Comparison of energy requirement estimation using activity record or accelerometer with doubly labeled water method in collegiate male sprinters

• Published in: Clinical nutrition ESPEN Vol. 61; pp. 295 - 301
• Main Authors: Shimamura, Yuki, Takemura, Ryusei, Iwanami, Kensuke, Yamamoto, Daisuke, Sagayama, Hiroyuki, Iwayama, Kaito
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Elsevier Ltd 01.06.2024
• Subjects: Accelerometry - methods; Athletes; Body Composition; Doubly labeled water; Energy Intake; Energy Metabolism; Estimated energy requirements; Humans; Japan; Male; Nutritional Requirements; Running - physiology; Sprinter; Water; Young Adult; Japan; Doubly labeled water; Estimated energy requirements; Sprinter
• ISSN: 2405-4577; 2405-4577
• DOI: 10.1016/j.clnesp.2024.03.038

Track and field sprinters must obtain an optimal body composition to improve sprint performance. To successfully change body composition, it is important to evaluate the estimated energy requirements (EER) and fluctuations in total energy expenditure (TEE). However, methods to accurately evaluate the EER and TEE in sprinters have not been fully investigated. The aim of this study was to compare currently used methods with the doubly labeled water (DLW) method, which is currently the gold standard for evaluating EER and TEE. Ten male collegiate sprinters participated in the study. We evaluated TEEDLW and compared it with the EER calculated using two equations used by the National Institute of Health and Nutrition (NIHN) and the Japan Institute of Sports Sciences (JISS). In addition, we evaluated the TEE from the activity record (AR) and triaxial accelerometer (ACC). TEEDLW (3172 ± 415 kcal/day) was not significantly different from EERNIHN (p = 0.076) or EERJISS (p = 0.967). In addition, there were no significant differences between TEEDLW and TEEAR (p = 0.218). However, two accelerometer-derived equations used to evaluate TEE were found to have underestimated (2783 ± 377 kcal/day, p < 0.001) and overestimated (3405 ± 369 kcal/day, p = 0.009) the TEE. Our results suggest that EERNIHN and EERJISS may be useful in evaluating the EER of collegiate male sprinters on a group basis, and AR may be more accurate than ACC in evaluating the TEE. These results may be helpful when considering nutritional support for male collegiate sprinters.