partly covered by modifications in activity behavior is incompletely known. In healthy Swedish women: (1) to evaluate the potential of the Intelligent Device for Energy Expenditure and Physical Activity (IDEEA) to assess energy expenditure during free-living conditions, (2) to assess activity pattern, walking pace and energy metabolism in pregnant women and non-pregnant controls, and (3) to assess the effect on energy expenditure caused by changes in physical activity induced by pregnancy.
Activity pattern was assessed using the IDEEA in 18 women in gestational week 32 and in 21 non-pregnant women. Activity energy expenditure (AEE) was assessed using IDEEA, as well as using the doubly labelled water method and indirect calorimetry.
AEE using the IDEEA was correlated with reference estimates in both groups (r=0.4-0.5; P<0.05). Reference AEE was 0.9 MJ/24 h lower in pregnant than in non-pregnant women. Pregnant women spent 92 min/24 h more on sitting, lying, reclining and sleeping (P=0.020), 73 min/24 h less on standing (P=0.037) and 21 min/24 h less on walking and using stairs (P=0.049), and walked at a slower pace (1.1 ± 0.1 m/s versus 1.2±0.1 m/s; P=0.014) than did non-pregnant controls. The selection of less demanding activities and slower walking pace decreased energy costs by 720 kJ/24 h and 80 kJ/24 h, respectively.
Healthy moderately active Swedish women compensated for the increased energy costs of pregnancy by 0.9 MJ/24 h. The compensation was mainly achieved by selecting less demanding activities.
- SourceAvailable from: usda.gov[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To estimate the energy requirements of pregnant and lactating women consistent with optimal pregnancy outcome and adequate milk production. Total energy cost of pregnancy was estimated using the factorial approach from pregnancy-induced increments in basal metabolic rate measured by respiratory calorimetry or from increments in total energy expenditure measured by the doubly labelled water method, plus energy deposition attributed to protein and fat accretion during pregnancy. Database on changes in basal metabolic rate and total energy expenditure during pregnancy, and increments in protein based on measurements of total body potassium, and fat derived from multi-compartment body composition models was compiled. Energy requirements during lactation were derived from rates of milk production, energy density of human milk, and energy mobilisation from tissues. Healthy pregnant and lactating women. The estimated total cost of pregnancy for women with a mean gestational weight gain of 12.0 kg, was 321 or 325 MJ, distributed as 375, 1200, 1950 kJ day(-1), for the first, second and third trimesters, respectively. For exclusive breastfeeding, the energy cost of lactation was 2.62 MJ day(-1) based on a mean milk production of 749 g day(-1), energy density of milk of 2.8 kJ g(-1), and energetic efficiency of 0.80. In well-nourished women, this may be subsidised by energy mobilisation from tissues on the order of 0.72 MJ day(-1), resulting in a net increment of 1.9 MJ day(-1) over non-pregnant, non-lactating energy requirements. Recommendations for energy intake of pregnant and lactating women should be updated based on recently available data.Public Health Nutrition 11/2005; 8(7A):1010-27. · 2.25 Impact Factor
- Proceedings of The Nutrition Society 10/1988; 47(3):209-18. · 3.67 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the validity of three objective measures of physical activity (Accusplit Eagle 120 mechanical pedometer (AE120), NL-2000 electronic pedometer, and IDEEA pattern-recognition device) that varied in their levels of sophistication, among older adults at risk for mobility disability. In addition, we examined the potential influences of gait speed and body mass index (BMI) on step count accuracy. Step counts recorded on the three devices were compared against manual step counts made by two investigators as each participant walked 131 m around an indoor track at their preferred walking speed (N=29; 75.8+/-4.2 yr). Gait speed was determined by dividing total distance walked by time to completion. BMI was calculated from height and body mass measurements. All three devices significantly underestimated steps taken (AE120=22.8+/-53.9 steps; NL-2000=4.0+/-5.8 steps; IDEEA=5.6+/-7.8 steps), but there was no significant difference between devices (P=0.084). Steps counted by the AE120, NL-2000, and IDEEA were significantly correlated with manual step counts (r=0.508, 0.980, and 0.965, respectively; P<or=0.005). However, the AE120 was not clinically acceptable, sharing only 26% common variance with actual steps taken. The accuracy of the three devices was not influenced systematically by either gait speed or BMI. Our data show that the AE120 is a poor choice for measuring physical activity in older adults at risk for mobility disability. Both the NL-2000 and IDEEA devices have acceptable measurement qualities; however, the NL-2000 is the more practical of the two for use in either research or clinical practice.Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 07/2007; 39(6):1020-6. · 4.48 Impact Factor