Table 1. rEI/BMR values for all men and women from NHANES I through NHANES 2009–2010.

Reported Energy Intake (rEI)/Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR) rEI/BMR >1.35 = plausible US Men & Women (20–74 years); NHANES I - NHANES 2009–2010
NHANESSurvey Year	Sex	Estimate rEI/RMR (mean)*	Standard Error	95% Confidence Interval		rEI Value Plausible Y = Yes N = No
				Lower	Upper
NHANES I	Men (n = 4652)	1.30	0.012	1.28	1.32	N
	Women (n = 7709)	1.10	0.010	1.08	1.12	N
NHANES II	Men (n = 5236)	1.28	0.010	1.26	1.30	N
	Women (n = 6006)	1.08	0.008	1.06	1.09	N
NHANES III	Men (n = 6122)	1.36b	0.011	1.34	1.39	Y
	Women (n = 7127)	1.22a	0.009	1.20	1.24	N
NHANES I999–00	Men (n = 1600)	1.31	0.018	1.27	1.34	N
	Women (n = 1886)	1.23a	0.016	1.19	1.26	N
NHANES 2001–2002	Men (n = 1782)	1.31	0.015	1.28	1.34	N
	Women (n = 2029)	1.24a	0.011	1.22	1.26	N
NHANES 2003–2004	Men (n = 1671)	1.32	0.013	1.30	1.35	Y
	Women (n = 1838)	1.23a	0.018	1.20	1.27	N
NHANES 2005–2006	Men (n = 1749)	1.34c	0.013	1.31	1.36	Y
	Women (n = 1998)	1.21a	0.014	1.18	1.24	N
NHANES 2007–08	Men (n = 2154)	1.27	0.017	1.24	1.30	N
	Women (n = 2306)	1.19a	0.020	1.15	1.23	N
NHANES 2009–2010	Men (n = 2319)	1.29	0.013	1.26	1.31	N
	Women (n = 2532)	1.20a	0.007	1.18	1.21	N
All Surveys	Men (n = 27285)	1.31	0.005	1.30	1.32	N
	Women (n = 33431)	1.19	0.005	1.18	1.20	N

^*All estimates are weighted means.

^aSignificantly different from NHANES I at p≤0.001 (Women).

^bSignificantly different from NHANES I at p≤0.001 (Men).

^cSignificantly different from NHANES I at p≤0.05 (Men).

Note: rEI was from NHANES 24HR data and BMR was calculated using the Schofield predictive equations. [26] Values <1.35 are considered implausible and indicative of underreporting. TEE = estimated total energy expenditure; IOM = Institute of Medicine; rEI = reported energy intake; BMR = Basal Metabolic Rate calculated via Schofield predictive equation.

Values <1.35 are not physiologically credible.