Under- and overreporting of energy intake related to weight status and lifestyle in a nationwide sample

Abstract

Desire for weight change and level of dietary consciousness may severely bias reported food intake in dietary surveys. We evaluated to what degree under- and overreporting of energy intake (EI) was related to lifestyle, sociodemographic variables, and attitudes about body weight and diet in a nationwide dietary survey. Data were gathered by a self-administered quantitative food-frequency questionnaire distributed to a representative sample of men and women aged 16-79 y in Norway, of whom 3144 subjects (63%) responded. Reported EI was related to estimated basal metabolic rate (BMR) based on self-reported body weight, age, and sex. An EI:BMR < 1.35 was considered to represent underreporting and an EI:BMR > or = 2.4 as overreporting of EI. Fewer men than women underreported EI (38% compared with 45%). The fraction of overreporters did not differ significantly between sexes (7% of the men compared with 5% of the women). A large proportion of underreporters was obese (9%) and wanted to reduce their weight (41%). Few overreporters were obese and 12% wanted to increase their weight. Underreporters consumed fewer foods rich in fat and sugar than did the other subjects. Multiple regression analysis showed that desire for weight change and physical activity score were significantly correlated with both EI and EI:BMR when adjusted for sociodemographic and lifestyle variables. Our findings indicated that attitudes about one's own body weight influenced reported EI. These attitudes are important in the interpretation of dietary data because many of the subjects (> 30%) wanted to change their body weight.

Characteristics of under- and over-reporters of energy intake among 18–20-year-old males: the Gothenburg Osteoporosis and Obesity Determinants (GOOD) study

“…Earlier studies of under-and over-reporters have mainly investigated either very wide age spans or younger ages. The prevalence of underreporters in the present population was 10 % compared with 16 % seen in a group of 16-19-year-olds in a Norwegian study (9) . In the same age group in the Norwegian study, 23 % were classed as over-reporters v. 22 % in the present study.…”

“…In a review, Black et al (1) concluded that underreporting and under-eating occur in most dietary assessments, but with varying frequency according to the dietary assessment method used. Several characteristics of under-reporters, such as high BMI, high body fat percentage, food-specific reporting, low intake of fat, and high intake of protein and micronutrients, have been presented (4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13) .Only a few studies have investigated the frequency and characteristics of over-reporting. Young, lean males have been found to be a group with a relatively high prevalence of over-reporting (9,12) , but data are sparse.…”

Sociodemographic and behavioural correlates of weight status among women with children living in socioeconomically disadvantaged neighbourhoods

“…First, the surveys relied entirely on self-report, which may have led to underestimates of weight and BMI, 22 as well as biased reports of the behavioural characteristics assessed. For example, obese respondents may be more likely to underreport energy intake than those of healthy weight, 44 an effect that, if present in this study, may explain the lack of any difference in consumption of fast foods and ED snacks between weight status groups. Objective measures of adiposity, and also of dietary intake, physical activity and sedentary behaviour, may result in stronger associations between these variables than observed here.…”

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

“…(Table 3). Several previous studies have already examined non-dietary factors, such as physiological (Zhang et al, 2000;Livingstone and Black, 2003) and psychological (Johansson et al, 1998;Bathalon et al, 2000;Tooze et al, 2004) factors associated with reporting accuracy of energy intake. After adjusting for these variables, the validity slightly improved (Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.42 for men and 0.37 for women).…”