Skip to main content
. 2017 Nov 7;8(6):905–915. doi: 10.3945/an.117.016253

TABLE 2.

Summary of studies investigating differences in the components of energy expenditure in individuals with or without PWS1

Author, year (ref.) Study design and purpose Study population (mean ± SD) Measurements Outcomes
Schoeller et al., 1988 (5) Cross-sectional study comparing TEE, BMR, and BC PWS, n = 10, 5 F/5 M TEE: DLW, 7 d TEE compared with controls:
 Age: 16 ± 4 y BEE: IC ventilated hood, 30 min  47% lower in PWS subjects
 BMI, kg/m2: 28.9 ± 8.1 (PWS lower than controls) AEE: estimated based on predictive equation that includes FFM BEE compared with predictive equations:
 FFM, kg: 29.8 ± 9.6 (PWS lower than controls) BC: total body water
 FM, %: 48 ± 7  Measured 3–12% lower than predictive equations. Predictive equation that included FFM not different from measured BMR
 GH treatment: no information Estimated AEE compared with controls:
 PWS subtype: 5 DEL/5 not reported  66% lower in PWS subjects; no difference per kg BW
PWS for BMR, n = 6, 3 F/3 M
 Age: 24 ± 4 y
 BMI: 22.7 ± 1.8
 PWS subtype: not reported
Controls, n = 10; 5 F/5 M
 Age: 15 ± 3.6 y
 BMI: 36.3 ± 7.5
 FFM, kg: 56.4 ± 13.8
 FM, %: 45 ± 6
Davies and Joughin, 1993 (13) Cross-sectional study to assess TEE and REE PWS, n = 10, 5 F/5 M TEE: DLW, details not provided TEE compared with controls:
 Age, y: 11.65 ± 3.5 REE: IC hood, 20 min  28% lower in PWS subjects, unadjusted; no difference with adjustment for age, FFM, and sex
 BMI: not reported AEE: TEE/REE REE compared with controls:
 FFM, kg: 23.9 ± 10.3 BC: total body water  18% lower in PWS subjects, unadjusted; no difference with adjustment for age, FFM, and sex
 FM, %: 43 ± 10.5 Estimated AEE compared with controls:
 GH treatment: no information  13% lower in PWS subjects, unadjusted; lower with adjustment for age
 PWS subtype: 7 DEL/8 not reported
Controls, n = 60, M/F: no information
 Age, y: 12.56 ± 4.2
 BMI: not reported
 FFM, kg: 34.2 ± 15.1 kg
 FM, %: 23.8 ± 9 (controls lower than PWS)
van Mil et al., 2000 (14) Cross-sectional study to measure AEE, corrected for body size PWS, n = 17, 10 F/7 M TEE: DLW, 14 d Absolute TEE compared with controls:
 Age, y: 11.9 ± 3.4 BEE: ventilated hood, 10 min  28% lower in PWS subjects, unadjusted
 BMI: 23.5 ± 6 AEE: 0.9 × (TEE – BEE), correcting for 10% DIT TEE/FFM (per kg FFM):
 FFM, kg: 27.5 ± 9.9 (PWS lower than controls) BC: total body water  42% and 38% lower in PWS subjects with BW and BW covariates, respectively
 FM, kg: 22.4 ± 11.7 BEE compared with controls:
 FM, %: 43.7 ± 7.9  16% lower in PWS subjects, unadjusted; 21% lower with BW as a covariate; no difference with FFM as a covariate
 Bone age, y: 12.7 ± 2.9 AEE compared with controls:
 PWS subtype: DEL or UPD  58% lower for PWS subjects unadjusted; 50% lower with BW as a covariate for PWS subjects adjusting for BW/d
 GH: none ever received GH
Controls, n = 17; 10 F/7 M
 Age, y: 11.3 ± 2.6
 BMI: 26 ± 6.5
 FFM, kg: 35.9 ± 13.4
 FM, kg: 25.6 ± 12.7
 FM, %: 39.1 ± 8.8
 Bone age, y: 12.7 ± 3.2
Bekx et al., 2003 (1) Cross-sectional study to evaluate BC in relation to energy expenditure in infants and toddlers with PWS PWS, n = 16, 8 F/8 M TEE: DLW, 7 d Absolute TEE compared with published normative data:
 Age, mo: 12.4 ± 6 BC: DXA, DLW  24% lower in PWS
 DXA FFM, kg: 5.7 ± 1.4 TEE adjusted as linear regression for FFM (kg FFM):
 FM, %: 28.8 ± 6  Rates for PWS subjects comparable with published normative data
 DLW FM, %: 34.9 ± 7
 PWS subtype: 10 DEL/5 UPD/ 1 ID
 GH: 14 current GH
Butler et al., 2007 (15) Cross-sectional study to determine the relations among body composition, activity amounts, and metabolic rates PWS, n = 48; 27 F/21 M TEE: whole body IC, 8 h TEE compared with controls: 20% lower in PWS subjects, kcal/8 h, unadjusted; lower with adjustment for FM; no difference with adjustment for LBM
 Age, y: 23 ± 9 REE: whole body IC, 30 min REE compared with controls:
 BMI: 34 ± 9 (PWS lower than controls) AEE: energy expended during the periods when the participants were instructed and encouraged to do exercises  16% lower in PWS subjects, kcal/min; lower with adjustment for FM; no difference with adjustments for LBM or BW
 LBM, kg: 35 ± 7 (PWS lower than controls) BC: DXA AEE compared with controls:
 FM, kg: 39 ± 14 (PWS lower than controls)  38% lower in PWS subjects, kcal/min, with a 35% reduction in mechanical work >8 h
 FM, %: 51 ± 8
 PWS subtype: 27 DEL/21 UPD
 GH: none receiving GH
Controls, n = 24; 15 F/9 M
 Age, y: 27 ± 13
 BMI: 41 ± 8
 LBM, kg: 51 ± 12
 FM, kg: 50 ± 14
 FM, %: 50 ± 7
Hill et al., 1990 (16) Cross-sectional study to determine whether the relation between REE and BW or BC is different in individuals with PWS PWS, n = 22; 13 F/9 M REE: IC hood, 15–20 min REE compared with controls:
 Age, y: 13 ± 1 BC: BIA  37% lower in PWS subjects than in obese controls and 20% lower than in lean controls, unadjusted, no difference with adjustment for FFM
 BMI: 24 ± 1
 PWS subtype and GH: no information
Obese controls, n = 11; 7 F/4 M
 Age, y: 10 ± 1
 BMI: 28 ± 1
Lean controls n = 20; 9 F/11 M
 Age 10 ± 1 y
 BMI 19 ± 1
FM and FFM data not reported.
van Mil et al., 2000 (17) Cross-sectional study to measure SEE, adjusted for FFM Same participants as van Mil et al. (14) SEE: respiratory camper, overnight Absolute SEE compared with controls:
 17% lower in PWS subjects, unadjusted; lower with adjustment for BW; no difference with adjustment for FFM
Goldstone et al., 2002 (18) Cross-sectional study to assess REE PWS, n = 8 F REE: whole body IC, ≥20 min Absolute REE compared with controls:
 Age, y: 25 ± 2 BC: MRI  8% lower in PWS subjects than in obese controls, unadjusted; lower after adjustment for age, height, and weight and after adjustment for age and FM; higher after adjustment for age and FFM; no difference after adjustment for age, FFM, and FM
 BMI: 42.1 ± 3 (higher than obese and lean controls)
 FFM, kg: 46.1 ± 3.7 (lower than obese controls)
 FM, kg: 49.6 ± 6.3 (higher than obese and lean controls)
 FM, %: 50.8 ± 2
 PWS subtype: not reported
 GH: none receiving GH
Obese controls, n = 13 F
 Age, y: 26 ± 3
 BMI: 37.1 ± 1.6
 FFM, kg: 58.5 ± 1.8
 FM, kg: 43.2 ± 2.9
 FM, %: 42.1 ± 1.2
Lean controls, n = 28 F
 Age, y: 31 ± 1
 BMI: 23.7 ± 0.5
 FFM, kg: 46.1 ± 0.9
 FM, kg: 19.5 ± 0.9
 FM, %: 29.1 ± 0.8
Lloret-Linares et al., 2013 (19) Cross-sectional study to compare REE of adults with PWS or lesional genetic hypothalamic obesity with obese controls PWS, n = 16 F REE: IC hood, details not provided Absolute REE compared with controls:
 Age, y: 25.8 ± 4.9 BC: DXA  Female PWS subjects had rates similar to controls and subjects with HD, unadjusted; when adjusted for age, PWS subjects had 13% higher rates than controls and similar rates to HD subjects when adjusted for LBM
 BMI: 46.6 ± 8.5  Male PWS subjects had 19% lower rates than controls and similar rates to HD subjects, unadjusted; no differences when adjusted for age and LBM
 LBM, kg: 46.7 ± 10 (*lower than females with HD)
 FM, kg: 53 ± 13.2
 FM, %: 52.5 ± 4
PWS, n = 11 M
 Age, y: 25.5 ± 10.4
 BMI: 46.6 ± 9.1
 LBM, kg: 58.6 ± 12.6 (*lower than male HD and control subjects)
 FM, kg: 58.6 ± 19.2
 FM, %: 48.9 ± 7.3
PWS subtype (all subjects): 18 DEL/8 UPD/1 ID
GH (all subjects): 1 current, 5 in childhood
HD, n = 5 F
 Age, y: 42.2 ± 16.1
 BMI: 49 ± 7.6
 LBM, kg: 61.7 ± 11.7
 FM, kg: 57.9 ± 13.4
 FM, %: 47 ± 1.6
HD, n = 10 M
 Age, y: 33.8 ± 13.2
 BMI: 47.2 ± 7.7
 LBM, kg: 75 ± 12.3
 FM, kg: 58 ± 14
 FM, %: 40 ± 7.4
 GH (all HD subjects): 1 current, 5 in childhood
Controls, n = 176 F
 Age, y: 36 ± 8.4
 BMI: 46.8 ± 6.3
 LBM, kg: 61.7 ± 8.3
 FM, kg: 60.5 ± 12.3
 FM, %: 47.5 ± 4.5
Controls, n = 30 M
 Age, y: 41.7 ± 7.9
 BMI: 46.3 ± 5.7
 LBM, kg: 78.8 ± 8.3
 FM, kg: 58.5 ± 14 FM, %: 40.4 ± 4.6
Purtell et al., 2015 (20) Cross-sectional study to measure changes in energy expenditure in response to meals PWS, n = 11, 4 F/7 M REE: IC hood, 30 min Absolute REE compared with controls:
 Age, y: 27.5 ± 2.7 Postprandial REE: IC hood, 240 min  Rates for PWS subjects were comparable with those of obese and lean controls, unadjusted; no differences when adjusted for FFM and FM
 BMI: 37.35 ± 2.9 (*higher than controls) BC: DXA Absolute postprandial REE compared with controls
 LBM, kg: 43.21 (*lower than obese controls)  Rates for PWS subjects were comparable with those of obese and lean controls, unadjusted; no differences when adjusted for FFM and FM
 FM, kg: 3.06
 FM, %: 47.68
 PWS subtype: 6 DEL/5 UPD
 GH: none ever received GH
Obese controls, n = 12; 5 F/7 M
Age, y: 32.25 ± 2.5
BMI: 34.21 ± 1.2
LBM, kg: 52.67
FM, kg: 40.33
FM, %: 46.25
Lean controls, n = 10; 5 F/5 M
 Age, y: 28.8 ± 1.1
 BMI: 21.4 ± 0.4
 LBM, kg: 71.54
 FM, kg: 14.63 FM, %: 24.32
1

AEE, BEE, REE, and TEE values are expressed as kcal/d unless otherwise indicated. AEE, activity energy expenditure; BC, body composition; BEE, basal energy expenditure; BIA, bioelectrical impedance analysis; BMR, basal metabolic rate; BW, body weight; DEL, deletion; DLW, doubly labeled water; F, female; FFM, fat-free mass; FM, fat mass; GH, growth hormone; HD, hypothalamic damage; IC, indirect calorimetry; ID, imprinting center defects, LBM, lean body mass; M, male; PWS, Prader-Willi syndrome; REE, resting energy expenditure; ref., reference; SEE, sleeping energy expenditure; TEE, total energy expenditure; UPD, uniparental disomy.