» Articles » PMID: 11033980

Critical Evaluation of Energy Intake Using the Goldberg Cut-off for Energy Intake:basal Metabolic Rate. A Practical Guide to Its Calculation, Use and Limitations

Overview
Date 2000 Oct 18
PMID 11033980
Citations 562
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: To re-state the principles underlying the Goldberg cut-off for identifying under-reporters of energy intake, re-examine the physiological principles and update the values to be substituted into the equation for calculating the cut-off, and to examine its use and limitations.

Results: New values are suggested for each element of the Goldberg equation. The physical activity level (PAL) for comparison with energy intake:basal metabolic rate (EI:BMR) should be selected to reflect the population under study; the PAL value of 1.55 x BMR is not necessarily the value of choice. The suggested value for average within-subject variation in energy intake is 23% (unchanged), but other sources of variation are increased in the light of new data. For within-subject variation in measured and estimated BMR, 4% and 8.5% respectively are suggested (previously 2.5% and 8%), and for total between-subject variation in PAL, the suggested value is 15% (previously 12.5%). The effect of these changes is to widen the confidence limits and reduce the sensitivity of the cut-off.

Conclusions: The Goldberg cut-off can be used to evaluate the mean population bias in reported energy intake, but information on the activity or lifestyle of the population is needed to choose a suitable PAL energy requirement for comparison. Sensitivity for identifying under-reporters at the individual level is limited. In epidemiological studies information on home, leisure and occupational activity is essential in order to assign subjects to low, medium or high PAL levels before calculating the cut-offs. In small studies, it is desirable to measure energy expenditure, or to calculate individual energy requirements, and to compare energy intake directly with energy expenditure.

Citing Articles

Food Group Consumption and Nutrient Intake by Breastfeeding Women: Comparison to Current Dietary Guidelines and Nutrient Recommendations.

Jin Y, Coad J, Brough L Nutrients. 2025; 17(3).

PMID: 39940233 PMC: 11819999. DOI: 10.3390/nu17030375.


Which dietary shifts to improve nutritional quality while reducing diet cost in the French West Indies?.

Perignon M, Gazan R, Lamani V, Colombet Z, Mejean C, Vieux F Nutr J. 2025; 24(1):16.

PMID: 39875910 PMC: 11773920. DOI: 10.1186/s12937-024-01068-3.


Predictive equation derived from 6,497 doubly labelled water measurements enables the detection of erroneous self-reported energy intake.

Bajunaid R, Niu C, Hambly C, Liu Z, Yamada Y, Aleman-Mateo H Nat Food. 2025; 6(1):58-71.

PMID: 39806218 PMC: 11772230. DOI: 10.1038/s43016-024-01089-5.


Exploring Dietary- and Disease-Related Influences on Flatulence and Fecal Odor Perception in Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

Pueschel L, Nothacker S, Kuhn L, Wedemeyer H, Lenzen H, Wiestler M J Clin Med. 2025; 14(1.

PMID: 39797221 PMC: 11720819. DOI: 10.3390/jcm14010137.


Dietary sources of free, added, and total sugars in Swedish adolescents.

Wanselius J, Lindroos A, Moraeus L, Patterson E, Berg C, Larsson C Eur J Nutr. 2024; 64(1):57.

PMID: 39738881 PMC: 11685256. DOI: 10.1007/s00394-024-03568-8.