What are people really eating? The relation between energy intake derived from estimated diet records and intake determined to maintain body weight

Mertz, Walter; Tsui, Jean; Judd, Joseph T.; Reiser, Sheldon; Hallfrisch, Judith; Morris, E. Matthew; Steele, P.; Lashley, E

doi:10.1093/ajcn/54.2.291

Cited by 325 publications

(113 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Four methods used to estimate energy expenditure by measuring EI or EE were compared within the same subjects in this EI as determined by self reported dietary records was found to underestimate energy expenditure as measured by ME intake balance by an average of 22% and by doubly labeled water by an average of 23% in 19 adult female and male subjects. The results from this study are consistent with published results where EI by diet records was 18% lower than EI by intake balance in 266 adult female and male subjects (Mertz et al, 1991). These results are also consistent with reported results where EI by dietary intake records were 20% lower than EE by doubly labeled water in men and women between 20 and 65 y of age (Livingstone et al, 1990; Martin et al, 1996;Sawaya et al, 1996;Schultz et al, 1989 ).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…Dietary intake records have been compared to EI balance (Mertz et al, 1991) and EE measured by doubly labeled water (Black et al, 1993;Livingstone et al, 1990;Livingstone et al, 1992;Martin et al, 1996;Prentice et al, 1986;Sawaya et al, 1996;Schoeller, 1995;Schoeller et al, 1990;Schulz et al, 1989) and room calorimetry (Drougas et al, 1992) to determine the reliability of self reported dietary intake methods.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of energy expenditure measurements by diet records, energy intake balance, doubly labeled water and room calorimetry

Seale

Rumpler

1997

Eur J Clin Nutr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare estimates of daily energy expenditure (EE) using energy intake from self reported diet records, metabolizable energy intake balance, doubly labeled water and room calorimetry methods. Design: Cross sectional design. Setting: Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center, Beltsville, MD USA. Interventions: Energy intake was measured using seven-day self reported diet records (EI), and metabolizable energy (ME) intake balance. EE was measured using doubly labeled water (TEE) and 24 h indirect room calorimetry (24 EE). Body composition was measured using stable isotope dilution and DEXA. Results: EI measured by self reported diet records was 22% less than ME intake balance, 23% less than TEE by doubly labeled water and 8% less than 24 EE by room calorimetry. 24 EE was 16% less than TEE and 16% less than ME. TEE was not signi®cantly greater than ME (0.3%). While mean ME, TEE and 24 EE measurements were signi®cantly lower in female compared to male subjects, mean EI and the mean percent difference between measurement methods were not. Conclusions: Direct comparison of these methods indicate self reported diet records and room calorimetry underestimate daily energy expenditure. While EI balance accurately estimates energy expenditure, EE measured by doubly labeled water is a more direct approach.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of energy expenditure measurements by diet records, energy intake balance, doubly labeled water and room calorimetry

Seale

Rumpler

1997

Eur J Clin Nutr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similar to other studies (Heitmann, 1993;Heitmann and Lissner, 1995) we observed that diet under-reporting increased with increasing body weight. Contrary to some studies (Livingstone et al, 1990;Mertz et al, 1991;Heitmann, 1993) but in agreement with others (Baecke et al, 1983) we observed that diet under-reporting also was dependent on age. The finding of a similar under-reporting by both methods among obese subject suggests that the more 'anonymous' food record method is hardly superior to the more confrontational diet history interview with respect to avoiding diet under-reporting among obese people.…”

Section: Assessment Of Habitual Intake S Høidrup Et Alsupporting

confidence: 88%

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

“…The problem has been identi®ed by several external markers of intake: ®rst, comparisons between self-reported energy intake and the energy intake required to maintain body weight in longterm metabolic studies (Lichtman et al, 1992;Mertz et al, 1991); second, comparisons between reported nitrogena protein intake and 24-h urinary nitrogen excretion where the 24-h urine collection has been validated by the PABA-CHEK technique (Bingham & Cummings, 1983;Bingham et al, 1995;Bingham & Cummings, 1985;Isaksson, 1980); third, comparisons between reported energy intake (EI) and energy expenditure measured by the doubly labelled water technique (EE) (Bandini et al, 1987;Black et al, 1993;Livingstone et al, 1992;Prentice et al, 1986a;Westerterp et al, 1986).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The sensitivity and specificity of the Goldberg cut-off for EI:BMR for identifying diet reports of poor validity

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To explore the speci®city and sensitivity of the Goldberg cut-off for EI : BMR for identifying diet reports of poor validity as compared with the direct comparison of energy intake with energy expenditure measured by doubly-labelled water. Design: Twenty-two studies with measurements of total energy expenditure by doubly-labelled water (EE), basal metabolic rate (BMR) and energy intake (EI) provided the database (n 429). The ratio EI : EE provided the baseline de®nition of under-(UR), acceptable-(AR) and over-reporters (OR), respectively EI : EE`0.76, 0.76 ± 1.24 and b 1.24. Four strategies for identifying under-and over-reporters using the Goldberg cut-off were explored. Sensitivity of the cut-off was calculated as the proportion of UR correctly identi®ed and speci®city as the proportion of non-UR correctly identi®ed. Results: UR, AR and OR (by EI : EE) were 34, 62 and 4% respectively of all subjects. When a single Goldberg cut-off for the physical activity level (PAL) of 1.55 was used, for men and women respectively the sensitivity was 0.50 and 0.52 and the speci®city 1.00 and 0.99. Using a cut-off for higher PAL traded speci®city for sensitivity. Using the cut-off for a PAL of 1.95, sensitivity was 0.76 and 0.85 and the speci®city 0.87 and 0.78 for men and women respectively. Using cut-offs for mean age ± sex speci®c PAL did not improve sensitivity. When subjects were assigned to low, medium and high activity levels and cut-offs for three different PALs used, sensitivity improved to 0.74 and 0.67 without loss of speci®city (0.97 and 0.98), for men and women respectively. If activity levels for men were applied to the womens' data, sensitivity improved to 0.72. Conclusion: To identify diet reports of poor validity using the Goldberg cut-off for EI : BMR, information is needed on each subject's activity level.

show abstract

What are people really eating? The relation between energy intake derived from estimated diet records and intake determined to maintain body weight

Cited by 325 publications

References 9 publications

Comparison of energy expenditure measurements by diet records, energy intake balance, doubly labeled water and room calorimetry

Comparison of energy expenditure measurements by diet records, energy intake balance, doubly labeled water and room calorimetry

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

The sensitivity and specificity of the Goldberg cut-off for EI:BMR for identifying diet reports of poor validity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About