The growth and development of the normally growing, breast-fed, term infant is universally recognized as ideal. Hence, the term infant's requirement for any nutrient can be defined as the amount present in a reasonable volume of human milk, usually the average volume ingested daily based on careful studies in groups of infants whose intakes were determined by difference in weight before and after each feeding. This is the basis of the most recent dietary reference intake of protein and most all other nutrients for the 0–6-mo-old infant (1).
Unfortunately, no such standard exists for the LBW infant. Rather, for the past 25 years, the protein and other nutrient requirements for these infants have been defined as the amounts necessary to support intrauterine rates of growth and nutrient accretion (2). Despite the many advantages of human milk for reducing infection and promoting better neurodevelopmental outcomes in both term and preterm infants (3), preterm infants fed unsupplemented human milk do not grow at the intrauterine rate (4). Further, even if the total protein, calcium, phosphorus, sodium, and even zinc contents of a reasonable volume of human milk were absorbed and completely retained, the amounts retained would not be sufficient to support the intrauterine rates of accretion (5 6). This review addresses some of the many pressing issues concerning standards of growth for the preterm infant as well as strategies for providing optimal protein intakes.
INTRAUTERINE RATES OF GROWTH AND NUTRIENT ACCRETION
A priori, the requirements to support intrauterine rates of growth and nutrient accretion should equal the amount of each nutrient transferred from the mother to the fetus. While these data are available for some animal models (7), they are not available for human infants. However, the lack of such data may not be a serious drawback. Since the metabolic and environmental milieu of the fetus and the ex utero preterm neonate are different, providing individual nutrients at fetal delivery rates may not be an optimal strategy for postnatal feeding. For example, there is little uptake of lipid by the fetus of any species, before mid-late gestation. Therefore, energy metabolism of the fetus is not dependent on availability of fat until late in the third trimester and, even then, dependence on fat availability is minimal. Glucose delivery to the fetus occurs at low fetal insulin concentrations and at a rate that reflects energy utilization. Amino acid uptake by the fetus, on the other hand, exceeds that needed for protein accretion and the excess is oxidized contributing significantly to fetal energy production. In contrast, lipid is a major energy source of most LBW infant feeding regimens and lipid intake usually exceeds the rate of delivery in utero. The LBW infant also receives glucose at higher rates than are delivered in utero, but almost always receives less amino acids than the fetus. These current feeding regimens promote weight gain due to body fat rather than gain in lean body mass (8). This contrast between the usual nutrient supply to the fetus (high amino acids and sufficient glucose) and what the LBW infant is fed (high intakes of lipid and glucose but low protein intake) suggests that the nutritional requirements of the LBW infant and the outcomes likely from current feeding practices be reconsidered.
Cross-sectional autopsy data concerning size and body composition of fetuses at varying gestational ages are available (9) and, from these, the requirement of most nutrients to support intrauterine rates of accretion can be estimated. The most commonly used method for estimating the protein intake necessary to maintain the intrauterine rate of protein accretion is the factorial method, which includes an estimate of inevitable urinary nitrogen losses (i.e., the losses that occur in the absence of nitrogen intake) and an estimate of the amount deposited in utero corrected for efficiency of absorption and deposition (10).
INTAKES REQUIRED TO SUPPORT INTRAUTERINE RATES OF GROWTH AND NUTRIENT ACCRETION
An alternative method is to determine the actual intakes that support intrauterine rates of growth and nitrogen accretion (11). Interestingly, the two approaches do not result in the same estimate of protein requirement. The factorial method, depending upon the assumptions made concerning inevitable nitrogen losses and efficiency of absorption and deposition usually yields an estimate of ~ 4g/kg/d to support intrauterine rates of growth and protein accretion (10). The alternative method, on the other hand, shows that a protein intake of ~3g/kg/d supports intrauterine rates of growth and nitrogen accretion (4,11,12).
Replicating the body composition of the fetus of the same postconceptional age as the preterm infant undoubtedly is a more desirable nutritional goal than simply achieving the fetal rate of weight gain. However, few data are available concerning body composition of infants fed different nutritional regimens. Further, considering the marked variation in clinical practice, attaining a targeted rate of weight gain in very preterm infants can be accomplished by a number of very different nutritional strategies but without consideration for “quality” of weight gain. Since nutritional regimens that produce excessive fat deposition could put the infant at risk for long-term adverse health outcomes, regimens that result in excessive fat deposition are suspect. A priori, replicating intrauterine body composition changes postnatally seems to be a more physiologic approach to growth in the very preterm infant. Currently, measuring actual body compositions of very preterm infants is difficult.
If the requirements for supporting intrauterine rates of growth and nutrient deposition are introduced at birth, the infant, in theory, should continue to deposit nutrients and increase in size as if birth had not intervened. However, few, if any, LBW infants can successfully make the transition to the necessary enteral intake until days to weeks after birth. Thus, at discharge, often several weeks after birth, most infants weigh ~2 SD less than the fetus of comparable postconceptional age (13,14). Initially, most infants lose from 10% to 20% of initial weight. Some of this, perhaps about half, is excess extracellular fluid and probably is of little consequence to the infant, but the remainder represents either failure to accrete lean mass and/or fat at a reasonable rate or actual loss of lean mass and/or fat. Loss of lean mass may have adverse consequences, but the consequences of loss of fat mass or failure to deposit fat are not clear.
Most infants do not regain birth weight before at least 2 wk of age and many of the smallest infants do not do so until much later (13,14). Thus, even if intakes sufficient to support intrauterine rates of nutrient accretion are provided throughout the remainder of hospitalization, the infant will remain behind the fetus of the same postconceptional age for some time. The consequences of this growth delay or “postnatal growth restriction” are not known with certainty, but there is concern that it contributes to the smaller size and lower developmental indices of former LBW infants that have been documented as late as early adulthood (15). This is certainly true for severe malnutrition during infancy and early childhood and timely treatment of such infants has been shown to improve both long term growth and developmental outcome (16). Many LBW infants, however, also have a variety of clinical problems that may contribute to their less than optimal growth and neurodevelopmental outcome (14). Nonetheless, assignment of preterm infants to be fed a nutrient-enriched versus a standard formula for only ~4 wk before hospital discharge has been shown to result in substantial neurodevelopmental advantages at 18 mo of age as well as at 7.5 y and ~15 y of age (17–19).
Despite some uncertainty about the long term consequences of inadequate nutrient intake and growth restriction during early extra uterine life, until recently it has seemed reasonable to at least attempt to overcome early postnatal growth failure. Strategies that have been advocated include more optimal parenteral nutrition early in the infant's neonatal course and earlier introduction of adequate enteral intake (20).
PREVENTING EARLY LOSSES OF BODY PROTEIN STORES
Several studies have shown that the early loss of body protein stores daily can be minimized or prevented by providing as little as 1–1.5 g/kg/d of amino acids parentally even if concomitant energy intake is as low as 30 kcal/kg/d (11,21–27). This modest intake, however, will not promote growth and, as a result, deficits will continue to increase. Thus, higher parenteral amino acid intakes which appear to be well tolerated (21–23), even with a modest concomitant energy intake, have been advocated. In one of the more recent such studies (21), a higher parenteral amino acid intake for only 24 h produced increases in protein deposition of ELBW/VLBW preterm infants. This prospective, randomized study included 28 infants (mean weight ~950 g) who received an amino acid intake of either 1 g.kg-1.d-1 or 3 g.kg-1.d-1 beginning at an average postnatal age of ~24 h. Metabolic studies showed that protein balance, measured by both nitrogen balance and leucine stable isotope methodologies, was significantly higher with the higher amino acid intake. Moreover, there was no evidence of toxicity with the higher amino acid intake; there were no statistically significant differences between groups in the amount of sodium bicarbonate administered, the degree of metabolic acidosis as determined by base deficit, or the BUN concentration. Plasma concentrations of essential and nonessential amino acids (except threonine and lysine) in the 3 g.kg-1.d-1 group, were similar to those of normally growing 2nd and 3rd trimester human fetuses who were sampled by cordocentesis (28) whereas, in the 1 g.kg-1.d-1 group, concentrations of most amino acids were at least 50% lower than fetal concentrations. Such data support the concept that more aggressive early parenteral nutrition may significantly mitigate the early postnatal growth failure of most preterm neonates.
“CATCH-UP GROWTH”
The amino acid and energy intakes necessary to support intrauterine rates of weight gain and protein accretion, whether administered parenterally or enterally, are ~3 g/kg/d and ~90 kcal/kg/d (29). However, these intakes will not abolish any loss of lean body mass that occurred before the infant's regaining birth weight. Doing so requires an additional allowance for “catch-up” growth and this allowance varies considerably from infant to infant. For example, the infant who does not regain birth weight until 28 d of age has twice the “catch-up” needs of an infant who weighs the same at birth but regains birth weight at 14 rather than 28 d of age. In both cases, the needs for “catch-up” growth are additional to the needs for supporting intrauterine rates of growth and protein accretion. These differing needs for “catch-up” growth make it difficult to define a single protein requirement that is appropriate for all preterm LBW infants; rather, each infant is likely to have a unique requirement consisting of the need for maintaining intrauterine rates of growth and protein retention (~3.0 g/kg/d) plus the needs for “catch-up” (see below).
Kashyap et al., using data obtained in more than 200 infants fed protein and energy intakes ranging from 2.25–4.3 g/kg/d and 100–150 kcal/kg/d, respectively, have developed multiple regression equations for predicting protein and energy intakes needed to produce different rates and composition of weight gain and have shown that the predicted intakes achieve the desired rates and composition of weight gain (30). Using these equations, Heird (20) has predicted the protein and energy intakes necessary to result in different rates of “catch-up” growth for a theoretical infant who weighs 690 g at birth and is discharged weighing 1830 g. Had this theoretical 690 g infant remained in utero and deposited protein and fat at intrauterine rates, weight would have reached 1830 g in 56 d. The protein and energy intakes required to support this rate and composition of weight gain is ~3.0 g/kg/d and 90 kcal/kg/d, respectively, the amounts shown to support intrauterine rates of growth and protein accretion (4,11,12,29). However, an infant who is born weighing 690 g and does not regain birth weight until 14 d of age must increase from 690 to 1830 g in 42 d to weigh the same and have the same body composition as a fetus of comparable postconceptional age. The predicted protein and energy required to support this rate of growth are 4 g/kg/d and 109 kcal/kg/d. If the same infant does not regain birth weight until 21 d, weight must reach 1830 g in 35 d to “catch up” to the fetus of comparable postconceptional age. In theory, this will require protein and energy intakes of 4.9 g/kg/d and 123 kcal/kg/d from 21 d until discharge (weighing 1830 g). While many infants receive the theoretical energy intakes recent experience with the theoretical protein intake required is limited.
Although the protein requirement for LBW infants varies considerably depending largely on how long it takes to regain birth weight and the amount of “catch-up” growth desired, this concept is difficult to apply to feeding individual infants. For the latter, an intake that meets the needs of most infants is needed. Currently, modern preterm formulas and supplemented human milk provide protein intakes of 3.3 to 3.6 g/kg/d and an energy intake of 120 kcal/kg/d. These intakes, once established, support growth and protein accretion rates somewhat in excess of intrauterine rates (11) but, as noted above, most infants fed these intakes remain below the tenth percentile of modern intrauterine standards at discharge (13). Hence, with respect to growth, it is clear that most preterm/LBW infants are likely to benefit from a higher protein intake. However, there is no clear evidence that an energy intake of more than 120 kcal/kg/d is desirable. A higher energy intake may promote somewhat better protein utilization but it also is likely to result in higher rates of fat accretion, the desirability of which is questionable. Unfortunately, data concerning body composition of infants fed different protein and energy intakes are not available.
More optimal early nutrition, both parenteral and enteral, obviously will reduce the time required to regain birth weight (11,20) and, hence, reduce the protein needed to support “catch-up” growth. Nonetheless, most infants are likely to require a higher protein intake from supplemented human milk and formula than is currently provided. Thus, recent recommendations reflect this likely need for a higher protein content of human milk fortifiers and preterm formulas. A Committee appointed by the Life Sciences Research Organization to evaluate the nutrient contents of preterm infant formulas (31) recommended a maximum protein content of 3.6 g/100 kcal (4.3 g/kg/d at an energy intake of 120 kcal/kg/d) rather than the usual maximum of ~3.0 g/100 kcal (3.6 g/kg/d at an energy intake of 120 kcal/kg/d).
BENEFICIAL UNDERNUTRITION
Although a higher protein intake undoubtedly will improve growth and possibly reduce neurodevelopmental deficits (17–19), recent data suggest that rapid early growth may result in unfavorable markers of cardiovascular risk (e.g., lipid profile, blood pressure, leptin resistance and insulin resistance (32)) at 13–16 y of age. Some of these unfavorable effects appear to be related to feeding formula versus human milk (33,34). However, all effects were associated with higher versus lower rates of growth in early infancy. These adverse effects on markers of cardiovascular risk were substantial; if they persist beyond 13–16 y of age, as seems likely, they have major public health implications. These potentially advantageous effects of slower growth during infancy on markers of cardiovascular risk must, of course, be balanced against the demonstrated adverse effects of relative undernutrition during infancy, particularly the adverse effects on neurodevelopmental outcome, which also have important public health implications as well as implications for the quality of life of the affected individuals and their families.
The concept of “beneficial under-nutrition” has a broad biologic basis. The phenomenon of improved life expectancy following long periods of low growth rate from relative under-nutrition has been demonstrated in Drosophila, rats, and possibly humans who undergo prolonged periods of low caloric intake. In contrast, catch-up growth (i.e., accelerated growth rates) at the “wrong time” in development shortens life span, promotes obesity, and impairs glucose tolerance in the rat, decreases body fat in the Atlantic salmon, and decreases resistance to starvation in the speckled wood butterfly (35). In humans, rapid rates of growth in childhood reportedly increases the risk for cardiovascular disease, hypertension, obesity, and type 2 diabetes later in life, but slower growth appears to be protective against later development of cardiovascular disease (36). Thus, while beneficial in the short term, “catch-up” growth may be harmful in the long term (37).
THE NEONATOLOGIST'S DILEMMA
Resolution of the dilemma between potentially favorable effects of slower rates of growth and, hence, lower nutrient intakes during infancy on future cardiovascular health versus demonstrated adverse effects of poor growth on neurodevelopmental outcome (17–19) will require long term prospective studies of hundreds to thousands of infants or a novel retrospective study of perhaps even more infants. The latter, of course, can be accomplished sooner. However, such studies are not possible unless reliable data concerning early intakes and rates of growth are available. Without such data, retrospective studies, of course, will be much more difficult to interpret and also less reliable.
The importance of resolving this dilemma cannot be overestimated. Doing so is one of the greatest challenges to neonatal nutrition today. Further, it must be resolved before progress can be made toward better defining the nutrient needs of preterm/LBW infants, particularly their protein and energy needs. Ongoing studies will soon provide data concerning the association between early growth and cardiovascular risk factors beyond 13–16 y of age; if the same or more substantial adverse effects on markers of cardiovascular risk are observed at this later age, it is likely that prospective studies focusing on the relationship between protein intake and rates of growth during infancy and markers of cardiovascular risk as early as 7–7.5 y of age may suffice. In resolving this dilemma, it is important to distinguish between effects of early rates of growth versus the composition of early growth. It also is important to reconcile the association between rapid early growth and later adverse effects on cardiovascular health with earlier findings linking small size at birth as well as small size at a year of age to similar adverse effects in adults (38,39).
Until this dilemma is resolved, the neonatologist is left with a number of unanswered questions regarding postnatal nutrition of the very preterm infant. Some of these include the following: Is the early neonatal period a “vulnerable” time for preterm infants in terms of postnatal metabolic programming? If so, is this vulnerability related to gestational age or to postnatal age? If “accelerated growth” at “the wrong time” has adverse long-term effects, when and in which infants is catch-up growth advisable? Is the postnatal growth failure seen in very preterm neonates an example of “beneficial undernutrition?” What is the balance between providing sufficient protein and other nutrients to assure optimal developmental outcome but avoid undesirable metabolic programming? Is early aggressive nutrition, which has been emphasized repeatedly for the past decade and is finally being accepted by neonatologists, beneficial or detrimental?
References
Food and Nutrition Board, Institute of Medicine 2002 Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein and Amino Acids. National Academy Press, Washington, DC
Committee on Nutrition, American Academy of Pediatrics 1985 Nutritional needs of LBW infants. Pediatrics 75: 976–986
Lucas A, Morley R, Cole TH, Gore SM 1994 A randomised multicenter study of human milk versus formula and later development in preterm infants. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 70: F141–F146
Kashyap S, Schulze KF, Forsyth M, Dell RB, Ramakrishnan R, Heird WC 1990 Growth, nutrient retention, and metabolic response of low-birth-weight infants fed supplemented and unsupplemented preterm human milk. Am J Clin Nutr 52: 254–262
Forbes GB 1974 A note on the mathematics of “catch-up” growth. Pediatr Res 8: 929–931
Ziegler EE 1986 Protein requirements of preterm infants. In: Fomon SJ, Heird WC (eds) Energy and Protein Needs During Infancy. Academic Press, New York, pp 69–85
Meier PR, Peterson RB, Bonds DR, Meschia G, Battaglia FC 1981 Rates of protein synthesis and turnover in fetal life. Am J Physiol 240: E320–E324
Kashyap S, Ohira-Kist K, Abildskov K, Towers HM, Sahni R, Ramakrishnan R, Schulze K 2001 Effects of quality of energy intake on growth and metabolic response of enterally fed low-birth-weight infants. Pediatr Res 50: 390–397
Ziegler EE, O'Donnell AM, Nelson SE, Fomon SJ 1976 Body composition of the reference fetus. Growth 40: 329–341
Ziegler EE, Thureen PJ, Carlson SJ 2002 Aggressive nutrition of the very low birthweight infant. Clin Perinatol 29: 224–244
Kashyap S, Heird WC 1994 Protein requirements of low birthweight, very low birthweight, and small for gestational age infants. In: Räihä NCR (ed) Protein Metabolism During Infancy. Nestlé Nutrition Workshop Series, Vol 33, Nestec Ltd. Vevey/Raven Press Ltd, New York, pp 133–146
Kashyap S, Schulze KF, Forsyth M, Zucker C, Dell RB, Ramakrishnan R, Heird WC 1988 Growth, nutrient retention and metabolic response of low-birth-weight infants fed varying intakes of protein and energy. J Pediatr 113: 713–721
Ehrenkranz R, Younes N, Lemons JA, Fanaroff AA, Donovan EF, Wright LL, Katsikiotis V, Tyson JE, Oh W, Shankaran S, Bauer CR, Korones SB, Stoll SB, Stoll BJ, Stevenson DK, Papile LA 1999 Longitudinal growth of hospitalized very low birthweight infants. Pediatrics 104: 280–289
Lemons JA, Bauer CR, Oh W, Korones SB, Papile LA, Stoll BJ, Verter J, Temprosa M, Wright LL, Ehrenkranz RA, Fanaroff AA, Stark A, Carlo W, Tyson JE, Donovan EF, Shankaran S, Stevenson DK 2001 Very low birth weight outcomes of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network, January 1995 through December 1996. NICHD Neonatal Research Network. Pediatrics 107: E1
Saigal S, Stoskopf BL, Streiner DL, Burrows E 2001 Physical growth and current health status of infants who were of extremely low birth weight and controls at adolescence. Pediatrics 108: 407–415
Grantham-McGregor SM, Ani CC 2001 Undernutrition and mental development. In: Fernstrom JD, Uauy R, Arroyo P (eds) Nutrition and Brain. Vevey: Nestec Ltd, and Karger, Basel, pp 1–14
Lucas A, Morley R, Cole TJ 1998 Randomised trial of early diet in preterm babies and later intelligence quotient. BMJ 317: 1481–1487
Lucas A, Morely R, Cole TJ, Gore SM, Lucas PJ, Crowle P, Pearse R, Boon AJ, Powell R 1990 Early diet in preterm babies and developmental status at 18 months. Lancet 335: 1477–1481
Lucas A, Morley R, Cole TJ, Gore SM 1994 A randomized multicentre study of human milk versus formula and later development in preterm infants. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 70: F141–F146
Heird WC 1999 Early use of parenteral amino acids. In: Ziegler EE, Lucas A, Moro GE (eds) Nutrition of the Very Low Birthweight Infant. Nestlé Nutrition Workshop Series, Vol 43( Nestec Ltd. Vevey/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 53–64
Thureen PJ, Melara D, Fennessey PV, Hay WW Jr 2003 Effect of low versus high intravenous amino acid intake on very low birth weight infants in the early neonatal period. Pediatr Res 53: 24–32
van Lingen RA, van Goudoever JB, Luijendijk IH, Wattimena JL, Sauer PJ 1992 Effects of early amino acid administration during total parenteral nutrition on protein metabolism in pre-term infants. Clin Sci (Lond) 82: 199–203
Rivera A Jr, Bell EF, Bier DM 1993 Effect of intravenous amino acids on protein metabolism of preterm infants during the first three days of life. Pediatr Res 33: 106–111
Anderson TL, Muttart C, Bieber MA, Nicholson JF, Heird WC 1979 A controlled trial of glucose versus glucose and amino acids in premature infants. J Pediatr 94: 947–951
Saini J, MacMahon P, Morgan JB, Kovar IZ 1989 Early parenteral feeding of amino acids. Arch Dis Child 64: 1362–1366
Mitton SG, Garlick PJ 1992 Changes in protein turnover after the introduction of parenteral nutrition in premature infants: comparison of breast milk and egg protein-based amino acid solutions. Pediatr Res 32: 447–454
van Goudoever JB, Colen T, Wattimena JL, Huijmans JG, Carnielli VP, Sauer PJ 1995 Immediate commencement of amino acid supplementation in preterm infants: effect on serum amino acid concentrations and protein kinetics on the first day of life. J Pediatr 127: 458–465
Cetin I, Corbetta C, Sereni LP, Marconi AM, Bozzetti P, Pardi G, Battaglia FC 1990 Umbilical amino acid concentrations in normal and growth-retarded fetuses sampled in utero by cordocentesis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 162: 253–261
Zlotkin SH, Bryan MH, Anderson GH 1981 Intravenous nitrogen and energy intakes required to duplicate in utero nitrogen accretion in prematurely born human infants. J Pediatr 99: 115–120
Kashyap S, Schulze KF, Ramakrishnan R, Dell RB, Heird WC 1994 Evaluation of a mathematical model for predicting the relationship between protein and energy intakes of low-birth-weight infants and the rate and composition of weight gain. Pediatr Res 35: 704–712
Klein CJ 2002 Nutrient requirements for preterm infant formulas. J Nutr 132: 1395S–1577S
Singhal A, Lucas A 2004 Early origins of cardiovascular disease: is there a unifying hypothesis?. Lancet 363: 1642–1645
Stettler N, Zemel BS, Kumanyika S, Stallings VA 2002 Infant weight gain and childhood overweight status in a multicenter, cohort study. Pediatrics 109: 194–199
von Kries R, Koletzko B, Sauerwald T, von Mutius E, Barnert D, Grunert V, von Voss H 1999 Breast-feeding and obesity: cross sectional study. BMJ 319: 147–150
Metcalfe NB, Monaghan P 2001 Compensation for a bad start: grow now, pay later?. Trends Ecol Evol 16: 254–260
Hales CN, Ozanne SE 2003 The dangerous road of catch-up growth. J Physiol 547: Pt 1 5–10
Singhal A, Cole TJ, Fewtrell M, Deanfield J, Lucas A 2004 Is slower early growth beneficial for long-term cardiovascular health?. Circulation 109: 1108–1113
Barker DJ, Winter PD, Osmond C, Margetts B, Simmonds SJ 1989 Weight in infancy and death from ischaemic heart disease. Lancet 2: 577–580
Eriksson JG, Forsén T, Tuomilehto J, Osmond C, Barker DJ 2001 Early growth and coronary heart disease in later life: longitudinal study. BMJ 322: 949–953
Acknowledgements
The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the USDA, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organization imply endorsement by the US Government.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This work, in part, is a publication of the USDA/ARS Children‘s Nutrition Research Center, Department of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX and has been funded in part with federal funds from the USDA/ARS under Cooperative Agreement No. 58-6250-6001. Additional funding sources are: NIH Grant MO 1 RR00188, NIH Grant R01 HD043350, NIH Grant K24 RR018358, and NIH GCRC Grant RR00069.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Thureen, P., Heird, W. Protein and Energy Requirements of the Preterm/Low Birthweight (LBW) Infant. Pediatr Res 57, 95–98 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1203/01.PDR.0000160434.69916.34
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1203/01.PDR.0000160434.69916.34
This article is cited by
-
Effects of postnatal growth restriction and subsequent catch-up growth on neurodevelopment and glucose homeostasis in rats
BMC Physiology (2015)
-
Infant formula supplemented with low protein and high carbohydrate alters the intestinal microbiota in neonatal SD rats
BMC Microbiology (2014)
-
Early amino acids and the metabolic response of ELBW infants (⩽1000 g) in three time periods
Journal of Perinatology (2009)
-
Early and aggressive nutritional strategy (parenteral and enteral) decreases postnatal growth failure in very low birth weight infants
Journal of Perinatology (2006)