AJCN North Carolina Research Campus
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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by George, V.
Right arrow Articles by Bouchard, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by George, V.
Right arrow Articles by Bouchard, C.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by George, V.
Right arrow Articles by Bouchard, C.

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol 53, 425-429, Copyright © 1991 by The American Society for Clinical Nutrition, Inc


ORIGINAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS

Further evidence for the presence of "small eaters" and "large eaters" among women

V George, A Tremblay, JP Despres, M Landry, L Allard, C Leblanc and C Bouchard
Physical Activity Science Laboratory, Layal University, Ste-Foy, Quebec.

One hundred thirty-four women, aged 36 +/- 4 (mean +/- SD) y, BMI 20 +/- 3 kg/m2, perceiving themselves as having either a low or high energy intake (EI), participated in a study to determine variations in EI. Information on EI and activity level was obtained from repeated 7-d records. The 40 subjects with the lowest EI (in kcal/kg body wt) were categorized as small eaters (SEs); the 40 subjects with the highest EI were considered to be large eaters (LEs). The absolute (in kcal) and relative (in kcal/kg body wt) EIs of the SE and LE groups were 1488 +/- 312 and 27 +/- 4 for the SE group, respectively and 2393 +/- 509 and 47 +/- 6 for the LE group, respectively. There was no significant difference in activity level or fat-free mass (FFM) between the groups. However, LEs weighed significantly less (51 vs 55 kg) and were leaner (22% body fat vs 33%) than were SEs. Individuals with similar FFM and activity level can vary significantly in EI needs.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1991 by The American Society for Nutrition