Evaluation of four methods for determining energy intake in young and older women: comparison with doubly labeled water measurements of total energy expenditure

Sawaya, Ana Lydia; Tucker, Katherine L.; Tsay, Rita; Willett, Walter C.; Saltzman, Edward; Dallal, Gerard E.; Roberts, Susan B.

doi:10.1093/ajcn/63.4.491

Cited by 222 publications

(145 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

128

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, the sample size was relatively large compared to the previous studies with the same purpose and method (Sawaya et al, 1996;Kroke et al, 1999;Andersen et al, 2003).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Validation of self-reported energy intake by a self-administered diet history questionnaire using the doubly labeled water method in 140 Japanese adults

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To validate reported energy intake (rEI) with a self-administered diet history questionnaire (DHQ) against total energy expenditure (TEE) by the doubly labeled water (DLW) method. Subjects: A total of 140 healthy Japanese adults (67 men and 73 women) aged 20-59 years living in four areas in Japan. Methods: Energy intake was assessed twice with DHQ over a 1-month period before and after TEE measurement (rEI DHQ1 and rEI DHQ2 , respectively). TEE was measured by DLW during 2 weeks (TEE DLW ). Results: Mean rEI DHQ1 was lower than those of TEE DLW by 1.972.4 MJ/day (16.4%, Po0.001) for men and 0.671.9 MJ/day (6.0%, Po0.01) for women. In men and women together, 62 subjects (44%) were defined as underreporters (rEI DHQ1 /TEE DLW o0.84), 58 (41%) as acceptable reporters (0.84-1.16) and 20 (14%) as over-reporters (41.16). Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.34 for men and 0.22 for women. After adjustment for the dietary and non-dietary factors related to rEI DHQ1 /TEE DLW , the correlation coefficient improved to 0.42 and 0.37, respectively. Conclusion: The energy intake assessed with DHQ correlated low to modestly with TEE measured by DLW. In addition, DHQ underestimated energy intake at a group level. Caution is needed when energy intake was evaluated by DHQ at both individual and group levels.

show abstract

“…Moreover, the sample size was relatively large compared to the previous studies with the same purpose and method (Sawaya et al, 1996;Kroke et al, 1999;Andersen et al, 2003).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The error of the DLW method is independent of self-rEI error (Livingstone and Black, 2003). However, relatively few validation studies of food frequency questionnaires against the DLW method have appeared (Sawaya et al, 1996;Andersen et al, 2003;Subar et al, 2003). Furthermore, no such studies have been reported in nonWestern countries.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation of self-reported energy intake by a self-administered diet history questionnaire using the doubly labeled water method in 140 Japanese adults

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is probably more difficult for subjects of limited education; there is evidence, for example, of poorer validity of 24 h recalls in subjects with lower literacy scores (Johnson et al 1998). It is probably more difficult for the elderly; there is evidence of poorer performance in FFQ by older women (Sawaya et al 1996). It is certainly more difficult for both interviewer and subject if eating patterns are irregular.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation of dietary intakes measured by diet history against24 h urinary nitrogen excretion and energy expenditure measuredby the doubly-labelled water method in middle-aged women

Black¹,

Welch²,

Bingham³

2000

Br J Nutr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A diet history method for estimating energy and N intakes was validated against 24 h urinary N excretion and energy expenditure measured by the doubly-labelled water (DLW) method. Fortyeight women aged 50-65 years were studied over 1 year. Weighed diet records from 4 d and two 24 h urine collections, for measurement of urinary N excretion, were obtained in each of four seasons. At the end of the year, a diet history was obtained, BMR was measured by whole-body calorimetry, and, in sixteen women, total energy expenditure (EE) was measured by DLW. Energy intake (EI) and N intake (NI) were calculated using food tables. Using weighed records and diet history respectively mean NI were 11⋅21 (SD 2⋅09) g and 11⋅47 (SD 2⋅40) g (NS) and EI were 8⋅08 (SD 1⋅54) MJ and 8⋅20 (SD 1⋅86) MJ (NS). Mean urine N : NI and EI : BMR values indicated bias to under-reporting by weighed record and diet history techniques in some individuals, but there was no significant difference between these measures at the group level. The Pearson correlation coefficient (r) for urine N v. NI was 0⋅81 for the weighed record and 0⋅38 for the diet history. The correlation of EE v. EI was r 0⋅48 for weighed record and r 0⋅11 for diet history. In this study the diet history gave the same estimate of mean intake, but the weighed record appeared to perform better in ranking individuals. Diet history: Diet record: ValidationThe diet history method of assessing dietary intake is favoured for two reasons. First, as a retrospective questionnaire method, it places less burden on subjects than do prospective diet records. Second, it is believed to obtain a better measure of long-term habitual intake than diet records, which, of necessity, record intake on a limited number of days. The debate over the respective merits of the weighed diet record and the diet history is a long one and many studies over several decades have compared their relative validity. On balance the diet history tends to obtain higher mean energy intakes (EI) (see reviews by Bingham, 1987;Black et al. 1991). However, without external validation such studies have been unable to reach a firm conclusion as to which, if either, is valid in absolute terms.A valid dietary assessment should give an estimate of mean intake that is close to the true intake and also be able to rank individuals correctly for intake within acceptable limits of precision. The two requirements do not necessarily go together. For example, a dataset of valid 24 h recalls would give a valid estimate of mean intake but could not rank individuals correctly for habitual intake. A diet record of sufficient length to measure habitual intake might rank individuals correctly but give an invalid estimate of mean intake due to systematic bias across all subjects. If random errors are large and if systematic bias is variable across individuals, then ranking will also be poor. Studies of relative validity indicate whether one method gives a higher intake than another, and comparison with expected energy requirements can help determine ...

show abstract

“…In support of this, recent evidence from studies involving biomarkers, such as doubly labelled water for measuring energy intake and urinary nitrogen for measuring protein intake (Schoeller, 1990;Heitmann, 1993;Visser et al, 1995;Sawaya et al, 1996;Rothenberg et al, 1998) suggest that selfreporting of diet intake by food records and diet history are biased towards under-reporting. A recent review of the studies that compared energy intake from diet records with energy expenditure measured by the doubly labelled water method reported a mean underestimation of energy intake of 16% (Black, 1999), which is close to the observed underreporting of 20% in the present study.…”

Section: Assessment Of Habitual Intake S Høidrup Et Almentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of habitual energy and macronutrient intake in adults: comparison of a seven day food record with a dietary history interview

et al. 2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To examine the quantitative agreement between a 7 day food record and a diet history interview when these are conducted under the same conditions and to evaluate whether the two methods assess habitual diet intake differently among subgroups of age and body mass index (BMI). Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: Population study, Denmark. Subjects: A total of 175 men and 173 women aged 30 -60 y, selected randomly from a larger population sample of Danish adults. Interventions: All subjects had habitual diet intake assessed by a diet history interview and completed a 7 day food record within 3 weeks following the interview. The diet history interview and coding of records were performed by the same trained dietician. Main outcome measure: Median between-method difference in assessment of total energy intake, absolute intake of macronutrients, and nutrient energy percentages. Difference between reported energy intake from both methods and estimated energy expenditure in different subgroups. Results: Energy and macronutrient intake was assessed slightly higher by the 7 day food record than by the diet history interview, but in absolute terms the differences were negligible. The between-method difference in assessment of total energy intake appeared to be stable over the range of age and BMI in both sexes. As compared to estimated total energy expenditure, both diet assessment methods underestimated energy intake by approximately 20%. For both methods the under-reporting increased by BMI in both sexes and by age in men. Conclusions: Energy and macronutrient intake data collected under even conditions by either a 7 day food record or a diet history interview may be collapsed and analysed independent of the underlying diet method. Both diet methods, however, appear to underestimate energy intake dependent on age and BMI.

show abstract

Evaluation of four methods for determining energy intake in young and older women: comparison with doubly labeled water measurements of total energy expenditure

Cited by 222 publications

References 38 publications

Validation of self-reported energy intake by a self-administered diet history questionnaire using the doubly labeled water method in 140 Japanese adults

Validation of self-reported energy intake by a self-administered diet history questionnaire using the doubly labeled water method in 140 Japanese adults

Validation of dietary intakes measured by diet history against24 h urinary nitrogen excretion and energy expenditure measuredby the doubly-labelled water method in middle-aged women

Assessment of habitual energy and macronutrient intake in adults: comparison of a seven day food record with a dietary history interview

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About