TABLE 2.
Human trials investigating the actual ME of tree nuts compared to Atwater factor predictions1
| Study (ref) | Study design | Subjects | Treatment | Duration | Results2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baer et al. (30) | Randomized, crossover, controlled-feeding | Healthy men and women (n = 16) | No nuts, 42 g and 84 g pistachios/d | 18 d | Atwater calculation of 5.66 kcal/g overestimated the ME value of pistachios by 5.40 kcal/g (5% overestimation) |
| Novotny et al. (27) | Randomized, crossover, controlled-feeding | Healthy men and women (n = 18) | No nuts, 42 g and 84 g almonds/d | 18 d | Atwater calculation of 6.0–6.1 kcal/g overestimated the ME value of almonds at 4.6 ± 0.8 kcal/g (34% overestimation; P ≤ 0.001) |
| Baer et al. (28) | Randomized, crossover, controlled-feeding | Healthy men and women (n = 18) | No nuts and 42 g walnuts/d | 3 wk | Atwater calculation of 6.61 kcal/g overestimated the ME value of walnuts at 5.22 ± 0.16 kcal/g (21% overestimation; P < 0.0001) |
1
PubMed search terms included the following: “nuts AND metabolizable energy”, “nuts AND Atwater factors”, “almonds AND Atwater factors”, “Brazil nuts AND Atwater factors”, “cashews AND Atwater factors”, “hazelnuts AND Atwater factors”, “macadamia nuts AND Atwater factors”, “pecans AND Atwater factors”, “pine nuts AND Atwater factors”, “pistachios AND Atwater factors”, “walnuts AND Atwater factors”. Studies were included based on the inclusion criteria of human clinical trials. ME, metabolizable energy; ref, reference.
2
Results are displayed as mean ± SE.