How Does the DRI and Other Prediction Equations for Energy Intake Compare to Energy Fed?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assessing energy needs is critical to dietary prescriptions for weight loss. We compared estimated calories from the Dietary Reference Intakes (DRI) equation and other accepted equations [Harris‐Benedict (HB) and Mifflin‐St.Jeor (MSJ)] to calories Fed in a controlled feeding study. Caloric needs were calculated for 79 overweight and obese (BMI: 27.5 – 37.5) women (n=56) and men (n=23) in a controlled feeding study. Calories were based on the DRI equation and adjusted during the controlled feeding period to maintain body weight (WT). WT was measured daily in the fasted state with clothing and without shoes. Calories were adjusted after 5 days of a consistent upward or downward slope in WT; further adjustments were made if body weight did not stabilize. WT stabilization was achieved in 21 days. Comparison between actual Fed calories and predicted calories from DRI, HB and MSJ equations are in . Fed DRI Harris‐Benedict Mifflin‐ St. Jeor Mean 2585.9 2580.2 2506.8 2384.0 STD 416.8 412.6 451.7 401.9 Significant correlations were observed among Fed calories and predicted calories for DRI (R 2 = 0.97), HB (R 2 =0.85) and MSJ (R 2 = 0.82). MSJ equation under estimated calories in 57% of people by −100 to −600 kcal/d. HB deviations in estimated calories ranged from +220 to −400 kcal/d in 49% of subjects. DRI estimated calories had the fewest deviations; 16.5% of subjects ranging from +200 kcal/d to −200 kcal/d. Funding: National Dairy Council, USDA, ARS, WHNRC, Dairy Council of California, CTS, Clinical Research Center, University of California (1M01RR19975‐01), and National Center for Medical Research (UL1 RR024146)
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.040 | 0.130 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".