The Experts below are selected from a list of 26820 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Joan A Frantz - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Infant formula with Protein-Energy Ratio of 1.7 g/100 kcal is adequate but may not be safe.
Journal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition, 1999Co-Authors: Samuel J. Fomon, Ekhard E. Ziegler, Steven E. Nelson, Ronald R. Rogers, Joan A FrantzAbstract:Background: An adequate Protein-Energy Ratio of infant formulas has been defined as one that permits growth similar to that of infants fed relatively generous Protein-Energy Ratios, and serum concentRations of albumin and urea nitrogen no less than those observed in breast-fed infants. A safe Ratio has been defined as one with no detectable adverse effects. The hypothesis was that a Protein-Energy Ratio of 1.7 g/100 kcal is adequate and safe. Methods: Healthy male infants were fed Formula 1.7, a milk-based formula, as the sole source of Energy from the 8th to the 112th day of life. Weight, length, and Energy intake were measured ; serum albumin and urea nitrogen were determined; and the results were compared with data from appropriate reference groups of infants. Results: Energy intake from 8 through 55 days was significantly higher than that of infants in the formula-fed reference group. Gain in weight was significantly more than that of the formula-fed reference group or of a breast-fed reference group, whereas gain in length was similar to that of the formula-fed reference group. Body mass index was significantly higher than that of either reference group, suggesting more fat accumulation in infants fed Formula 1.7. Plasma concentRations of albumin and urea nitrogen were similar to those of the breast-fed reference group. Conclusion: Infants fed Formula 1.7 received adequate intakes of Protein. Because of the possibility that ad libitum feeding of diets with moderately inadequate Protein-Energy Ratios is associated with increased food intake leading to excess weight gain, it is not possible to conclude that a Protein-Energy Ratio of 1.7 g/100 kcal is safe.
-
What is the safe Protein-Energy Ratio for infant formulas?
The American journal of clinical nutrition, 1995Co-Authors: Samuel J. Fomon, Ekhard E. Ziegler, Steven E. Nelson, Joan A FrantzAbstract:Infants eat primarily to satisfy Energy needs and the safe amount of Protein in infant formulas (ie, the amount adequate for nearly all infants) is therefore expressed as the Protein-Energy Ratio. We studied male infants aged 8-112 d fed milk-based formulas. One group (experimental group) was fed formulas that provided Protein-Energy Ratios of 3.73 g/MJ (1.56 g/100 kcal) from 8 to 27 d of age, gradually decreasing to 2.99 g/MJ (1.25 g/100 kcal) from 84 to 111 d of age. Growth rates and serum albumin and urea nitrogen of these infants were compared with those of a concurrently studied control group and a previously studied large reference group. Gains in weight and concentRations of serum albumin of the three groups were not significantly different. Gains in length were significantly less for the experimental group than for the reference group. Serum urea nitrogen was significantly less in the experimental group than in the control group or reference group. We conclude that the Protein-Energy Ratios of the experimental formula diet were below the safe level. Because the decrease in growth rate of the experimental group was rather small (demonstrable only in comparison with the large reference group), and because serum albumin of the experimental group increased with age as in normally nourished infants, we suspect that the safe Protein-Energy Ratio of infant formulas lies closer to the Ratios fed to the experimental group than to the Ratio [approximately 5.0 g/MJ (2.1 g/100 kcal)] in currently marketed milk-based formulas.
E Navarro - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
physiological processes modulate acute and chronic responses to dietary Protein Energy Ratio fluctuations in individuals and families of manila clam ruditapes philippinarum selected for variable growth rates
Aquaculture, 2020Co-Authors: Kristina Arranz, Inaki Urrutxurtu, I Ibarrola, Miren Bego Urrutia, C Saavedra, David Cordero, Josu Perezlarruscain, E NavarroAbstract:Abstract A range of phenotypes differing in growth rate were designed in the Manila clam by combining separate breeding families with size segregation within each family to constitute fast and slow growing groups. Physiological components of the Energy budget and scope for growth (SFG) were then compared between these different phenotypes during the acute and chronic responses to two diets that were isocaloric but differed by 3-fold in their Protein/Energy (P/E) Ratios. Both diets were based on the microalgae Rhodomonas lens obtained in either the exponential or the stationary phase of culture. The aims of the study were 1) to test the effects of these changes in food composition on growth rate, estimated as the balance of physiological processes of Energy gain and loss integrated in the SFG; and 2) to assess the extent to which physiological adjustments to diet composition are modulated in order to fulfill the variable Energy requirements posed by the occurrence of differential growth phenotypes. Growth performance improved with the high-Protein (N+) diet for the different family * growth group combinations, with SFG values exceeding by 50% on average the values of the low-Protein (N-) diet. Digestive constraints resulted in reduced absorption efficiency with the N-diet, which tended to cancel out the potential benefits of adjusting feeding rates in order to compensate for a low Protein Ration. Endogenous differences in growth rate associated with segregated phenotypes were mainly accounted for by differences in Energy acquisition, with feeding rates differing by ~ 2-fold between fast and slow growers. Additionally, significant differences were recorded for the unitary metabolic costs (i.e., per unit of metabolizable Energy), indicating that higher metabolic efficiency was also a component of faster growth.
Peter Vilhelm Skov - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
effects of dietary Energy density and digestible Protein Energy Ratio on de novo lipid synthesis from dietary Protein in gilthead sea bream sparus aurata quantified with stable isotopes
British Journal of Nutrition, 2013Co-Authors: Kim Schon Ekmann, Johanne Dalsgaard, Jorgen Holm, Patrick J Campbell, Peter Vilhelm SkovAbstract:The effects of varying dietary digestible Protein (DP) and digestible Energy (DE) content on performance, nutrient retention efficiency and the de novo lipogenesis of DP origin were examined in triplicate groups of gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata), fed nine extruded experimental diets. In order to trace the metabolic fate of dietary Protein, 1·8 % fishmeal was replaced with isotope-labelled whole Protein (>98 % 13C). The experiment was divided into a growth period lasting 89 d, growing fish from approximately 140 to 350 g, followed by a 3 d period feeding isotope-enriched diets. Isotope Ratio MS was applied to quantify the 13C enrichment of whole-body lipid from dietary DP. Between 18·6 and 22·4 % of the carbon derived from Protein was recovered in the lipid fraction of the fish, and between 21·6 and 30·3 % of the total lipid deposited could be attributed to dietary Protein. DP retention was significantly improved by reductions in dietary DP:DE Ratio, while the opposite was true for apparent digestible lipid retention. Both overall DE retention and whole-body proximate composition of whole fish were largely unaffected by dietary treatments, while feed conversion Ratios were significantly improved with increasing dietary Energy density. The present study suggests that gilthead sea bream efficiently utilises dietary nutrients over a wide range of DP:DE Ratios and Energy densities. In addition, they appear to endeavour a certain body Energy status rather than maximising growth, which in the present trial was apparent from inherently high de novo lipogenesis originating from DP.
Stephen A. Watts - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
effects of dietary carbohydrate on weight gain and gonad production in small sea urchins lytechinus variegatus
Aquaculture Nutrition, 2017Co-Authors: Anna M Taylor, Laura E. Heflin, Addison L. Lawrence, Mickie L. Powell, Stephen A. WattsAbstract:In experiment 1, juvenile sea urchins (n = 80, 0.088 ± 0.001 g wet weight and 5.72 ± 0.04 mm diameter) were held individually and fed ad libitum one of three semi-purified formulated diets (n = 16 individuals treatment-1). In the diets, Protein was held constant (310g kg-1 dry, as fed) and carbohydrate level varied (190, 260, or 380 g kg-1 dry, as fed). Wet weights were measured every 2 weeks. Total wet weight gain was inversely proportional to dietary carbohydrate level and Energy content of the respective diet. In experiment 2, sea urchins (5.60 ± 0.48g wet weight, n= 40) fed 190 g kg-1 carbohydrate consumed significantly more dry feed than those fed 260 g kg-1, but not more than those fed 380 g kg-1 carbohydrate. Based on differential feed intake rates, sea urchins that consumed more feed also consumed higher levels of Protein and had the highest weight gain. Consequently, Protein content and/or Protein: Energy Ratio may be important in determining feed utilization and growth among sea urchins in this study. The average digestible Energy intake was approximately 70 kcal kg-1 body weight day-1, suggesting daily caloric intake of juvenile Lytechinus variegatus is lower than in shrimp and fish.
-
effect of dietary Protein and carbohydrate levels on weight gain and gonad production in the sea urchin lytechinus variegatus
Aquaculture, 2012Co-Authors: Laura E. Heflin, Addison L. Lawrence, Mickie L. Powell, Victoria K Gibbs, Robert Makowsky, John M Lawrence, Stephen A. WattsAbstract:Abstract Adult Lytechinus variegatus were fed eight formulated diets with different Protein (ranging from 12 to 36%) and carbohydrate (ranging from 21 to 39%) levels. Each sea urchin (n = 8 per treatment) was fed a daily sub-satiation Ration of 1.5% of average body weight for 9 weeks. Akaike information criterion analysis was used to compare six different hypothesized dietary composition models across eight growth measurements. Dietary Protein level and Protein: Energy Ratio were the best models for prediction of total weight gain. Diets with the highest (≥ 68.6 mg P kcal − 1 ) Protein:Energy Ratios produced the most wet weight gain after 9 weeks. Dietary carbohydrate level was a poor predictor for most growth parameters examined in this study. However, the model containing a Protein × carbohydrate interaction effect was the best model for Protein efficiency Ratio (PER). PER decreased with increasing dietary Protein level, more so at higher carbohydrate levels. Food conversion Ratio (FCR) was best modeled by total dietary Energy levels: Higher Energy diets produced lower FCRs. Dietary Protein level was the best model of gonad wet weight gain. These data suggest that variations in dietary nutrients and Energy differentially affect organismal growth and growth of body components.
Samuel J. Fomon - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Infant formula with Protein-Energy Ratio of 1.7 g/100 kcal is adequate but may not be safe.
Journal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition, 1999Co-Authors: Samuel J. Fomon, Ekhard E. Ziegler, Steven E. Nelson, Ronald R. Rogers, Joan A FrantzAbstract:Background: An adequate Protein-Energy Ratio of infant formulas has been defined as one that permits growth similar to that of infants fed relatively generous Protein-Energy Ratios, and serum concentRations of albumin and urea nitrogen no less than those observed in breast-fed infants. A safe Ratio has been defined as one with no detectable adverse effects. The hypothesis was that a Protein-Energy Ratio of 1.7 g/100 kcal is adequate and safe. Methods: Healthy male infants were fed Formula 1.7, a milk-based formula, as the sole source of Energy from the 8th to the 112th day of life. Weight, length, and Energy intake were measured ; serum albumin and urea nitrogen were determined; and the results were compared with data from appropriate reference groups of infants. Results: Energy intake from 8 through 55 days was significantly higher than that of infants in the formula-fed reference group. Gain in weight was significantly more than that of the formula-fed reference group or of a breast-fed reference group, whereas gain in length was similar to that of the formula-fed reference group. Body mass index was significantly higher than that of either reference group, suggesting more fat accumulation in infants fed Formula 1.7. Plasma concentRations of albumin and urea nitrogen were similar to those of the breast-fed reference group. Conclusion: Infants fed Formula 1.7 received adequate intakes of Protein. Because of the possibility that ad libitum feeding of diets with moderately inadequate Protein-Energy Ratios is associated with increased food intake leading to excess weight gain, it is not possible to conclude that a Protein-Energy Ratio of 1.7 g/100 kcal is safe.
-
What is the safe Protein-Energy Ratio for infant formulas?
The American journal of clinical nutrition, 1995Co-Authors: Samuel J. Fomon, Ekhard E. Ziegler, Steven E. Nelson, Joan A FrantzAbstract:Infants eat primarily to satisfy Energy needs and the safe amount of Protein in infant formulas (ie, the amount adequate for nearly all infants) is therefore expressed as the Protein-Energy Ratio. We studied male infants aged 8-112 d fed milk-based formulas. One group (experimental group) was fed formulas that provided Protein-Energy Ratios of 3.73 g/MJ (1.56 g/100 kcal) from 8 to 27 d of age, gradually decreasing to 2.99 g/MJ (1.25 g/100 kcal) from 84 to 111 d of age. Growth rates and serum albumin and urea nitrogen of these infants were compared with those of a concurrently studied control group and a previously studied large reference group. Gains in weight and concentRations of serum albumin of the three groups were not significantly different. Gains in length were significantly less for the experimental group than for the reference group. Serum urea nitrogen was significantly less in the experimental group than in the control group or reference group. We conclude that the Protein-Energy Ratios of the experimental formula diet were below the safe level. Because the decrease in growth rate of the experimental group was rather small (demonstrable only in comparison with the large reference group), and because serum albumin of the experimental group increased with age as in normally nourished infants, we suspect that the safe Protein-Energy Ratio of infant formulas lies closer to the Ratios fed to the experimental group than to the Ratio [approximately 5.0 g/MJ (2.1 g/100 kcal)] in currently marketed milk-based formulas.
