The metabolisable energy value of foods

Miller, D. S.; Judd, Patricia A.

doi:10.1002/jsfa.2740350118

Cited by 31 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In fact, in the present study the ME contents of sugarbeet fibre and inulin were 10⋅7 and 13⋅0 kJ/g respectively. However, the Southgate & Durnin (1970) and Miller & Judd (1984) predictive equations assume a strong depressive effect of NSP on food digestibility and resulted in 3⋅2 % and 9⋅6 % underestimation of ME content for diets B and I respectively, whereas agreement was satisfactory for diet C with the Southgate & Durnin (1970) equation (Fig. 2).…”

Section: Digestible and Metabolizable Energy Content Of Diets And Nspmentioning

confidence: 97%

Net energy value of non-starch polysaccharide isolates (sugarbeet fibre and commercial inulin) and their impact on nutrient digestive utilization in healthy human subjects

et al. 1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The energy value of NSP has been expressed as their metabolizable energy (ME) content. The aim of the present study was to determine whether differences in ME and net energy (NE) contents were similar for insoluble and soluble NSP. Nine healthy young men were offered three diets according to a Latin-square design (3 × 3) with three repetitions: diet C (control), diet B (control þ 50 g sugarbeet fibre/d) and diet I (control þ 50 g commercial inulin/d). After a 16 d adaptation period to NSP isolate, food intake was controlled (duplicate meal method) and faeces and urine were collected for 8 d. A period of 60 h was devoted to measurement of energy expenditure (EE) by whole-body indirect calorimetry. NSP-isolate ingestion induced significant increases in the number of defecations and stool weight resulting from increases in water, DM and microbial mass excretion. After deduction of microbial N, differences in faecal N excretion between diets were not significantly different. Urinary N excretion was slightly decreased by sugarbeet fibre or commercial inulin ingestion but the N balances for the diets were not significantly different. Diet energy, N and lipid apparent digestibilities decreased by only 1-2 %. Commercial inulin was entirely fermented and fermentability of sugarbeet fibre averaged 0⋅886 (SD 0⋅117). Sugarbeet fibre and commercial inulin ME values averaged 10⋅7 (SD 1⋅2) and 13⋅0 (SD 2⋅3) kJ/g DM respectively. NSP-isolate ingestion caused significant (sugarbeet) and nonsignificant (inulin) increases in daily EE. The maintenance NE contents of sugarbeet fibre and inulin averaged 5 . 0 (SD 5⋅0) and 11⋅9 (SD 1⋅3) kJ/g DM respectively. Differences in maintenance NE contents of NSP isolates were much greater than differences in ME values. Non-starch polysaccharides: Sugarbeet fibre: Inulin: Indirect calorimetryBritish Journal of Nutrition (1998), 80, 343-352 343 Abbreviations: EE, energy expenditure; ME, metabolizable energy; MEm, maintenance ME requirement; NE, net energy; VFA, volatile fatty acids.

show abstract

Section: Digestible and Metabolizable Energy Content Of Diets And Nspmentioning

confidence: 97%

Net energy value of non-starch polysaccharide isolates (sugarbeet fibre and commercial inulin) and their impact on nutrient digestive utilization in healthy human subjects

et al. 1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Apparent protein digestibility, nitrogen retention and net protein utilisation were significantly lower for the D. rotundata diet by about 12,19 and 27%, respectively. Miller and Judd (1984) DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The nutritional differences between the flours is reflected mainly by higher apparent protein digestibility and nitrogen retention values for the D. dumetorum diet. The apparent digestibility of carbohydrate was similar for both diets despite a difference in the intestinal transit time.…”

Section: Biological Evaluation Of Dietsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…sample) from the experiment were compared to those calculated from the equation ofMiller and Judd (1984) as follows: Em =[(0.95 -%F) x Ec] -(7.5 x %N)…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Digestibility and metabolism of flour from two yam species (D. Dumetorum and D. Rotundata) in school age children

Lape¹,

Egbe²,

Trèche

1995

Ecology of Food and Nutrition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The digestibility and metabolism in school age children of diets from two yam species (D. dumetorum and D. rotundata) are compared. Ten boys aged 65 to 84 months, with heights and weights close to NCHS reference values, were fed meals deriving half of their protein and almost all of their starch from either of the two yam species. After 6 days of adaptation, food intake, stool and urine were collected for 4 days and analysed. Feeding diet based on D. dumetorum resulted in higher apparent protein digestibility, net protein retention and net protein utilisation of 63.5, 46.2 and 29.8, respectively, compared to 56.1, 36.1 and 20.6 for D. rotundatabased diet.

show abstract

“…Instead of implicitly estimating this element within food energy factors, it might be measured directly as suggested previously (Merrill & Watt, 1973;Southgate, 1975;Allison & Senti, 1983;Miller & Judd, 1984;Livesey, 1991b). However, this is less important than other improvements mentioned below.…”

Section: Gross Energymentioning

confidence: 99%

A perspective on food energy standards for nutrition labelling

Livesey

2001

Br J Nutr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Food energy values used for nutrition labelling and other purposes are traditionally based on the metabolisable energy (ME) standard, which has recent support from Warwick & Baines (2000). By reference to current practices and published data, the present review critically examines the ME standard and support for it. Theoretical and experimental evidence on the validity of ME and alternatives are considered. ME and alternatives are applied to 1189 foods to assess outcomes. The potential impact of implementing a better standard in food labelling, documentation of energy requirements and food tables, and its impact on users including consumers, trade and professionals, are also examined. Since 1987 twenty-two expert reviews, reports and regulatory documents have fully or partly dropped the ME standard. The principal reason given is that ME only approximates energy supply by nutrients, particularly fermentable carbohydrates. ME has been replaced by net metabolisable energy (NME), which accounts for the efficiency of fuel utilisation in metabolism. Data collated from modern indirect calorimetry studies in human subjects show NME to be valid and applicable to each source of food energy, not just carbohydrates. NME is robust; two independent approaches give almost identical results (human calorimetry and calculation of free energy or net ATP yield) and these approaches are well supported by studies in animals. By contrast, the theoretical basis of ME is totally flawed. ME incompletely represents the energy balance equation, with substantial energy losses in a missing term. In using NME factors an account is made of frequent over-approximations by the ME system, up to 25 % of the NME for individual foods among 1189 foods in British tables, particularly low-energy-density traditional foods. A new simple general factor system is possible based on NME, yet the minimal experimental methodology is no more than that required for ME. By accounting for unavailable carbohydrate the new factor system appears as specific to foods as the USA's food-specific Atwater system, while it is more representative of energy supply from food components. The NME content of foods is readily calculable as the sum from fat (37 kJ/g), protein (13 kJ/g), available carbohydrate (16 kJ/g), fully-fermentable carbohydrate (8 kJ/g), alcohol (26 kJ/g) and other components. Obstacles to the implementation of NME appear to be subjective and minor. In conclusion, the ME standard is at best an approximate surrogate for NME, and inadequately approximates food energy values for the purpose of informing the consumer about the impact on energy balance of the energy supply for equal intake of individual foods. NME is superior to ME for nutrition labelling and other purposes.Food energy: Food labelling: Net metabolisable energy Warwick & Baines (2000) propose that energy factors used for food labelling and other purposes should be based on a definition of metabolisable energy (ME). To some experts this proposal would seem sound, but to others it may be surprising....

show abstract

The metabolisable energy value of foods

Cited by 31 publications

References 9 publications

Net energy value of non-starch polysaccharide isolates (sugarbeet fibre and commercial inulin) and their impact on nutrient digestive utilization in healthy human subjects

Net energy value of non-starch polysaccharide isolates (sugarbeet fibre and commercial inulin) and their impact on nutrient digestive utilization in healthy human subjects

Digestibility and metabolism of flour from two yam species (D. Dumetorum and D. Rotundata) in school age children

A perspective on food energy standards for nutrition labelling

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About