The bioeconomics of nutritional poverty and child labour

This paper provides a bio-economic foundation of fertility and child labor. Drawing on the clinical and physiological literature, the model highlights the interaction between work efforts of adults and children, their subsistence consumption, and fertility. The subsistence consumption requirements are endogenous to physical efforts. Parents engaged in physically demanding occupations (e.g. non-mechanized agriculture) are likely to suffer from energy deficiency, leading to reduced future work-capacity. Consumption smoothing occurs through bearing a large number of children who provide income support as adults. Although net cost of an additional child is positive, the cost is balanced by the additional income accruing though child employment. In contrast, parents in low-physical effort occupations are less likely to su¤er from nutritional deficiency, and thus tend to have lower fertility and child labor.

Clinical Accuracy of the MedGem Indirect Calorimeter for Measuring Resting Energy Expenditure in Cancer Patients

OBJECTIVE: To compare, in patients with cancer and in healthy subjects, measured resting energy expenditure (REE) from traditional indirect calorimetry to a new portable device (MedGem) and predicted REE. DESIGN: Cross-sectional clinical validation study. SETTING: Private radiation oncology centre, Brisbane, Australia. SUBJECTS: Cancer patients (n = 18) and healthy subjects (n = 17) aged 37-86 y, with body mass indices ranging from 18 to 42 kg/m(2). INTERVENTIONS: Oxygen consumption (VO(2)) and REE were measured by VMax229 (VM) and MedGem (MG) indirect calorimeters in random order after a 12-h fast and 30-min rest. REE was also calculated from the MG without adjustment for nitrogen excretion (MGN) and estimated from Harris-Benedict prediction equations. Data were analysed using the Bland and Altman approach, based on a clinically acceptable difference between methods of 5%. RESULTS: The mean bias (MGN-VM) was 10% and limits of agreement were -42 to 21% for cancer patients; mean bias -5% with limits of -45 to 35% for healthy subjects. Less than half of the cancer patients (n = 7, 46.7%) and only a third (n = 5, 33.3%) of healthy subjects had measured REE by MGN within clinically acceptable limits of VM. Predicted REE showed a mean bias (HB-VM) of -5% for cancer patients and 4% for healthy subjects, with limits of agreement of -30 to 20% and -27 to 34%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Limits of agreement for the MG and Harris Benedict equations compared to traditional indirect calorimetry were similar but wide, indicating poor clinical accuracy for determining the REE of individual cancer patients and healthy subjects.