Literature DB >> 12372163

Severe underreporting of energy intake in normal weight subjects: use of an appropriate standard and relation to restrained eating.

I Asbeck1, M Mast, A Bierwag, J Westenhöfer, K J Acheson, M J Müller.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the influence of different standards and restrained eating on underreporting in healthy, non-obese, weight-stable young subjects. DESIGN AND
SUBJECTS: Eighty-three young adults (20-38 years, 55 women, 28 men) were assessed under weight-stable conditions with a 7-day dietary record and the three-factor eating questionnaire by Stunkard and Messick. Resting energy expenditure (REE; indirect calorimetry) plus data derived from physical activity records (PA) (Standard 1) or REE times an activity factor (AF) (Standard 2) was used as standard for total energy expenditure (TEE). For comparison, doubly labelled water (DLW) was used to measure TEE in a subgroup of subjects.
RESULTS: There was an association between self-reported energy intake and Standard 2 but not with Standard 1. When compared with DLW both calculated standards were inaccurate, but Standard 2 avoided high levels of overreporting. Using Standard 2 to identify 'severe' underreporting (SU; as defined by a deviation of energy intake (EI) and TEE of >20%), SU was seen in 37% of all subjects. It was more frequently found in women than in men (49% of women, 14.3% of men, ). Underreporting subjects had a reduced EI but there were no significant differences in nutritional status (body weight and height, body mass index, fat mass and fat-free mass), energy expenditure and the proportion of energy from macronutrients between normal and underreporting subjects. However, high restraint was associated with a higher degree of underreporting in the total group, whereas disinhibition had an influence only in men.
CONCLUSIONS: A high prevalence of SU is seen in non-obese subjects. Characteristics of eating behaviour (restraint and disinhibition) were associated with underreporting but seemed to have a different influence in men and women.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12372163     DOI: 10.1079/PHN2002337

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Public Health Nutr        ISSN: 1368-9800            Impact factor:   4.022


  14 in total

1.  Self-reported vs. actual energy intake in youth with and without loss of control eating.

Authors:  Laura E Wolkoff; Marian Tanofsky-Kraff; Lauren B Shomaker; Merel Kozlosky; Kelli M Columbo; Camden A Elliott; Lisa M Ranzenhofer; Robyn L Osborn; Susan Z Yanovski; Jack A Yanovski
Journal:  Eat Behav       Date:  2010-09-18

2.  Cue reactivity in male restrained eaters: the role of negative cognitions as predictors of food intake.

Authors:  A Hilbert; C Vögele; U Himmelmann
Journal:  Eat Weight Disord       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 4.652

3.  Underreporting in obese inpatients undergoing a psycho-nutritional rehabilitative program.

Authors:  Hellas Cena; Clio Oggioni; Chiara Turpini; Fabiana Negri; Carla Roggi; Chiara Allegri
Journal:  Eat Weight Disord       Date:  2013-04-09       Impact factor: 4.652

4.  The effect of dietary and physical activity pattern on metabolic profile in individuals with schizophrenia: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Joseph C Ratliff; Laura B Palmese; Erin L Reutenauer; Ellen Liskov; Carlos M Grilo; Cenk Tek
Journal:  Compr Psychiatry       Date:  2012-03-16       Impact factor: 3.735

Review 5.  Interventions to enhance adherence to dietary advice for preventing and managing chronic diseases in adults.

Authors:  Sophie Desroches; Annie Lapointe; Stéphane Ratté; Karine Gravel; France Légaré; Stéphane Turcotte
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2013-02-28

6.  Impact of body mass index and age on the relative accuracy of self-reported energy intakes among Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes.

Authors:  Yuki Tanaka; Tomoko Nakagami; Junko Oya; Chieri Ukita-Shibasaki; Yuuka Takehana; Satoshi Sasaki; Tetsuya Babazono
Journal:  Diabetol Int       Date:  2020-03-17

Review 7.  Quantifying diet for nutrigenomic studies.

Authors:  Katherine L Tucker; Caren E Smith; Chao-Qiang Lai; Jose M Ordovas
Journal:  Annu Rev Nutr       Date:  2013-04-29       Impact factor: 11.848

8.  Repeated 24-hour recalls versus dietary records for estimating nutrient intakes in a national food consumption survey.

Authors:  Willem De Keyzer; Inge Huybrechts; Veerle De Vriendt; Stefanie Vandevijvere; Nadia Slimani; Herman Van Oyen; Stefaan De Henauw
Journal:  Food Nutr Res       Date:  2011-11-11       Impact factor: 3.894

9.  Transitions at CpG dinucleotides, geographic clustering of TP53 mutations and food availability patterns in colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Fabio Verginelli; Faraz Bishehsari; Francesco Napolitano; Mahboobeh Mahdavinia; Alessandro Cama; Reza Malekzadeh; Gennaro Miele; Giancarlo Raiconi; Roberto Tagliaferri; Renato Mariani-Costantini
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-08-31       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Factors relating to eating style, social desirability, body image and eating meals at home increase the precision of calibration equations correcting self-report measures of diet using recovery biomarkers: findings from the Women's Health Initiative.

Authors:  Yasmin Mossavar-Rahmani; Lesley F Tinker; Ying Huang; Marian L Neuhouser; Susan E McCann; Rebecca A Seguin; Mara Z Vitolins; J David Curb; Ross L Prentice
Journal:  Nutr J       Date:  2013-05-16       Impact factor: 3.271

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.