AJCN Tufts Nutrition Symposium, Boston Sept 24-26
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Segal, K. R.
Right arrow Articles by Pi-Sunyer, F. X.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Segal, K. R.
Right arrow Articles by Pi-Sunyer, F. X.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Segal, K. R.
Right arrow Articles by Pi-Sunyer, F. X.

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol 51, 14-21, Copyright © 1990 by The American Society for Clinical Nutrition, Inc


ORIGINAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS

Comparison of thermic effects of constant and relative caloric loads in lean and obese men

KR Segal, A Edano, L Blando and FX Pi-Sunyer
Department of Pediatrics, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY 10029.

Controversy regarding defective thermic effect of food (TEF) in obesity might be related to differences among studies in the caloric loads. To clarify further the role of blunted thermogenesis in obesity, responses to the same absolute caloric load (720 kcal) and a relative load, which was 35% of each subject's resting metabolic rate (RMR), were compared in 11 lean (L) and 11 obese (O) men. The relative load was slightly larger for O than L (752 +/- 27 vs 683 +/- 21 kcal; means +/- SEM, NS). TEF, calculated as 3-h postprandial minus fasting RMR, was greater for L than O for both the 720-kcal (69 +/- 4 vs 31 +/- 3 kcal/3 h, p less than 0.01) and relative loads (64 +/- 4 vs 37 +/- 3 kcal/3 h, p less than 0.01). For L, TEF was greater for the 720-kcal load than for the relative load whereas for O, TEF was greater for the relative than for the 720-kcal meal. However, expressed as a percent of the calories ingested, TEF for the absolute and relative meals was identical for each group, in both cases lower for O (4.2 +/- 0.4% vs. 4.7 +/- 0.3%) than for L (9.7 +/- 0.4% vs 9.3 +/- 0.8%); p less than 0.01. These results demonstrate the impact on thermogenesis of the basis on which the meal is dosed and provide further evidence for defective thermogenesis in obesity.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J. Appl. Physiol.Home page
N. R. Stob, C. Bell, M. A. van Baak, and D. R. Seals
Thermic effect of food and beta-adrenergic thermogenic responsiveness in habitually exercising and sedentary healthy adult humans
J Appl Physiol, August 1, 2007; 103(2): 616 - 622.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Clin. Nutr.Home page
J. P DeLany, G. A Bray, D. W Harsha, and J. Volaufova
Energy expenditure and substrate oxidation predict changes in body fat in children.
Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, October 1, 2006; 84(4): 862 - 870.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Clin. Nutr.Home page
J. P DeLany, G. A Bray, D. W Harsha, and J. Volaufova
Energy expenditure in preadolescent African American and white boys and girls: the Baton Rouge Children's Study
Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, April 1, 2002; 75(4): 705 - 713.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1990 by The American Society for Nutrition