Nov 22, 200916 yr Does this sound ok?Imbalanced nutrition, risk for more than body requirements, R/T reduced physical activity patterns secondary to MS exacerbation.Thanks for your help!! : )
Nov 22, 200916 yr Are they eating more than they should be? I'd usually write risk for imbalance nutrition: more than body requirements r/t .... the physical part doesnt make sense i dont think, they arent eating more because they are moving less.
Nov 22, 200916 yr Author good point!! thanks- it should definitely be a "risk" diagnosis. i thought that the physical part might be ok, since decreased physical mobility would lower body requirements? i don't know...maybe not. i mean, i guess nutritional requirements stay the same, but calorie requirements would change. if the person kept their eating patterns the same, then if they suddenly became less active then they could get fat. does that make sense? i don't know...i think you're probably right!
Nov 22, 200916 yr Experts No. The definition of this diagnosis (Risk for Imbalanced Nutrition: more than body requirements) is at risk for an intake of nutrients that exceeds metabolic needs. Reduced physical activity patterns is an inappropriate risk factor for it. The patient has to be eating more food than is normal for them.
Nov 23, 200916 yr Author Thanks! I guess I agree, but I still have lingering questions in my mind about this. I mean, for "imbalanced nurtirion: more than body requirements" the R/T factor is excessive intake in relationship to metabolic need. and a defining characteristic is sedentary lifestyle. wouldn't reduced physical activity reduce metabolic need...and cause a risk for "excessive intake in relation to metabolic need"? ha! i know i must be overanalyzing this. but i want to understand. thx again... :)
Does this sound ok?
Imbalanced nutrition, risk for more than body requirements, R/T reduced physical activity patterns secondary to MS exacerbation.
Thanks for your help!! : )