Energy recommendations for normal weight, overweight and obese children and adolescents: are different equations necessary?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2002/2005, separate energy requirement equations were generated by the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) Dietary Reference Intake process for normal weight and overweight/obese children and adolescents. The current paper questions the theoretical rationale of having two sets of equations (based solely on body-weight classification): when body weight is considered, overweight and obese children and adolescents do not seem to differ from their normal weight counterparts in energy expended for basal metabolism or physical activity tasks. However, energy needs for weight maintenance among overweight/obese girls were consistently higher when predicted using the equations for overweight/obese individuals compared with those developed for normal weight individuals. In contrast, among overweight/obese boys, they were consistently lower. Although the differences are within the variability of the estimates, even theoretical support for a higher energy intake (as occurs in girls) seems unwise because of the potential contribution to a higher body mass in children who are already at risk. It is the opinion of the authors that the IOM revisit the use of two separate equations and generate one set that is appropriate for all children and adolescents.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".