Cover Image
close this bookEnergy and Protein requirements, Proceedings of an IDECG workshop, November 1994, London, UK, Supplement of the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (International Dietary Energy Consultative Group - IDECG, 1994, 198 pages)
close this folderEnergy requirements and dietary energy recommendations for children and adolescents 1 to 18 years old
View the document(introductory text...)
View the documentIntroduction
View the documentTotal daily energy expenditure (TEE)
View the documentEstimates of basal metabolic rate to calculate total energy expenditure
View the documentTime allocation to different activities
View the documentPhysical activity levels of children and adolescents
View the documentDietary energy intake
View the documentGeneral conclusions and recommendations
View the documentReferences
View the documentDiscussion

Dietary energy intake

The most important criteria in choosing a method for collecting food intake data in children and adolescents are: (a) the technique should not interfere with the subject's dietary pattern; (b) the data should be representative of usual or habitual intake and (c) the technique should be suitable for application in large study groups.

The methods most frequently used in childhood and adolescent population groups are similar to those applied in adult studies, namely:

(1) Retrospective or food recall methods, which depend on dietary information given from memory by the child/ adolescent and/or parent/child carer. Several specific types of data collection fall within this category, including those aimed at quantifying actual intake for a precise time (usually the previous day, or 24-h recall) and those designed to elicit information about usual consumption patterns for a longer, less precisely defined time period (diet history or food frequency methods). More than one 24-h recall should be made on different days of the week, especially when there are cultural cyclic changes in food intake (e.g. weekdays compared with weekends). Recalls of more than 24 h are sometimes performed but the accuracy with which subjects and/or parents can remember food consumption is debatable, particularly if food intake patterns are highly unstructured or unstable. In the food frequency method, subjects and/or parents/child carers report by interview or self-administered questionnaire, the frequency of consumption of particular foods during a specified time span (week, month, year). A quantitative component is added by including the size and number of portions most frequently consumed for each food.

(2) Prospective or food record methods, which require that all food items consumed be recorded at the time of consumption. Intakes are quantified by direct weighing of the food, by estimates using, household measures or by collection of duplicate diets. Quantitative assessment of usual food intake can be obtained by increasing the number of measurement days. Seven days are generally assumed to represent a good compromise between precision, subject/parental cooperation, cultural dietary patterns and investigator workload.

Each of these methods has advantages and drawbacks when applied to children and adolescents. Ultimately, all survey methods are dependent on the motivation, compliance and ability of subjects and/or parents/child carers to report accurately habitual food intake.

Food intake data must then be converted into energy equivalents. This is often done disaggregating recipes into their food components and calculating their metabolizable energy as reported in food composition tables. Care must be taken to make all necessary conversions for the proper use of food composition data. A common error is applying to 'cooked' or 'wet' weight of foods the energy values for 'raw' or 'dry' foods that appear in composition tables, without applying adequate conversion factors.

A more accurate approach is to perform chemical or calorimetric analyses of samples of foods that are ready to be eaten. This is particularly useful to calculate the energy provided by food recipes that are unlikely to appear in food composition tables or that may be subject to variations. When the energy content of food is measured by bomb calorimetry, appropriate corrections must be made to calculate metabolizable energy.


Figure 7a
Energy expenditure calculated from estimates of habitual physical activity, compared with measurements using doubly labeled water and heart rate monitoring. Including data of stunted and underweight children: boys.


Figure 7b
Energy expenditure calculated from estimates of habitual physical activity, compared with measurements using doubly labeled water and heart rate monitoring. Including data of stunted and underweight children: girls.

Validity of energy intakes in children and adolescents

Most dietary intake studies in children assume that the data obtained are representative of habitual food consumption, and many recent studies concluded that energy intakes (EI) have declined in industrialized countries and more privileged groups in developing countries in response to a secular trend towards lower levels of activity in children and adolescents. However, studies in adults using doubly-labeled water (DLW) measurements of total energy expenditure (TEE) to validate EI have demonstrated that intake data may underestimate habitual food intake to a greater extent than has been appreciated (Prentice et al, 1986; Livingstone et al, 1990b; Schoeller, 1990). It is conceivable, therefore, that the reportedly low intakes of children may be artifacts of dietary survey methodology, rather than indicative of a diminution in energy expenditure.

Validation studies have been reported to assess the accuracy of EI in children and adolescents, using DLW measurements of TEE. These include studies of EI by 4-day weighted dietary record (WDR) in 1.5-4.5 year olds (n = 81) (Davies et al, 1994), by 7-day WDR in 7, 9, 12, 15 and 18 year olds (n = 58), by diet history (DH) in 3, 5, 7, 9, 12, 15 and 18 year olds (Livingstone et al, 1992b) and by 14 day estimated food records in non-obese and obese adolescents (n = 55) (Bandini et al, 1990a).


Figure 8
Comparison (± s.d.) of reported habitual energy intake and energy expenditure in (a) 1.5-4.5 year old children (Davies et al, 1994) and (b) non-obese and obese adolescents (Bandini et al, 1990a).


Figure 8
Comparison (± s.d.) of reported habitual energy intake and energy expenditure in (a) 1.5-4.5 year old children (Davies et al, 1994) and (b) non-obese and obese adolescents (Bandini et al, 1990a).


Figure 9
Comparison (± s.d.) of reported habitual energy intake by diet history and weight dietary record and energy expenditure in 3-18 year old subjects (Livingstone et al, 1992b).


Figure 9 Comparison (± s.d.) of reported habitual energy intake by diet history and weight dietary record and energy expenditure in 3-18 year old subjects (Livingstone et al, 1992b).

The results shown in Figures 8-10 indicate that bias in dietary reporting does not operate uniformly across age groups and that it is influenced by the particular methodology used.

In children aged 1.5-4.5 years, mean El calculated by 4-day WDR were not significantly different from mean TEE (+3%) (Figure 8a). Similarly, the mean EI by 7-day WDR of 7 and 9 year olds were in close correspondence with simultaneous measurements of TEE ( + 2%) (Figure 10a), but in adolescents and young adults there was increasing divergence between EI and TEE as age increased: mean EI were significantly lower than TEE in 12 year olds ( - 14%) and in 15 and 18 year olds (-24%, P<0.01) (Figure 10a). Using 14-day estimated intake records, Bandini et al (1990a) also showed a substantial underestimation of EI by adolescents, with the negative bias being most apparent in obese subjects (Figure 8b). After adjustment for changes in body composition, mean estimated EI were 80 ± 23% (non-obese) and 54 ± 32% (obese) of TEE values (P < 0.001).

The age-related discrepancy differed in the study to validate EI by diet history in 3-18 year olds. There was a bias towards overestimation of EI in the younger children by this technique: as age increased, mean differences were + 12%, + 9%, + 11% and - 1% (Figures 9 and 10b)

These validation studies can be criticized because they only involved a small number of subjects in various age groups. However, all of them indicate that a bias in dietary reporting is highly probable. Thus, considerable caution needs to be applied when interpreting energy intake data sets as a basis for deriving energy requirements. Moreover, the magnitude and direction of the errors in children's EI are likely to be different from those found in adults. These biases are highly relevant to the problem of determining appropriate energy intakes for nitrogen balance studies (see Appendix).

Age is an important variable that affects compliance in dietary reporting. The results presented suggest that the mean EI assessed by weighed dietary records are more likely to represent usual food intake in younger than in older subjects. This could be due to the fact that in young children overall control of food intake and responsibility for dietary reporting are shared by parents and other adults concerned with child caring. Younger children also have less unsupervised access to food in- and out-of-home. On the other hand, by early adolescence the responsibility for reporting shifts more to the subjects themselves. Consequently, their greater food requirements in combination with unstructured eating patterns and a significant degree of out-of-home eating suggest that under-reporting (by WDR) may be partly due to forgetfulness and lack of compliance with a demanding protocol.

Obesity is another important factor. In common with obese adults (Prentice et al, 1986), obese adolescents have been found to under-report EI significantly more than their non-obese counterparts (Bandini et al, 1990a). Preoccupation with body weight and image, which may lead to real or apparent dietary restraint, seems to be well developed in girls with normal and low weight by the age of 12 years. Similar, although less marked trends, have been observed in adolescent boys (Livingstone et al, 1992b).

The method used to assess EI also may influence the results. Validation studies with various EI methods across the entire age range of childhood and adolescence are lacking. Only one study has validated simultaneously EI by WDR and DH with TEE (Livingstone et al, 1992b). Although EI by DH were biased towards overestimation in most age groups and individual measurements lacked precision, mean intakes assessed by DH seemed more representative of habitual EI across the age range than WDR. The apparent superiority of DH in overcoming an age-related bias in dietary reporting is contrary to expectations and needs to be evaluated carefully. Since DH is not a standardized instrument and it only measures memory and perception of usual diet, it is subjective and children may tend to exaggerate the intake of 'good' foods and under-estimate 'bad' foods. Accuracy in reporting is also dependent on motivation, intelligence, an adequately developed concept of time, ability to recognize foods, the complexity and stability of food patterns and the age at which children can reliably report their own food intake without control or supervision of adults.

Other factors which are likely to influence reporting accuracy and about which little is known, include social class and educational background.

In addition to the credibility of food intake reports, assessment of EI can be distorted by the use of inadequate food composition tables and/or overlooking the conversion of cooked and processed foods into their raw ingredients2.

2 The world-wide food composition data network being developed by INFOODS offers electronic access to information on prepared and processed foods often not available in local food composition tables (for information: http ://www.crop.cri.nz/crop/infoods/infoods.html).


Figure 10a
Individual differences between energy expenditure measured by the doubly labeled water method and energy intakes as measured by 7-day weighed dietary records expressed as a percentage of energy expenditure in children aged 7 and 9 years (A), 12 years (B) and 15 and 18 years (C).


Figure 10b
Individual differences between energy expenditure measured by the doubly labeled water method and energy intakes as measured by diet history expressed as a percentage of energy expenditure in children aged 3 and 5 years (A), 7 and 9 years (B), 12 years (C) and 15 and 18 years (D) (From data of Livingstone et al, 1992b).

Dietary energy intake data of children and adolescents

A selection of dietary intake studies reported in the literature from about 1980 onwards are reviewed here since earlier studies were evaluated extensively by Ferro-Luzzi & Durnin (1981), as the basis for the 1985 FAO/WHO/UNU estimated requirements. Since 1980, a vast number of dietary intake studies on children and adolescents have been reported and the studies cited in this review are by no means an exhaustive compilation. Many studies were excluded based on the following criteria:

(1) When energy intakes were reported for wide age bands (e.g. 11-16 years) and the mean age was not recorded.
(2) When energy intakes were reported combined for boys and girls over 10 years old.
(3) When data were presented in a format which could not be readily interpreted for the purposes of this review (e.g., in graphs). Unfortunately, many studies in developing countries were excluded for this reason.
(4) When the children studied were generally malnourished or obese, and their mean weight-for-height differed from the NCHS/WHO standards by more than 2 s.d. Many reports were based on representative study populations and therefore included children with a range of body weights.
(5) Only studies of healthy children were included, since many disease states are likely to affect energy intakes and requirements.

Tables 23 and 24 give details of the studies that were reviewed. Forty-eight involved children approximately 110 years old, and 41 studies included children and adolescents approximately 10-18 years old.

Tables 25-30 show the energy intakes of the children, by ascending age. Boys and girls under 5 years are listed together in Table 25, as many studies did not separate the results for each sex. The same is true of the six studies in Table 30. When body weights were not reported, median weights (NCHS) at the mid-point of the age range were assumed and, in Tables 25 and 30, averaged for boys and girls. Energy intake data are presented as absolute values, in relation to body weight, and as multiples of the estimated BMR. The latter were calculated from the mean weights using the equations proposed by Schofield to FAO/WHO/UNU (1985).

Comparison with total energy expenditure and dietary recommendations

When energy intakes are used to assess requirements or to estimate whether the mean intake satisfies a population's dietary recommendations, the possibility of bias must be acknowledged and the data should be analyzed and interpreted accordingly. Information that is incompatible with fundamental principles of energy physiology should not be accepted, as it cannot represent long-term usual intake or is due to methodological bias or inadequate reporting. Goldberg et al (1991) and Black et al (1991) suggested a screening of EI data of adult populations, calculating them as multiples of BMR. For example, a value below 1.27 × BMR, considered as the survival requirement for adults (FAO/ WHO/UNU, 1985), is unacceptable as representative of habitual intake.

Following that logic, we used the PALs shown in Table 21 to establish reasonable limits to evaluate dietary energy surveys among children and adolescents. Mean results lower than two times the coefficient of variation (i.e. 12%) below the PAL corresponding to light habitual activity, or higher than two times the CV above the PAL for heavy habitual activity were considered unlikely to represent the usual intake of healthy children. Since the PALs for boys or girls 6-13 and 14-18 years old in Table 21 are reasonably close, the acceptable limits for those age groups were averaged to simplify the evaluation of the results in Tables 25-30. Further corrections for the energy needs for growth were not made, as they are only about 3% at age 1 and less than 1 % in late adolescence.

Thus, Tables 31-33 were prepared from the data in Tables 25-30 that were between 1.28 and 1.79 × BMR for children 1-5 years, between 1.39 and 2.24 × BMR for boys 6-18, and between 1.30 and 2.10 × BMR for girls 6-18. Mean energy intakes expressed as MJ/d, kJ/kg/d and × BMR, were weighted for the number of children in each study. When a study included more than 500 or 1000 children of a given age and sex, only 30% or 20% of the number, respectively, were used to calculate the weighted means to avoid an extreme bias toward the results of that study.

As Table 31 and Figure 11 show, energy intake per unit of body weight is fairly constant for both boys and girls between 3 and 7 years of age, after which it decreases gradually until age 15 (girls) or 16 (boys).

Compared with total energy expenditure assessed with doubly-labeled water and heart rate monitoring, energy intake tends to overestimate requirements under 8-10 years and to underestimate them after that age. Those trends also apply to the 1985 FAO/WHO/UNU energy recommendations, but the overestimation is markedly higher under 6 years of age. This is partly due to the 5% additional dietary energy recommended in 1985 for children 1-10 years old to accommodate 'a desirable level of physical activity'.

The reported EI of children 1-5 years old is about 13% lower than FAO/WHO/UNU requirements (Figure 11, Table 31). Although the wide range between data sets could reflect real differences in intake, unrepresentative study samples, or artifacts in dietary survey methodology, mean intakes fell short of FAO/WHO/ UNU requirements in about 80% of the data sets.

The influence of sex on dietary energy intake is illustrated in Figure 12 and Tables 31-33. Girls have lower EI than boys, whether expressed in absolute terms or relative to their body weights or their estimated BMR, and the difference becomes greater in adolescence. These findings are consistent with their lower total energy expenditure (Tables 2-7 and 20, and Figure 5).

Conclusions

Recent trends in EI of children and adolescents suggest that if the groups studied are representative of their age and sex, and the EI data are valid measures of habitual intake, then:

(a) Habitual energy intakes of 1-6 year old children are lower than current recommendations. Increasing reported energy intakes by 5% to accommodate a 'desirable level of physical activity' may be unrealistic.
(b) Energy requirements for physical activity may be more variable in adolescent males but lower in the adolescent females, than has been assumed when deriving factorially estimated energy requirements.

For methodological and economic reasons it seems inevitable that we will continue to rely partly on reported EI data as a basis of estimating energy requirements for most populations. However, it is clear that these data can no longer be tacitly accepted as representative of usual intake. Therefore, the following recommendations need to be considered:

(a) At present there are too few studies in which energy intake and energy expenditure have been studied in the same population to know the nature and extent of bias involved in these measurements. This will require more extensive validation studies of energy and nutrient intakes that take into account differences in methodology, social status, education, age, and geographical region in both developing and industrialized countries. From these studies guidelines may emerge for detecting patterns of bias and the characteristics of individuals contributing to it.
(b) Variation among individuals within the same population can be appropriately characterized by a mean and standard deviation whose validity will depend upon the adequacy of the sample. However, the nature and extent of differences in mean values among different populations make it unlikely that they can be appropriately characterized by a single mean and standard deviation, no matter how many populations are sampled. It may be better to express a range of mean values for this purpose.
(c) Research must be done to find ways of minimizing the psychological basis of under- and over-reporting in these age groups.
(d) Appropriate 'cut-off' values based on fundamental principles of energy physiology should be used to determine the acceptance of energy intake results. This will require an extensive data base of basal and total daily energy expenditures (BMR and TEE) in association with objective measures of physical activity. In the meantime, the following estimates of multiples of BMR are suggested as provisional cut-off points: 1-5 years (boys and girls): 1.28-1.79 × BMR; 6-18 years: 1.39-2.24 × BMR (boys) and 1.30-2.10 × BMR (girls).

These recommendations will not guarantee valid data and cannot eliminate the considerable differences among populations, but may lead to the design of more effective instruments for assessing energy intake and requirements of children and adolescents.

Table 23 Dietary surveys of children aged approximately 1-10 years

Source

Country

Sex

Age (y)

No. of subjects

Methoda

Time of year

Socio economic statusb

Urban/ruralc

Race/ethnic background

Bellu et al (1991)

Italy

M & F

1

164

24-h recall

?

?

U

?

Boggio & Klepping (1981)

France

M & F

5-6, 9-11,
14-16

376

7-d weighed record

?

M

U

?

Boulton (1981)

Australia

M & F

2, 3-5,
8-18

198,486, 235

Diet history,
4-d record

12 months

M

U

Mixed

Brault-Dubuc & Mongeau (1989)

Canada

M & F

6-16

402 (L)d

7-d record

12 months

M

U

?

Catassi et al (1988)

Italy

M & F

0.5-2.5

90

3-d weighed record

?

?

?

?

Cunningham & Lee (1990)

Republic of Ireland

M & F

8-18

538

Diet history

12 months

M

U & R

Caucasian

Davies et al (1994)

United Kingdom

M & F

1.5-4.5

81

4-d weighed record

Autumn

M

U

?

Deheeger et al (1991)

France

M & F

2

323

5-d record, diet history

?

M

U

?

Duggan et al (1991)

United Kingdom

M & F

0.3-3.3

97

5-d weighed record

?

L

U

Asian

Durnin (1984)

United Kingdom

M & F

5-6,
10-11

430

5-d weighed record

?

M

U

?

Eastwood et al (1990)

Mexico

M & F

2.8-3.9,
4.0-5.0

45

1-d weighed record

?

L

R

Mixed

Griffiths et al (1987)

United Kingdom

M & F

3-4

37

7-d weighed record & duplicate analysis

?

?

?

?

Hagman et al (1986)

Sweden

M & F

2-3, 4-5,
8-9, 13-14

1020

7-d record, diet history, 24-h recalls

12 months

M

U & R

?

Hitchcock et al (1984)

Australia

M & F

1-3

205 (L)e

7-d record

12 months

M

U

?

Ho et al (1988)

China

M & F

5-6

60

7-d weighed record

?

M

U

Chinese

Hoffmans et al (1986)

Netherlands

M & F

0.3-1.5

124 (L)f

24 h-recall

Spring

M

U

?

Ikemoto et al (1989)

Japan

M & F

1-2

10

Chemical analysis

12 months

?

?

?

Jenner et al (1988)

Australia

M & F

8-10

884

Food frequency questionnaire

April - Aug

M

U

?

Knuiman et al (1983)

Finland,
Netherlands,
Italy,
Phillipines
and Ghana

M

8-9

589

7-d record or 7-d recall

Feb May

M

U & R

Mixed

Livingstone et al (1992b)

United Kingdom

M & F

3-18

78

7-d weighed record, diet history

Oct-July

M

U & R

Causasian

Leung et al (1984)

Canada

M & F

3-4

189

4-d record

?

M

U

?

Lopez-Jaramillo et al (1992)

Ecuador

M

9

114

2 × 24 h recalls

?

LU

U

Ecuadorian

Magarey & Boulton (1984)

Australia

M & F

4

178

3-d record

June Sept

M

U

Mixed

Martinez (1982)

Canada

M & F

6-7

193

3-d record

?

M

U & R

?

McKillop & Durnin (1982)

United Kingdom

M & F

1-2

143

5-d weighed record

?

M

U

?

Morgan & Zabik (1981)

USA

M & F

5-12

657

7-d record

Autumn

-

-

-

Morrison et al (1980)

USA

M & F

6-19

949

24-h recall

12 months

M

U

Black & White

Nelson et al (1990)

United Kingdom

M & F

7-12

194

7-d weighed record

April-July

?

U & R

?

Narasinga et al (1983)

India

M & F

2-6

128

Diet questionnaire

12 months

U

?

Asian

Neiderud et al (1992)

Sweden & Greece

M & F

2-8

152

24-h recall

Aug-Nov

?

U & R

Mixed

Oliveria et al (1992)

USA

M & F

3-5

91

4 × 3-d record

12 months

M

U

Caucasian

Palti et al (1979)

Israel

M & F

2.5-4

98 (L)g

24-hr recall

December - April

M

U

Mixed

Pao et al (1985)

USA

M & F

1-18

2826

24-h recall, 2-d record

Spring

M

U & R

Mixed

Parizkova et al (1986)

Czechoslovakia

M & F

3-5

22

7-d record

?

?

U

?

Paul et al (1990)

United Kingdom

M & F

1-3

48 (L)h

7-d weighed record

?

M

?

?

Payne & Belton (1992)

United Kingdom

M & F

2-5

153

7-d weighed record

May-April

M

U & R

?

Persson & Calgren (1984)

Sweden

M & F

4-5, 8-9

477

7-d record

?

M

?

?

Räsänen et al (1985)

Finland

M & F

3-18

1251

24-h recall

Autumn

M

U & R

?

Räsänen et al (1991)

Finland

M & F

9-18

1200

2 × 24-h recalls

Autumn

M

U & R

?

Räsänen & Ylonen (1992)

Finland

M & F

1.5

46

3-d record

August-November

M

U

?

Salas et al (1990)

Spain

M & F

2-9

121

2 × 24-h recall

?

M

U

Caucasian

Salz et al (1993)

USA

M & F

6-9

195

24-h recall

?

M

U & R

Caucasian

Sawaya et al (1988)

Saudi Arabia

M & F

1.1-2.0, 2.1-3.0, 3.1-4.0, 4.1-5.0

540

24-h recall

?

?

U-R1

Arab

Sunnegardh et al (1986)

Sweden

M & F

8-9, 13-14

666

24-h recall, 7-d record, diet history

?

M

U & R

?

Treiber et al (1990)

USA

M & F

3-5

55

2 × 24-h recall

?

M

U

Black and White

Vanderkooy et al (1987)

Canada

M & F

4-5

108

3-d weighed record

May-Sept

MU

U & R

Caucasian

Van Steenbergen (1984)

Kenya

M & F

1-3, 4-6

56

2-d weighed record

wet & dry

L

R

Akamba

Walker et al (1990)

Jamaica

M & F

0.75-2.0

191

4 × 24-h recall

?

L

U

Jamaican, black

a Records = estimated (household measures) records, weighed records = weighed intake.
b Socioeconomic status: M = mixed, L = lower, LU = lower and upper, MU = middle and upper, U = upper.
c Urban/Rural: U = urban, R = rural.
d L = longitudinal Brault-Dubuc & Mongeau (1984): 402 children studied in two cohorts starting at age 6 and 10 years with yearly measurements made for 7 years.
e Hitchcock et al (1984): 205 children recruited. Measurements made at 1 year (n = 125), 1½ years (n = 142), 2 years (n = 146) and 3 years (n = 145).
f Hoffmans et al (1986): 124 children studied. Measurements made at 16 months and 28 months.
g Palti et al (1979): 98 children studied. Three measurements made (1st study n = 98; 2nd study n = 82; 3rd study n = 75).
h Paul et al (1990): 48 children recruited at 2 months. Measurements made at 12 months (n = 29), 15 months (n = 25), 18 months (n = 22), 24 months (n = 22) and 36 months (n = 31).
i Described by authors as semi-rural.

Table 24 Dietary surveys of children and adolescents aged approximately 10-18 years

Source

Country

Sex

Age (y)

No. of subjects

Methoda

Time of year

Socio economic statusb

Urban/ruralc

Race/ethnic background

Adamson et al (1992)

United Kingdom

M & F

11-12

379

2 × 3-d records

January-July

M

U & R

?

Baghurst et al (1983)

Australia

M & F

14-15, 18

490

Food frequency

?

M

U

Mixed

Barber et al (1985)

Great Britain

F

15-18

448

14-d diary

?

?

U

Caucasian

Bergstrom et al (1993)

Sweden

M & F

13-16, 16-18

731

7-d record

Sept-December
January-May

M

U & R

?

Boulton (1981)

Australia

M & F

2
3-5
8-18

198
486
235

Record and diet history 4-d record 4-d record

12 months
12 months
12 months

M

U

Mixed

Boggio & Klepping (1981)

France

M & F

5-6, 9-11, 14-16

376

7-d weighed record

?

M

U

?

Brault-Dubuc & Mongeau (1989)

Canada

M & F

6-17

402
(L)d

7-d record

12 months

M

U

?

Bull (1985)

United Kingdom

M & F

15-18

382

14-d record

Spring-Summer

M

U & R

?

Crawley (1993)

United Kingdom

M & F

16-17

4760

4-d record

April-July

M

U & R

?

Cunningham & Lee (1990)

Republic of Ireland

M & F

8-18

538

Diet history

12 months

M

U & R

Caucasian

Department of Health (1989)

United Kingdom

M & F

10-11, 14-15

2697

7-d weighed record

January-June

M

U & R

?

Durnin (1984)

United Kingdom

M & F

5-6, 10-11

430

5-d weighed record

?

M

U

?

Frank et al (1985)

USA

M & F

10-11, 13-14

491

24-h recall

?

?

?

Black & White

Greger et al (1978)

USA

F

12-13

184

Diet recalls, diet history

Autumn & Spring

?

?

?

Hagman et al (1986)

Sweden

M & F

2-3, 4-5, 8-9, 13-14

1020

7-d record, diet history, 24-h recalls

12 months

M

U & R

?

Hackett et al (1984)

United Kingdom

M & F

11-14

375

5 × 3-d records

?

M

U & R

?

Jenner et al (1992)

Australia

M & F

11-12

1215

2-d records

April-August

M

U

?

Johnson & Jensen (1984)

USA

M & F

10-11

60

7-d records, 24-h recalls

?

M

?

Mixed

Kaufman et al (1982)

Israel

M & F

17-18

1178

24-h recall

?

M

U

Mixed

Livingstone et al (1992b)

United Kingdom

M & F

3-18

78

7-d weighed record, diet history

October-July

M

U & R

Caucasian

McCoy et al (1984)

USA

F

12, 14, 16

1247

2 × 24-h recalls

February-May

M

U & R

Black & White

Michaud et al (1991)

France

M & F

15-19

481

1-d record

?

M

U

?

Morgan & Zabik (1981)

USA

M & F

5-12

657

7-d record

Autumn

MU

?

?

Morrison et al (l980)

USA

M & F

6-19

949

24-h recall

12 months

M

U

Black & White

Nelson et al (1990)

United Kingdom

M & F

7-12

194

7-d weighed record

April-July

?

U & R

?

Pao et al (1985)

USA

M & F

1-18

2826

24-h recall, 2-d record

Spring

M

U & R

Mixed

Perusse et al (1984)

Canada

M & F

11-17

580

3-d weighed record

?

?

U & R

?

Post et al (1987)

Netherlands

M & F

12-18

233

Diet history

Jan-April

MU

U

?

Räsänen et al (l985)

Finland

M & F

3-18

1768

2 × 24-h recalls

Autumn

M

U & R

?

Räsänen et al (1991)

Finland

M & F

9-18

1200

2 × 24-h recalls

Autumn

M

U & R

?

Rodriguez (1991)

Guatemala

M

10-11

140

3 × 24-h recalls

July-Sept

LM

U

Mixed

van den Reek et al (1986)

USA

F

12-15

8

7-d weighed duplicate method

Summer

U

U

White

Seone & Roberge (1983)

Canada

M & F

10-18

500

3-d weighed record

?

?

?

?

Skinner et al (1985)

USA

M & F

16-18

225

24-h recall

?

?

U & R

Black & White

Story (1986)

USA

M & F

13 17

277

3 × 24-h recall

?

L

R

Cherokee

Strain et al (1994)

United Kingdom

M & F

12-13, 15-16

1016

Diet history

12 months

M

U & R

Caucasian

Sunnegardh et al (1986)

Sweden

M & F

8-9, 13-14

666

24-h recall, Diet history, 7-d record

?

M

U & R

?

Tan et al (1989)

New Zealand

M & F

12-14

501

3 × 24-h recalls

Autumn

M

U

?

Tayter et al (1989)

USA

M & F

10-12

39

3 d-record

?

M

?

Caucasian

Torun et al (1993)

Guatemala

M

10-12

24(L)e

3 × 24 h recalls every 3 months

12 months

L

U

Mixed

Woodward et al (1984)

Tasmania

M & F

12-16

1055

1-d diet record

?

M

U & R

?

a Records = estimated (household measures) records, weighed records = weighed intake.
b Socioeconomic status: M = mixed, L = lower, LU = lower and upper, MU = middle and upper, U = upper.
c Urban/Rural: U = urban, R = rural.
d L-Longitudinal. Brault-Dubuc & Mongeau (1989): 402 children studied in two cohorts starting at age 6 and 10 years with yearly measurements made for 7 years.
e Torun et al (1994): 24 girls studied four times at 3-month intervals.

Table 25 Energy intakes of children aged approximately 1-5 years







Energy intake (El)




Weight (kg)


(MJ/d)

(kJ/kg/d)


Source

Age (y)

N

Mean

s.d.

BMRa (MJ/d)

Mean

s.d.

Mean

s.d.

x BMRb

Bellu et al (1991)

1

164

9.81

1.28

2.26

4.15

1.29

423

131

1.84c



(76M, 88F)









Catassi et al (1988)

1-1.25

12

10.75

1.4

2.50

4.11

0.99

382

92

1.64


1.25-1.50

10

11.90

1.0

2.79

4.12

0.65

349

55

1.48


1.50-2.00

18

12.30

1.7

2.90

4.21

0.93

344

76

1.45

Davies et al (1993)

1.5-2.5

23

12.85

1.67

3.04

4.20

0.63

327

49

1.38

Duggan et al (1991)

1-1.5

13

11.00

(M)d

2.57

3.89e

1.26

354

115

1.51


1.5-2.0

9

11.00

(M)

2.57

3.71

1.06

337

96

1.44

Hitchcock et al (1984)

1

62 (M)

11.0

(M)

2.57

4.15

0.85

377

77

1.55



63 (F)

11.0

(M)

2.57

3.98

0.83

362

75

1.93c


1.5

72 (M)

11.0

(M)

2.57

4.96

0.89

451

81

1.74



70 (F)

11.0

(M)

2.57

4.47

1.00

406

91

1.56

Hoffmans et al (1986)

1-2

124

11.2

-

2.62

4.08

1.06

366

107

1.56

Ikemoto et al (1989)

1-2

10

11.0

1.6

2.57

3.90

0.41

377

40

1.52

McKillop & Durnin (1982)

1-2

73 (M)

11.6

-

2.72

4.79

1.02

413

-

1.76



70 (F)

10.9

-

2.56

4.59

0.96

420

-

1.79

Pao et al (1985)

1-2

246

11.0

(M)

2.57

4.90

1.43

445

130

1.91c

Paul et al (1990)

1.0

15 (M)

10.00

1.23

2.31

3.72

0.60

370

60

1.61


1.0

14 (F)

9.07

0.98

2.09

3.39

0.48

370

50

1.62


1.25

13 (M)

10.37

1.07

2.41

3.90

0.77

380

50

1.62


1.25

12 (F)

9.70

0.68

2.25

3.63

0.46

370

50

1.73


1.50

11 (M)

10.87

1.47

2.53

4.02

0.93

370

70

1.59


1.50

11 (F)

10.45

1.00

2.44

3.68

0.61

350

60

1.51

Räsänen & Ylonen (1992)

1-2

23 (M)

11.0

(M)

2.57

5.20

0.83

473

75

2.02c



23 (F)

11.0

(M)

2.57

4.57

0.92

415

84

1.78



46 (Total)

11.0

(M)

2.57

4.89

0.93

445

85

1.90c

Sawaya et al (1988)

1.1-2

178

11.15

-

2.62

3.62

-

325

-

1.38

Van Steenbergen (1984)

1-3

22

12.25


2.90

4.16

1.74

340

142

1.44

Walker et al (1990)

0.75-2

129 stunted

8.43


1.92

3.99

1.87

473

213

2.07c


0.75-2

62 non-stunted

11.45


2.69

4.07

1.50

356

130

1.51

Boulton (1981)

2.0

102 (M)

12.94

1.67

3.06

5.08

0.99

400

80

1.66



95 (F)

12.65

2.91

3.00

4.73

1.03

390

90

1.58



197 (Total)

12.78

2.69

3.02

5.02

1.86

400

140

1.66

Catassi et al (1988)

2.0 2.5

18

14.90

3.3

3.56

4.53

0.93

307

63

1.27c

Davies et al (1994)

2.5-3.5

31

14.96

1.40

3.57

4.64

0.74

310

49

1.30

Deheeger et al (1991)

2.0

131 (M)

12.1

1.6

2.85

5.51

1.34

452

110

1.93c



192 (F)

12.2

1.9

2.87

5.85

1.08

480

89

2.04c

Duggan et al (1991)

2-3.25

10

13.5

(M)

3.20

4.35

1.62

322

120

1.36

Eastwood et al (1990)

2.75 3.9

45

15.05


3.49

6.48

1.66

430

1.85c


Hagman et al (1986)

2-3

41 (M)

15.1

-

3.61

5.80

-

384

-

1.61



41 (F)

15.4

-

3.70

5.55

-

360

-

1.50

Hitchcock et al (1984)

2

74 (M)

13.5

(M)

3.20

5.35

1.01

396

75

1.67



72 (F)

13.5

(M)

3.22

4.85

1.17

359

87

1.51

Hoffmans et al (1980)

2-3

124

13.8

-

3.28

4.74

1.39

344

107

1.45

Narasinga et al (1993)

2-3

9 (M)

13.4

-

3.18

5.44

-

407

-

1.71



10 (F)

11.7

-

2.76

4.72

-

403

-

1.71

Neiderud et al (1992)

2-3

11 Greek Imm

13.5

(M)

3.20

6.08

-

450

-

1.90c



13 Swedish

13.5

(M)

3.20

4.99

-

370

-

1.56



20 Greek

13.5

(M)

3.20

5.63

-

417

-

1.76

Palti et al (1979)

2.5

98

13.2

-

3.12

4.58

13.38

347

105

1.47

Paul et al (1990)

2.0

13 (M)

12.20

1.20

2.87

4.22

0.78

350

60

1.47



9 (F)

11.61

0.83

2.74

4.03

0.50

350

40

1.47

Payne & Belton (1992)

2-3

31 (M)

14.0

1.5

3.33

4.50

0.76

321

54

1.35



42 (F)

13.5

1.4

3.22

4.39

0.83

325

61

1.36

Salas et al (1990)

2-5

61

15.0

(M)

3.48

6.68

1.39

445

93

1.92c

Sawaya et al (1988)

2.1-3

97

13.25

-

3.32

4.06

-

306

-

1.22c

Davies et al (1994)

3.5-4 5

27

16.94

2.10

3.66

5.42

0.64

320

38

1.48

Eastwood et al (1990)

2.8-3.9

45

15.05

-

3.49

6.48

1.66

430

-

1.85c

Griffiths et al (1987)

3-4

15 (M)

16.0

2.0

3.58

4.60

0.82

289

42

1.28



22 (F)

15.4

1.5

3.52

5.48

1.07

360

71

1.56

Hitchcock et al (1984)

3-4

73 (M)

16.5

(M)

3.62

5.74

1.00

348

61

1.59



72 (F)

16.5

(M)

3.63

5.55

0.94

336

57

1.53

Leung et al (1984)

3-4

189

16.5

(M)

3.62

5.80

1.20

352

73

1.60

Livingstone et al (1992b)

3-4

8

16.4

1.5

3.61

5.91

0.55

360

34

1.64

Narasinga et al (1983)

3 4

23 (M)

14.9

-

3.47

6.33

-

425

-

1.82c



13 (F)

15.0

-

3.49

5.81

-

387

-

1.66

Oliveria et al (1992)

3-5

55 (M)

16.5

(M)

3.62

6.71

0.95

407

58

1.85c



36 (F)

16.5

(M)

3.63

6.14

1.23

372

75

1.69



91 (Total)

16.5

(M)

3.62

6.48

1.10

393

67

1.79

Palti et al (1979)

3

82

14.1

-

3.40

5.09

1.25

360

89

1.50

Pao et al (1985)

3-5

404

16.5

(M)

3.62

5.99

1.62

363

98

1.65

Paul et al (1990)

3

20 (M)

14.53

1.56

3.44

4.96

0.78

340

50

1.44



13 (F)

14.16

1.35

3.41

4.62

0.50

330

50

1.35

Parizkova et al (1986)

3-5

22

19.3

2.50

3.89

7.25

2.03

376

105

1.86c

Payne & Belton (1992)

3-4

31 (M)

16.3

1.6

3.60

5.01

0.89

307

55

1.39



38 (F)

15.4

1.7

3.52

4.76

0.71

309

46

1.35

Räsänen et al (1985)

3-4

153 (M)

15.7

(median)f

3.55

6.40

1.70

408

108

1.80c



128 (F)

15.2

(median)f

3.50

5.80

1.20

382

79

1.66

Sawaya et al (1988)

3.1-4

158

15.4

-

3.53

4.62

-

300

-

1.31

Treiber et al (1990)

3-5

66

16.35

-

3.62

6.84

1.78

418

-

1.89c

Eastwood et al (1990)

4.0-5.0

22

17.25

-

3.71

6.30

1.19

365

-

1.70

Hagman et al (1986)

4-5

154 (M)

18.8

-

3.84

6.90

-

367

-

1.80c



152 (F)

18.6

-

3.82

6.45

-

347

-

1.69

Magaray & Boulton (1984)

4-5

93 (M)

17.9

-

3.76

5.94

-

331

-

1.58



85 (F)

17.7

-

3.74

5.44

-

307

-

1.45

Narasinga et al (1983)

4-5

17 (M)

17.3

-

3.70

6.62

-

383

-

1.79



6 (F)

15.6

-

3.54

5.90

-

378

-

1.67

Palti et al (1979)

4

75

16.5

-

3.62

4.96

0.95

301

58

1.37

Payne & Belton (1992)

4-5

35 (M)

18.0

1.9

3.77

5.30

0.79

294

44

1.41



30 (F)

17.6

2.2

3.73

5.06

0.89

288

51

1.36

Persson & Calgren (1984)

4-5

Total sample of 477

16.5

(M)

3.62

6.67

1.23

404

75

1.84c



(including 8-9 y)









Sawaya et al (1988)

4.1-5

107

17.25

-

3.71

4.93

-

286

-

1.33

Vanderkooy et al (1987)

4-5

62 (M)

18.6

-

3.82

6.23

1.64

335

57

1.63



44 (F)

18.0

-

3.77

5.38

1.47

299

53

1.43

Van Steenbergen (1984)

4-6

34

18.2

-

3.79

5.04

2.03

277

111

1.33

a BMR = Predicted basal metabolic rate (FAO/WHO/UNU, 1985).
b Mean energy intakes expressed as a multiple of mean predicted BMR.
c Excluded from Table 31 because x BMR was < 1.28 or > 1.79.
d (M) = Median (NCHS) weights at mid-year.
e Mean energy intakes (MJ/d) calculated from recorded energy intake (kJ/kg/d) and median (NCHS) weights.
f Median weights reported.

Table 26 Energy intakes of boys aged approximately 5-10 years








Energy intake





Weight (kg)


(MJ/d)

(kJ/kg/d)


Source

Age
(y)

N

Mean

s.d.

BMRa
(MJ/d)

Mean

s.d.

Mean

s.d.

× BMRb

Boggio & Klepping (1981)

5-6

51

19.5

2.2

3.91

6.89

1.12

353

57

1.76

Durnin (1984)

5-6

93

19.5

(Median)c

3.91

6.90

-

354

-

1.76

Livingstone et al (1992b)

5-6

6

17.9

2.5

3.76

6.57

0.83

367

46

1.75

Narasinga et al (1983)

5-6

12

17.4

-

3.71

6.63

-

381

-

1.79

Brault-Dubuc & Mongeau (1989)

6-7

102

20.6

2.52

4.01

8.91

1.73

438

99

2.22

Martinez (1982)

6 7

89

22.4

-

4.18

8.03

2.05

358

92

1.92

Morrison et al (1980)

6-9

95 (white)d

23.8

(M)e

4.31

8.10

2.51

340

105

1.88



35 (black)

23.8

(M)

4.31

6.97

2.90

293

122

1.62

Räsänen et al (1985)

6-7

139

21.6

(M)

4.11

7.90

1.90

366

88

1.92

Salz et al (1983)

6-9

102

25.8

-

4.50

8.27

2.22

321

101

1.84

Brault-Dubuc & Mongeau (1989)

7-8

84

22.9

3.1

4.23

9.04

1.84

401

95

2.14

Livingstone et al (1992b)

7-8

6

25.4

6.6

4.46

9.75

1.93 (WDR)f

384

76

2.19






4.46

9.41

1.50 (DH)

370

59

2.11

Nelson et al (1990)

7-10

25

27.0

(M)

4.62

7.59

1.43

281

31

1.64

Boulton (1981)

8-9

17

31.9

-

5.08

8.93

1.81

280

60

1.76

Brault-Dubuc & Mongeau (1989)

8-9

98

25.4

3.7

4.46

9.43

1.73

375

63

2.11

Hagman et al (1986)

8-9

144

27.3

-

4.64

8.90

-

326

-

1.92

Jenner et al (1988)

8-10

434

30.1

-

4.91

7.45

1.80

248

60

1.52

Knuiman et al (1983)

9

133 (Finland)

30.0

5.0

4.90

9.25

1.63

310

54

1.89


9

117 (Netherlands)

30.0

5.0

4.90

8.75

1.38

293

46

1.79


9

109 (Italy)

30.0

7.0

4.90

9.25

2.13

310

71

1.89


9

114 (Philippines)

22.0

3.0

4.14

7.98

1.93

364

88

1.93


9

116 (Ghana)

24.0

3.0

4.33

7.10

1.40

297

59

1.64

Lopez-Jaramillo et al (1992)

9

78 (LSC)g

25.5

-

4.47

5.20

1.15

204

45

1.16i



36 (USC)

27.0

-

4.62

6.43

0.96

238

36

1.39

Sunnegardh et al (1986)

8-9

159

27.3

3.8

4.64

8.40

2.50
(24-h R)h

308

92

1.81



142

27.3

3.8

4.64

8.90

1.20 (DR)

326

44

1.92

Boulton (1981)

9.11

23

31.6

-

5.05

8.85

1.15

280

60

1.75

Brault-Dubuc & Mongeau (1989)

9-10

103

27.8

3.9

4.69

9.74

1.91

355

77

2.08

Livingstone et al (1992b)

9-10

6

30.2

8.4

4.92

8.95

1.36 (WDR)

296

45

1.82






4.92

9.94

1.38 (DH)

329

46

2.02

Räsänen et al (1985)

9-10

162

29.9

(M)

4.89

9.10

2.30

304

77

1.86

Räsänen et al (1991)

9-10

119

27.0

(M)

4.89

8.30

2.40

307

89

1.70

a BMR = Predicted basal metabolic rate (FAO/WHO/UNU, 1985).
b Mean energy intakes expressed as a multiple of mean predicted BMR.
c Median weight report.
d White = white children, black = black children.
e (M) = Median (NCHS) weights at mid-year.
f WDR = weighed dietary record, DH = diet history.
g LSC = lower social class, USC = upper social class.
b 24-h R = 24-h recall, DR = diet records (estimated from household measures).
i Excluded from Table 31 because × BMR was < 1.39.

Table 27 Energy intakes of girls aged approximately 5-10 years








Energy intake





Weight (kg)


(MJ/d)

(kJ/kg/d)


Source

Age
(y)

N

Mean

s.d.

BMRa (MJ/d)

Mean

s.d.

Mean

s.d.

× BMRb

Boggio & Kleping (1981)

5-6

52

19.2

2.5

3.88

6.62

1.19

345

62

1.71

Durnin (1984)

5-6

110

18.4

(Median)c

3.80

6.00

-

326

-

1.58

Livingstone et al (1992a,b)

5-6

6

18.1

2.2

3.78

6.54

0.64

361

35

1.73

Narasinga et al (1983)

5-6

9

16.9

-

3.66

5.91

-

350

-

1.61

Brault-Dubuc & Mongeau (1989)

6-7

93

19.0

2.7

3.86

7.86

1.51

416

84

2.04

Martinez (1982)

6-7

104

21.6

-

4.10

7.28

1.38

337

64

1.78

Morrison et al (1980)

6-9

79 (white)d

23.8

(M)e

4.31

8.11

2.34

341

98

1.88



37 (black)

23.8

(M)

4.31

6.08

2.64

255

111

1.41

Räsänen et al (1985)

6-7

145

20.5

(M)

4.00

6.80

1.30

332

63

1.70

Salz et al (1983)

6-9

93

25.6

-

4.48

7.87

2.12

308

87

1.76

Brault-Dubuc & Mongeau (1989)

7-8

73

21.0

2.81

4.05

8.25

1.43

398

82

2.04

Livingstone et al (1992a,b)

7-8

6

23.5

2.2

4.28

6.62

0.82 (WDR)f

282

35

1.55






4.28

7.56

1.20 (DH)

322

51

1.77

Nelson et al (1990)

7-10

26

27.0

(M)

4.61

6.92

1.39

256

51

1.50

Boulton (1981)

8-9

17

29.8

-

4.87

7.74

1.12

260

30

1.59

Brault-Dubuc & Mongeau (1989)

8-9

95

23.4

4.8

4.27

8.21

1.37

358

80

1.92

Hagman et al (1986)

8-9

152

28.7

-

4.77

7.85

-

274

-

1.65

Jenner et al (1988)

8-10

450

29.3

-

4.83

6.92

1.85

236

63

1.43

Sunnegardh et al (1986)

8-9

167

28.6

6.6

4.76

7.70

2.60 (24-h R)g

269

91

1.62



153

28.6

6.6

4.76

8.00

1.20 (DR)

280

42

1.68

Boulton (1981)

9-11

24

34.6

-

5.32

7.62

2.06

220

70

1.43

Brault-Dubuc & Mongeau (1989)

9-10

94

26.6

4.6

4.57

8.38

1.43

321

65

1.83

Livingstone et al (1992a)

9-10

6

32.2

3.6

5.10

7.95

1.26 (WDR)

247

39

1.56






5.10

8.63

0.43 (DH)

268

13

1.69

Räsänen et al (1985)

9-10

154

30.3

(M)

4.92

7.70

-

254

-

1.57

Räsänen et al (1991)

9-10

109

27.0

(M)

4.92

7.80

2.20

289

81

1.59

a BMR = Predicted base; metabolic rate (FAO/WHO/UNU, 1985).
b Mean energy intakes expressed as a multiple of mean predicted BMR.
c Median weight reported.
d White = white children, black = black children.
e (M) = Median (NCHS) weights at mid-year.
f WDR = weighed dietary record, DH = diet history.
g 24-h R = 24-h recall, DR = diet records (estimated from household measures).

Table 28 Energy intakes of boys aged approximately 10-18 years







Energy intake (EI)





Weight (kg)


(MJ/d)

(kJ/kg/d)


Source

Age
(y)

N

Mean

s.d.

BMRa
(MJ/d)

Mean

s.d.

Mean

s.d.

× BMRb

Boggio & Klepping (1981)

9-11

37

31.3

4.5

4.99

8.34

1.04

266

33

1.67

Brault-Dubuc & Mongeau (1989)

10

104

31.4

5.5

5.00

10.58

2.20

344

80

2.12

Cunningham & Lee (1990)

8-12

85

34.1

-

5.20

9.70

3.20

284

94

1.87

Department of Health (1989)

10-11

902c

36.8

7.7

5.40

8.67

1.51

236

41

1.61

Durnin (1984)

10-11

102

33.0

(Median)d

5.11

8.40

-

255

-

1.64

Frank et al (1985)

9-11

184

35.0

-

5.26

9.80

-

280

-

1.86

Morrison et al (1980)

10-12

101 (white)e

34.5

(M)f

5.23

10.15

3.68

294

107

1.94


10-12

31 (black)

34.5

(M)

5.23

8.33

4.13

241

120

1.59

Pao et al (1985)

9-11

196

31.0

(M)

4.99

8.29

2.41

267

-

1.66

Rodriguez (1991)

10-11

140

34.2

8.0

5.22

7.38

1.92

222

59

1.41

Seone & Roberge (1983)

10-12

99

35.8

-

5.32

9.08

1.69

254

47

1.71

Tayter et al (1989)

10-12

20

35.3

-

5.30

9.18

-

260

-

1.73

Adamson et al (1992)

11-12

184

40.5

-

5.67

8.61

1.76

213

-

1.52

Hackett et al (1984)

11-12

193

39.0

5.56

8.90

-

229

-


1.60

Boulton (1981)

11-12

8

39.0

-

5.56

8.57

2.02

220

80

1.54

Brault-Dubuc & Mongeau (1989)

11-12

96

34.6

6.76

5.24

10.26

2.06

305

60

1.96

Jenner et al (1992)

11-12

626c

42.0

-

5.78

8.60

2.30

205

55

1.49

Nelson et al (1990)

11-12

76

37.0

(M)

5.41

7.74

1.67

209

45

1.43

Perusse et al (1984)

11-17

304

49.8

14.7

6.34

11.00

2.91

221

58

1.74

Boulton (1981)

12-13

15

42.7

-

5.83

10.25

1.78

240

70

1.76

Brault-Dubuc & Mongeau (1989)

12-13

79

37.6

6.8

5.45

10.63

1.87

290

50

1.95

Cunningham & Lee (1990)

12-15

93

49.3

-

6.31

11.30

3.30

229

67

1.79

Livingstone et al (1992b)

12-13

6

44.5

6.7

5.96

10.15

1.08 (WDR)g

228

24

1.70






5.96

11.82

2.64 (DH)

266

59

1.98

Pao et al (1985)

12-14

296

44.0 (M)

5.92

9.49

2.91

216

-


1.60

Post et al (1987)

12-13

26

38.4

-

5.51

11.70

2.55

305

66

2.12

Räsänen et al (1991)

12-13

116

40.9

(M)

5.69

10.20

3.60

249

88

1.79

Strain et al (1994)

12-13

251

43.0

9.4

5.85

11.0

(Median)

256

-

1.88

Tan et al (1989)

12-14

246

44.0

(M)

5.92

10.2

2.9

232

66

1.72

Woodward et al (1984)h

12-13

132h

41.0

(Median)

5.70

9.9

(Median)

241

-

1.74

Boulton (1981)

13-14

12

52.6

-

6.55

10.0

2.54

190

30

1.53

Brault-Dubuc & Mongeau (1989)

13-14

61

42.6

7.2

5.82

10.70

2.05

257

48

1.84

Frank et al (1985)

13-14

78

49.8

-

6.34

11.03

-

221

-

1.74

Hagman et al (1986)

13-14

166

50.5

-

6.40

12.10

-

240

-

1.89

Morrison et al (1980)

13-15

94 (white)

49.8

(M)

6.34

12.06

5 55

242

111

1.90




40 (black)

49.8 (M)

6.34

10.87

5.08

218

102

1.72

Post et al (1987)

13-14

73

43.4

-

5.88

11.60

1.71

267

39

1.97

Sunnegardh et al (1986)

13-14

171

49.8

11.8

6.34

10.8

3.9 (24-h R)i

217

78

1.70



166



6.34

12.3

3.9 (DH)

247

78

1.94

Seone & Roberge (1983)

13-15

103

52.5

-

6.54

10.91

2.23

208

42

1.67

Story (1986)

13-17

139

66.4

-

7.58

9.57

4.94

144

75

1.26i

Woodward et al (1984)

13-14

132

48.0

(Median)

6.21

11.70

(Median)

244

-

1.88

Baghurst & Record (1983)

14-15

77

52.6

(M)

6.55

11.95

-

227

-

1.82

Bergstrom et al (1993)

14-16

155

54.3

10.2

6.67

8.90

2.20

164

41

1.33j

Boulton (1981)

14-16

25

62.3

-

7.26

11.84

3.24

190

60

1.63

Boggio & Klepping (1981)

14-16

73

56.7

12.2

6.96

10.94

2.56

193

45

1.57

Brault-Dubuc & Mongeau (1989)

14-15

49

50.0

8.8

6.36

11.60

2.46

238

49

1.82

Department of Health (1989)

14-15

513c

55.7

9.5

6.77

10.40

2.30

187

41

1.54

Post et al (1987)

14-15

95

48.9

-

6.28

12.20

1.95

249

40

1.94

Woodward et al (1984)

14-15

132

54.0

(Median)

6.65

12.10

(Median)

224

-

1.82

Brault-Dubuc & Mongeau (1989)

15-16

46

57.0

8.34

6.87

12.29

2.84

218

50

1.79

Bull (1985)

15-18

198

62.0

(M)

7.23

10.10

-

163

-

1.40

Cunningham & Lee (1990)

15-18

73

63.9

-

7.37

14.0

4.5

219

70

1.90

Livingstone et al (1992a,b)

15-16

6

56.4

9.1

6.83

11.33

1.88 (WDR)

201

33

1.66






6.83

13.91

2.20 (DH)

247

39

2.04

Michaud et al (1991)

15-19

198

63.7

8.5

7.36

12.39

3.80

195

60

1.68

Pao et al (1985)

15-18

365

61.9

(M)

7.23

10.92

3.55

176

57

1.51

Post et al (1987)

15-16

102

55.6

-

6.77

12.5

3.03

225

54

1.85

Räsänen et al (1985)

15-16

139

58.0

(M)

6.94

11.8

3.70

203

64

1.70

Räsänen et al (1991)

15-16

118

58.0

(M)

6.94

11.8

4.30

203

74

1.70

Strain et al (1994)

15-16

252

59.0

9.4

7.01

13.10

(Median)

222

-

1.87

Woodward et al (1984)

15-16

132

60.0

(Median)

7.09

11.9

(Median)

198

-

1.68

Bergstrom et al (1993)

16-18

211

66.4

8.4

7.55

10.50

2.70

158

41

1.39

Boulton (1981)

16-17

15

65.8

-

7.51

11.84

4.35

180

60

1.50

Brault-Dubuc & Mongeau (1989)

16-17

29

59.8

8.25

7.07

11.72

3.02

198

51

1.66

Crawley (1993)

16-17

2006e

62.7

(M)

7.31

11.40

2.69

182

43

1.56

Morrison et al (1980)

16-19

82 (white)

64.0

(M)

7.37

13.20

4.25

207

67

1.79



14 (black)

64.0

(M)

7.37

13.11

5.57

205

87

1.78

Post et al (1987)

16-17

76

61.0

-

7.16

12.80

3.49

210

57

1.79

Seone & Roberge (1983)

16-18

69

63.9

-

7.37

12.31

2.82

193

44

1.67

Skinner et al (1985)

16-18

114

64.0

(M)

7.38

12.80

5.20

200

81

1.73

Kaufman et al (1982)

17-18

627c

61.3

-

7.18

10.38

3.91

169

64

1.45

Post et al (1987)

17-18

28

63.8

-

7.36

13.00

3.17

204

50

1.77

Livingstone et al (1992b)

18-19

5

78.5

14.1

7.83

10.72

3.46 (WDR)

137

44

1.37j






7.83

15.52

2.26 (DH)

198

29

1.98

Räsänen et al (1985)

18-19

124

65.0

(M)

7.45

12.50

3.20

192

49

1.68

Räsänen et al (1991)

18-19

93

65.0

(M)

7.45

12.50

3.80

192

58

1.68

a BMR = Predicted basal metabolic rate (FAO/WHO/UNU, 1985).
b Mean energy intakes expressed as a multiple of mean predicted BMR.
c Only 30% (for n > 500) or 20% (for n > 1000) used to calculate weighted means in Table 32.
d Median values reported.
e White = white children, black = black children.
f (M) = Median weight for height from Baldwin's standards (FAO/WHO/UNU, 1985).
g WDR = Weighted dietary record, DH = diet history.
h Woodward et al (1984). Total sample size = 1055. Sample sizes for specific groups were not reported but are assumed to be evenly distributed by age group (n = 4) and sex.
i 24-hr R = 24-h recall.
j Excluded from Table 32 because × BMR was < 1.39.

Table 29 Energy intakes of girls aged approximately 10-18 years







Energy intake (El)





Weight (kg)


(MJ/d)

(kJ/kg/d)


Source

Age
(y)

N

Mean

s.d.

BMRa
(MJ/d)

Mean

s.d.

Mean

s.d.

× BMRb

Boggio & Klepping (1981)

9-11

38

31.0

5.0

4.68

7.38

1.53

238

49

1.58

Brault-Dubuc & Mongeau (1989)

10

103

30.9

6.8

4.68

9.02

1.99

300

79

1.93

Cunningham & Lee (1990)

8-12

63

34.7

-

4.87

8.40

2.80

242

81

1.72

Department of Health (1989)

10-11

821c

37.1

7.4

4.99

7.69

1.61

207

43

1.54

Durnin (1984)

10-11

125

34.4

Mediand

4.86

7.70

-

224

-

1.58

Frank et al (1985)

9-11

159

35.0

-

4.89

8.64

-

247

-

1.77

Morrison et al (1990)

10-12

103 (white)f

36.0

(M)e

4.94

8.85

2.90

246

81

1.79


10-12

44 (black)

36.0

(M)

4.94

7.10

4.02

197

112

1.44

Pao et al (1985)

9-11

222

32.0

(M)

5.08

7.69

2.03

240

-

1.51

Seone & Roberge (1983)

10-12

72

37.4

-

5.01

7.91

1.70

211

45

1.58

Tayter et al (1989)

10-12

19

37.0

-

5.01

7.86

-

212

-

1.57

Torun et al (1994)

10-12

72

29.59

3.55

4.63

6.42 (24-h R)g

1.56

218

53

1.39







5.97 (FFQ)

1.76

204

61

1.29h

Adamson et al (1992)

11-12

195

41.9

-

5.24

8.25

1.95

197

-

1.57

Hackett et al (1984)

11-12

212

39.9


5.14

8.27

-

207

-

1.61

Boulton (1981)

11-12

15

41.8

-

5.23

7.53

3.02

180

40

1.44

Brault-Dubuc & Mongeau (1989)

11-12

85

34.5

7.2

4.86

9.16

1.96

274

57

1.88

Jenner et al (1992)

11-12

589c

42.9

-

5.29

7.50

2.10

175

49

1.42

Nelson et al (1990)

11-12

67

38.7

(M)

5.08

7.45

1.20

193

31

1.47

Pérusse et al (1984)

11-17

276

46.4

11.2

5.47

8.47

2.57

183

47

1.55

Boulton (1981)

12-13

7

49.9

-

5.64

6.98

1.61

140

70

1.24h

Brault-Dubuc & Mongeau (1989)

12-13

71

38.9

7.2

5.09

9.55

1.93

253

50

1.88

Cunningham & Lee (1990)

12-15

114

51.7

-

5.74

9.10

3.0

176

58

1.59

Greger et al (1978)

12-13

183 (fall)

48.0

12.0

5.55

8.46

2.45

176

51

1.52



184 (spring)

52.0

30.0

5.75

8.08

2.35

155

45

1.41

Livingstone et al (1992a,b)

12-13

6

44.8

3.9

5.39

8.57

1.59 (WDR)i

191

35

1.59






5.39

12.08

1.47 (DH)

270

33

2.24h

McCoy et al (1984)

12-13

441

44.0

(M)

5.35

8.43

-

192

-

1.58

Pao et al (1985)

12-14

295

46.5

(M)

5.47

7.76

2.58

167

-

1.42

Post et al (1987)

12-13

31

42.2

-

5.25

9.80

1.67

232

40

1.87

Räsänen (1985)

12-13

166

44.0

(M)

5.35

8.20

2.30

186

52

1.53

Räsänen (1991)

12-13

119

44.0

(M)

5.35

8.50

2.60

193

59

1.59

Van den Reek (1986)

12-15

8

47.0

9.0

5.50

6.20

1.94

132

41

1.13h

Strain et al (1994)

12-13

259

44.0

9.0

5.35

9.2

(Median)

209

-

1.72

Tan et al (1989)

12-14

255

46.5

(M)

5.47

7.8

2.1

168

45

1.43

Woodward et al (1984)

12-13

132j

43.0

(Median)

5.29

8.9

(Median)

207

-

1.68

Boulton (1981)

13-14

15

62.4

-

6.28

7.49

2.04

120

40

1.19h

Brault-Dubuc & Mongeau (1989)

13-14

50

44.0

7.99

5.35

9.08

1.62

213

37

1.70

Frank et al (1985)

13-14

70

48.6

-

5.58

8.35

-

172

-

1.50

Hagman et al (1986)

13-14

170

50.3

-

5.67

9.65

-

192

-

1.70

Morrison et al (1980)

13-15

78 (white)

49.3

(M)

5.61

8.55

2.68

173

54

1.52



32 (black)

49.3

(M)

5.61

7.83

2.78

159

56

1.40

Post et al (1987)

13-14

98

48.0

-

5.55

9.60

1.98

200

41

1.73

Seone & Roberge (1983)

13-15

92

50.5

-

5.68

8.61

1.63

170

32

1.52

Sunnegardh et al (1986)

13 14

169

50.9

9.2

5.70

8.10

2.60 (24-h R)

159

51

1.42






5.70

9.90

2.60 (DH)

194

51

1.74

Story (1986)

13-17

138

62.8

-

6.32

7.57

2.89

120

46

1.20h

Woodward et al (1984)

13-14

132

49.0

(Median)

5.60

9.00

(Median)

184

-

1.61

Baghurst et al (1983)

14-15

69

51.4

(M)

5.72

9.36

-

182

-

1.64

Bergstrom et al (1993)

14-16

189

53.7

8.2

5.84

7.10

1.60

132

30

1.22h

Boulton et al (1981)

14-16

27

57.5

-

6.03

6.90

1.84

120

30

1.14h

Boggio & Klepping (1981)

14-16

125

51.2

7.50

5.71

8.48

1.97

166

38

1.49

Brault-Dubuc & Mongeau (1989)

14-15

37

48.3

7.30

5.56

8.96

2.31

191

48

1.61

Department of Health (1989)

14-15

461

53.7

9.20

5.84

7.85

1.74

146

32

1.34

McCoy et al (1984)

14-15

440

51.4

(M)

5.72

8.40

-

163

-

1.47

Post et al (1987)

14-15

129

52.0

-

5.75

9.60

2.27

185

44

1.67

Woodward et al (1981)

14-15

132

51.0

(Median)

5.70

9.2

(Median)

180

-

1.61

Barber et al (1985)

15-18

448

56.4

-

6.00

8.6

-

152

-

1.43

Brault-Dubuc & Mongeau (1989)

15-16

32

49.9

4.98

5.64

9.16

2.17

187

43

1.62

Bull (1985)

15-18

184

53.8

(M)

5.84

7.80

-

145

-

1.34

Cunningham et al (1990)

15-18

110

57.2

-

6.02

8.90

2.50

156

44

1.48

Livingstone et al (1992b)

15-16

6

57.2

9.2

6.02

6.84

1.78 (WDR)

120

31

1.14h






6.02

9.34

1.70 (DH)

163

30

1.55

Michaud et al (1991)

15-19

283

54.6

6.2

5.88

8.40

2.73

154

50

1.43

Pao et al (1985)

15-18

374

53.8

(M)

5.84

7.39

2.73

137

51

1.27h

Post et al (1987)

15-16

130

54.9

-

5.90

9.50

2.28

173

42

1.61

Räsänen et al (1985)

15-16

152

53.0

(M)

5.80

7.60

2.20

143

42

1.31

Räsänen et al (1991)

15-16

112

53.0

-

5.80

8.60

3.30

162

62

1.48

Strain et al (1994)

15-16

254

57.0

8.5

6.01

9.10

(Median)

160

-

1.51

Woodward et al (1984)

15-16

132

52.0

(Median)

5.75

8.50

(Median)

163

-

1.48

Bergstrom et al (1993)

16-18

176

58.4

8.7

6.08

7.10

1.90

122

33

1.17h

Boulton (1981)

16-17

12

55.9

-

5.95

6.15

1.41

110

30

1.03h

Brault-Dubuc & Mongeau (1989)

16-17

18

52.0

5.60

5.75

9.11

2.18

178

42

1.58

Crawley (1993)

16-17

2754c

54.0

(M)

5.85

8.80

2.10

163

39

1.50

Morrison et al (1980)

16-19

71 (white)

54.0

(M)

5.85

8.68

3.41

161

63

1.48



13 (black)

54.0

(M)

5.85

8.10

5.00

150

93

1.38

Post et al (1987)

16-17

99

57.4

-

6.03

9.30

1.99

162

35

1.54

Seone & Roberge (1983)

16-18

65

54.4

-

5.87

7.96

2.18

146

40

1.36

Skinner et al (1985)

16-18

111

54.0

(M)

5.85

8.60

3.77

159

70

1.47

Kaufman et al (1992)

17-18

551c

55 7

_

5.94

6.71

2.89

120

52

1.13h

Post et al (1987)

17-18

32

57.9

-

6.05

9.80

2.83

169

49

1.62

Livingstone et al (1992b)

18-19

5

63.9

16.2

5.98

7.84

1.74 (WDR)

123

27

1.31






5.98

10.13

1.58 (DH)

159

25

1.69

Räsänen et al (1985)

18-19

148

54.4

-

5.87

7.70

2.50

142

46

1.31

Räsänen et al (1991)

18-19

116

54.4

-

5.87

7.40

2.50

136

46

1.26h

a BMR = Predicted basal metabolic rate (FAO WHO/UNU, 1985).
b Mean energy intakes expressed as a multiple of mean predicted BMR.
c Only 30% (for n > 500) or 20% (for n > 1000) used to calculate weighted means in Table 33.
d Median values reported.
e (M) = Median weight for height from Baldwin's standards [FAO/WHO/UNU, 1985]
f White = white children, black = black children.
g 24-h R = 24-hour recall, FFQ = food frequency questionnaire.
h Excluded from Table 33 because × BMR was < 1.30 or > 2.10.
i WDR = weighed dietary record, DH = diet history.
j Woodward et al (1981). Total sample size = 1055. Sample sizes for specific groups were not reported but are assumed to be evenly distributed by age group (n = 4) and sex.

Table 30 Combined energy intakes for male and female subjects aged 5-10 years







Energy intake





Weight (kg)


(MJ/d)

(kJ/kg/d)


Source

Age (y)

N

Mean

s.d.

BMRa
(MJ/d)

Mean

s.d.

Mean

s.d.

× BMRb

Ho et al (1988)

5-6

60

17.5

-

3.73

5.36

-

312

-

1.44

Morgan & Zabik (1981)

5-6

162

20.5

(M)c

4.00

8.09

-

395

-

2.02

Pao et al (1985)

6-8

428

22.4

(M)

4.18

7.17

1.89

320

-

1.72

Salas et al (1990)

6-9

60

23.8

(M)

4.31

8.63

1.60

363

67

2.00

Morgan & Zabik (1981)

7-8

168

23.6

(M)

4.29

8.75

-

371

-

2.04

Persson & Calgren (1984)

8-9

(Total sample of 477 including 4-5 olds)

27.6

(M)

4.67

8.22

1.56

298

57

1.76

Morgan & Zabik (1981)

9-10

165

30.1

(M)

4.91

9.30

-

309

-

1.89

a BMR = Predicted basal metabolic rate (FAO WHO/UNU, 1985).
b Mean energy intakes expressed as a multiple of mean predicted BMR.
c (M) = Median (NCHS) weights at mid-year (FAO/WHO/UNU, 1985).

Table 31 Energy intakes of subjects (sexes combined) aged 1-5 years, and of boys and girls aged 5-10 years compared with current FAO/WHO/UNU (1985) estimated requirements




Energy intakea







(MJ/d)

(kJ/kg/d)

(kcal/kg/d)

× BMR

FAO/WHO/UNU (1985) requirements

Percentage difference (%)b

Age (y)

Studies n

Subjects n

Mean

s.d.

Mean

s.d.

Mean

s.d.

Mean

(MJ/d)

(kJ/kg/d)

(MJ/d)

(kJ/kg/d)

Sexes combined

1-2

12

927

4.17

0.82

375

74

90

18

1.54

4.80

439

- 13.1

- 14.6




(Range 3.39-4.96)

(Range 325-451)



(Range 1.38-1.79)





2-3

11

835

4.92

1.08

367

81

88

19

1.51

5.70

418

-13.7

-12.2




(Range 4.03-5.80)

(Range 310-407)



(Range 1.30-1.76)





3-5

22

2460

5.76

1.15

345

67

82

16

1.53

6.50

397

-11.4

-13.1




(Range 4.60-6.90)

(Range 277-408)



(Range 1.31-1.80)





Boys

5-6

6

273c

7.06

1.05

363

53

87

13

1.80

7.57

385

- 6.7

- 5.7




(Range 5.36-8.09)

(Range 312-395)



(Range 1.44-2.02)





6-7

4

544

7.82

1.88

360

87

86

21

1.90

7.94

368

-1.5

-2.2




(Range 7.17-8.91)

(Range 320-438)



(Range 1.92-2.22)





7-8

6

436

8.41

2.29

352

100

84

24

1.94

8.32

347

+ 1.1

+ 1.4




(Range 6.97-9.58)

(Range 293-401)



(Range 1.62-2.14)





8-9

7

996

8.13

1.79

289

62

69

15

1.72

8.66

322

-6.1

- 10.2




(Range 7.45-9.43)

(Range 248-375)



(Range 1.64-2.11)





9-10

7

1085

8.75

1.81

314

66

75

16

1.83

8.99

301

-2.7

+4.3




(Range 7.10-9.74)

(Range 280-364)



(Range 1.64-2.08)





Girls

5-6

6

288

6.64

0.96

349

50

83

12

1.72

6.81

368

-2.5

-5.2




(Range 5.36-8.09)

(Range 312-395)



(Range 1.44-2.02)





6 7

4

556

7.21

1.52

342

66

82

16

1.78

7.11

347

+1.4

-1.4




(Range 6.80-7.86)

(Range 320-416)



(Range 1.70-2.04)





7-8

6

402

8.05

2.13

343

93

82

22

1.88

7.40

318

+8.8

+7.9




(Range 6.08-8.25)

(Range 255-398)



(Range 1.41-2.04)





8-9

7

1026

7.47

1.69

266

62

64

15

1.58

7.65

268

-2.4

-0.7




(Range 6.92-8.21)

(Range 236-358)



(Range 1.50-1.92)





9-10

6

469

8.14

1.75

283

67

68

16

1.68

7.86

259

+3 6

+9.3




(Range 7.62-8.38)

(Range 220-321)



(Range 1.43-1.83)





a Energy intake data (MJ/d, kJ/kg/d, × BMR) expressed as weighted means. s.d. estimated from


(n = number of studies). For studies where s.d. was not reported the mean CV of other studies in that group was assumed.

b Percentage difference = (energy intake - FAO/WHO/UNU estimated requirement)/estimated requirement × 100.
c Sample sizes for 5-10 year olds include studies listed in Table 30 and assume equal numbers of boys and girls.

Table 32 Energy intakes of boys aged 10-18 years compared with current FAO/WHO/UNU (1985) estimated requirements




Energy intakea










(MJ/d)

(kJ/kg/d)

(kcal/kg/d)

× BMR

FAO/WHO/UNU (1985) requirements

Percentage difference (%)b

Age (y)

Studies n

Subjects n

Mean

s.d.

Mean

s.d.

Mean

s.d.

Mean

(MJ/d)

(kJ/kg/d)

× BMR

(MJ/d)

(kJ/kg/d)

× BMR

10-11

10

1981

8.86

2.62

255

76

61

18

1.68

8.95

278

1.76

-1.0

-8.3

-4.5




(Range 7.38-10.58)

(Range 222-344)



(Range 1.41-2.12)







11-12

7

1203

8.74

1.97

220

58

53

14

1.55

9.37

254

1.73

-6.7

-13.4

-10.4




(Range 7.74-10.26)

(Range 205-305)



(Range 1.43-1.96)







12-13

9

1167

10.47

2.59

240

61

57

15

1.76

9.66

237

1.69

+8.4

+1.3

+4.1




(Range 9.49-11.0)

(Range 216-305)



(Range 1.60-2.12)







13-14

10

1023

11.37

3.28

233

64

56

15

1.80

10.20

217

1.67

+11.5

+7.4

+7.2




(Range 10.00-12.10)

(Range 190-267)



(Range 1.53-1.97)







14-15

8

1268

11.11

2.50

208

50

50

12

1.70

10.83

206

1.65

+2.6

+0.1

+2.4




(Range 10.40-12.20)

(Range 187-249)



(Range 1.54-1.94)







15-16

7

795

12.34

3.25

212

57

51

14

1.75

11.29

195

1.62

+9.3

+8.7

+8.0




(Range 11.33-13.10)

(Range 198-225)



(Range 1.66-1.87)







16-17

10

3143

11.49

3.51

184

55

44

13

1.57

11.71

187

1.60

-1.9

-1.6

-1.9




(Range 10.10-14.00)

(Range 163-219)



(Range 1.40-1.90)







17-18

5

968

11.22

3.53

179

56

43

13

1.55

12.00

184

1.60

-6.5

-2.7

-3.1




(Range 10.38-13.20)

(Range 169-207)



(Range 1.45-1.79)







a Energy intake data (MJ/d, kJ/kg/d, × BMR) expressed as weighted means. s.d. estimated from


(n = number of studies). For studies where s.d. was not reported the mean CV of other studies in that group was assumed.
b Percentage difference = (Energy intake - FAO/WHO/UNU estimated requirement)/estimated requirement × 100.

Table 33 Energy intakes of girls aged 10-18 years compared with current FAO/WHO/UNU (1985) estimated requirements




Energy intakea










(MJ/d)

(kJ/kg/d)

(kcal/kg/d)

× BMR

FAO/WHO/UNU (1985) requirements

Percentage difference (%)b

Age (y)

Studies n

Subjects n

Mean

s.d.

Mean

s.d

Mean

s.d.

Mean

(MJ/d)

(kJ/kg/d)

× BMR

(MJ/d)

(kJ/kg/d)

× BMR

10-11

9

1750

7.94

2.46

226

72

54

17

1.60

7.99

237

1.65

-0.6

-4.6

-3.0




(Range 7.09-9.02)

(Range 197-300)



(Range 1.44-1.93)







11-12

8

1254

7.81

2.16

194

45

46

11

1.51

8.28

215

1.63

-5.7

-9.8

-7.4




(Range 6.54-9.16)

(Range 175-274)



(Range 1.41-1.88)







12-13

11

2142

8.41

2.16

186

53

44

13

1.55

8.57

196

1.60

-1.9

-5.1

-3.1




(Range 7.80-9.80)

(Range 168-253)



(Range 1.42-1.88)







13-14

9

1005

8.88

2.39

179

48

43

11

1.58

8.87

181

1.58

0.0

-1.1

0.0




(Range 7.83-9.65)

(Range 159-213)



(Range 1.40-1.73)







14-15

8

1669

8.47

2.19

166

42

40

10

1.49

9.03

176

1.57

-6.2

-5.7

-5.1




(Range 7.85-9.60)

(Range 146 191)



(Range 1.34-1.67)







15-16

7

818

8.72

2.39

161

45

38

11

1.48

8.95

169

1.54

-2.6

-4.7

-3.9




(Range 7.60-9.50)

(Range 143-187)



(Range 1.31-1.62)







16-17

8

3789

8.62

2.53

156

46

37

11

1.46

8.91

166

1.53

-3.3

-6.0

-4.6




(Range 7.80-9.30)

(Range 145-178)



(Range 1.34-1.58)







17-18

3

399

8.55

3.32

156

61

37

15

1.45

8.95

165

1.52

-4.4

-5.4

-4.6




(Range 8.10-9.80)

(Range 150-169)



(Range 1.38-1.62)







a Energy intake data (MJ/d, kJ/kg/d, × BMR) expressed as weighted means. s.d. estimated from


(n = number of studies). For studies where s.d. was not reported the mean CV of other studies in that group was assumed.
b Percentage difference = (energy intake - FAO/WHO/UNU estimated requirement)/estimated requirement × 100.


Figure 11a
Energy intake compared with expenditure estimated by doubly labeled water and heart rate monitoring, including stunted and underweight children, and current recommendations: boys (solid line: mean energy intake; interrupted line: FAO/WHO/UNU recommendations).


Figure 11b
Energy intake compared with expenditure estimated by doubly labeled water and heart rate monitoring, including stunted and underweight children, and current recommendations: girls (solid line: mean energy intake; interrupted line: FAO/WHO/UNU recommendations).


Figure 12
Comparison of average dietary energy intakes of boys and girls.