1918
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.4.12.370
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Biometric Study of Human Basal Metabolism

Abstract: PHYSIOLOGY: HARRIS AND BENEDICT tance less than 8ep from the point P, then X and P lie together in a connected sub-set of M every point of which is at a distance of less than e from the point P. The set M is said to be uniformly connected im kleinen if for every positive number e there exists a positive number 68 such that if P1 and P2 are two points of M at a distance apart less than 58 then they lie together in a connected sub-set of M every point of which is at a distance of less than e from P1.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

39
2,093
9
104

Year Published

1920
1920
2012
2012

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2,231 publications
(2,245 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
39
2,093
9
104
Order By: Relevance
“…Inclusion of FFM as a predictor increased both the R and the precision of prediction, but there was virtually no difference between FFM via the four-compartment model (R 0.893, SEE 433 kJaday) and that predicted from skinfold thicknesses (R 0.886, SEE 440 kJaday). The regression equations of Harris & Benedict (1919) and Scho®eld (1985) all overestimated the mean RMR of our subjects by 518 ± 600 kJaday (P`0.001) and these errors were relatively constant across the range of measured RMR. The equations of Hayter & Henry (1994) and Piers et al (1997) only produced physiologically signi®cant errors at the lower end of our range of measurement.…”
mentioning
confidence: 56%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Inclusion of FFM as a predictor increased both the R and the precision of prediction, but there was virtually no difference between FFM via the four-compartment model (R 0.893, SEE 433 kJaday) and that predicted from skinfold thicknesses (R 0.886, SEE 440 kJaday). The regression equations of Harris & Benedict (1919) and Scho®eld (1985) all overestimated the mean RMR of our subjects by 518 ± 600 kJaday (P`0.001) and these errors were relatively constant across the range of measured RMR. The equations of Hayter & Henry (1994) and Piers et al (1997) only produced physiologically signi®cant errors at the lower end of our range of measurement.…”
mentioning
confidence: 56%
“…The two most frequently used RMR prediction equations in Australia are those of Harris & Benedict (1919) and Scho®eld (1985). The former were generated on 239 adult American males and females and published in 1919.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The importance of estimating energy requirements has been well documented and many researchers have attempted to develop prediction equations for use when direct measurement is not possible (Harris & Benedict, 1919;Schofield, 1985;Owen et al, 1986Owen et al, , 1987Mifflin et al, 1990;Vinken et al, 1999). This study aimed to determine current methods used by Australian dietitians for estimating energy requirements of patients and the variability of the outcomes of the calculations.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Subjects were placed on an isocaloric diet consisting of 15% protein, 55% carbohydrate, and 30% fat, with daily intake of 3500 mg sodium, 800 to 1200 mg calcium, and at least 25 g of dietary fiber (1 g fiber/100 kcal). Initially, energy expenditure was estimated using the Harris-Benedict equation [20] times an activity factor based on the individual's reported activity level. Energy was provided at a level designed to maintain body weight, which was monitored daily, within 1 kg of pre-bed rest weight.…”
Section: Diet and Dietary Assessmentsmentioning
confidence: 99%