Moe · The Journal of nutrition 1994 · narrative review · n=?

Future directions for energy requirements and food energy values.

Cited 19 times in the scientific literature.

Level 5 - mechanism / opinion, no new human data

Narrative review and expert perspective without original human data or systematic review methodology.

PubMed 8089742 · doi:10.1093/jn/124.suppl_9.1738S · record verified 2026-08-27

What was done

This narrative review assesses historical approaches for determining food energy values (such as Atwater specific factors) and human energy requirements. It discusses the shift from population-level dietary planning to individualized diet formulation, the validation of population estimates using doubly labelled water, and the necessity of new analytical approaches for modern foods and food substitutes.

What was found

The abstract reports no numerical findings or empirical experimental data. It qualitatively notes that WHO and NRC population energy estimates based on total energy expenditure to basal metabolic rate ratios are validated by 10-14 day doubly labelled water studies, but individual predictions require accounting for body composition, physical effort quantification, and variations in metabolizable energy during non-steady-state conditions.

Why it matters

The paper highlights the limitations of using historical population-level metabolizable energy averages for individualized nutrition and novel food formulations.

Limits

This is a narrative review presenting expert commentary without original empirical data, quantitative outcomes, sample sizes, or systematic search methodology.

Cited by