Literature DB >> 14732302

Differences between estimated caloric requirements and self-reported caloric intake in the women's health initiative.

James R Hebert1, Ruth E Patterson, Malka Gorfine, Cara B Ebbeling, Sachiko T St Jeor, Rowan T Chlebowski.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare energy intake derived from a food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) with estimated energy expenditure in postmenopausal women participating in a large clinical study.
METHODS: A total of 161,856 women aged 50 to 79 years enrolled in the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) Observational Study (OS) or Clinical Trial (CT) [including the Diet Modification (DM) component] completed the WHI FFQ, from which energy intake (FFQEI) was derived. Population-adjusted total energy expenditure (PATEE) was calculated according to the Harris-Benedict equation weighted by caloric intakes derived from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Stepwise regression was used to examine the influence of independent variables (e.g., demographic, anthropometric) on FFQEI-PATEE. Race, region, and education were forced into the model; other variables were retained if they increased model explanatory ability by more than 1%.
RESULTS: On average, FFQEI was approximately 25% lower than PATEE. Regression results (intercept=-799 kcal/d) indicated that body mass index (b=-23 kcal/day/kg.m(-2)); age (b=15 kcal/day/year of age); and study arm (relative to women in the OS, for DM women b=169 kcal/d, indicating better agreement with PATEE) increased model partial R(2)>.01. Results for CT women not eligible for DM were similar to those of women in the OS (b=14 kcal/d). There also were apparent differences by race (b=-152 kcal/d in Blacks) and education (b=-67 kcal/d in women with<high school).
CONCLUSION: This large, carefully studied population confirms previous observations regarding underestimates in self-reported caloric intake relative to estimates of metabolic need in younger women, and those with higher weight, with less education, and in Blacks. These differences, along with effects related to intervention assignment, underline the need for additional research to enhance understanding of errors in dietary measurement.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14732302     DOI: 10.1016/S1047-2797(03)00051-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Epidemiol        ISSN: 1047-2797            Impact factor:   3.797


  25 in total

Review 1.  Reduced or modified dietary fat for preventing cardiovascular disease.

Authors:  Lee Hooper; Carolyn D Summerbell; Rachel Thompson; Deirdre Sills; Felicia G Roberts; Helen J Moore; George Davey Smith
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2012-05-16

Review 2.  Effective dietary therapies for pediatric obesity treatment.

Authors:  Angela Fitch; Jenny Bock
Journal:  Rev Endocr Metab Disord       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 6.514

3.  Correlation analysis of genetic admixture and social identification with body mass index in a Native American community.

Authors:  Trina M Norden-Krichmar; Ian R Gizer; Ondrej Libiger; Kirk C Wilhelmsen; Cindy L Ehlers; Nicholas J Schork
Journal:  Am J Hum Biol       Date:  2014-02-17       Impact factor: 1.937

4.  Sarcopenia in premenopausal and postmenopausal women with osteopenia, osteoporosis and normal bone mineral density.

Authors:  Marianne C Walsh; Gary R Hunter; Margaret Barbara Livingstone
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2005-07-02       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 5.  Considering the value of dietary assessment data in informing nutrition-related health policy.

Authors:  James R Hébert; Thomas G Hurley; Susan E Steck; Donald R Miller; Fred K Tabung; Karen E Peterson; Lawrence H Kushi; Edward A Frongillo
Journal:  Adv Nutr       Date:  2014-07-14       Impact factor: 8.701

6.  Perspective: Randomized Controlled Trials Are Not a Panacea for Diet-Related Research.

Authors:  James R Hébert; Edward A Frongillo; Swann A Adams; Gabrielle M Turner-McGrievy; Thomas G Hurley; Donald R Miller; Ira S Ockene
Journal:  Adv Nutr       Date:  2016-05-16       Impact factor: 8.701

7.  Patterns of change over time and history of the inflammatory potential of diet and risk of breast cancer among postmenopausal women.

Authors:  Fred K Tabung; Susan E Steck; Angela D Liese; Jiajia Zhang; Yunsheng Ma; Karen C Johnson; Dorothy S Lane; Lihong Qi; Linda Snetselaar; Mara Z Vitolins; Judith K Ockene; James R Hebert
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2016-07-30       Impact factor: 4.872

8.  Higher micronutrient intake is associated with human papillomavirus-positive head and neck cancer: a case-only analysis.

Authors:  Anna E Arthur; Sonia A Duffy; Gloria I Sanchez; Stephen B Gruber; Jeffrey E Terrell; James R Hebert; Emily Light; Carol R Bradford; Nisha J D'Silva; Thomas E Carey; Gregory T Wolf; Karen E Peterson; Laura S Rozek
Journal:  Nutr Cancer       Date:  2011-06-11       Impact factor: 2.900

9.  Dietary Inflammatory Index, Bone Mineral Density, and Risk of Fracture in Postmenopausal Women: Results From the Women's Health Initiative.

Authors:  Tonya Orchard; Vedat Yildiz; Susan E Steck; James R Hébert; Yunsheng Ma; Jane A Cauley; Wenjun Li; Yasmin Mossavar-Rahmani; Karen C Johnson; Maryam Sattari; Meryl LeBoff; Jean Wactawski-Wende; Rebecca D Jackson
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2017-02-21       Impact factor: 6.741

10.  Perspective: The Dietary Inflammatory Index (DII)-Lessons Learned, Improvements Made, and Future Directions.

Authors:  James R Hébert; Nitin Shivappa; Michael D Wirth; James R Hussey; Thomas G Hurley
Journal:  Adv Nutr       Date:  2019-03-01       Impact factor: 8.701

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.