OBJECTIVE: Underreporting of energy intake is prevalent in food surveys, but there is controversy about which dietary assessment method provides greater underreporting rates. Our objective is to compare validity of self-reported energy intake obtained by three dietary assessment methods with total energy expenditure (TEE) obtained by doubly labeled water (DLW) among Brazilian women. DESIGN: We used a cross-sectional study. SUBJECTS/ SETTING: Sixty-five females aged 18 to 57 years (28 normal-weight, 10 overweight, and 27 obese) were recruited from two universities to participate. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: TEE determined by DLW, energy intake estimated by three 24-hour recalls, 3-day food record, and a food frequency questionnaire (FFQ). STATISTICAL ANALYSES PERFORMED: Regression and analysis of variance with repeated measures compared TEE and energy intake values, and energy intake-to-TEE ratios and energy intake-TEE values between dietary assessment methods. Bland and Altman plots were provided for each method. chi(2) test compared proportion of underreporters between the methods. RESULTS: Mean TEE was 2,622 kcal (standard deviation [SD]=490 kcal), while mean energy intake was 2,078 kcal (SD=430 kcal) for the diet recalls; 2,044 kcal (SD=479 kcal) for the food record and 1,984 kcal (SD=832 kcal) for the FFQ (all energy intake values significantly differed from TEE; P<0.0001). Bland and Altman plots indicated great dispersion, negative mean differences between measurements, and wide limits of agreement. Obese subjects underreported more than normal-weight subjects in the diet recalls and in the food records, but not in the FFQ. Years of education, income and ethnicity were associated with reporting accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: The FFQ produced greater under- and overestimation of energy intake. Underreporting of energy intake is a serious and prevalent error in dietary self-reports provided by Brazilian women, as has been described in studies conducted in developed countries.
OBJECTIVE: Underreporting of energy intake is prevalent in food surveys, but there is controversy about which dietary assessment method provides greater underreporting rates. Our objective is to compare validity of self-reported energy intake obtained by three dietary assessment methods with total energy expenditure (TEE) obtained by doubly labeled water (DLW) among Brazilian women. DESIGN: We used a cross-sectional study. SUBJECTS/ SETTING: Sixty-five females aged 18 to 57 years (28 normal-weight, 10 overweight, and 27 obese) were recruited from two universities to participate. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: TEE determined by DLW, energy intake estimated by three 24-hour recalls, 3-day food record, and a food frequency questionnaire (FFQ). STATISTICAL ANALYSES PERFORMED: Regression and analysis of variance with repeated measures compared TEE and energy intake values, and energy intake-to-TEE ratios and energy intake-TEE values between dietary assessment methods. Bland and Altman plots were provided for each method. chi(2) test compared proportion of underreporters between the methods. RESULTS: Mean TEE was 2,622 kcal (standard deviation [SD]=490 kcal), while mean energy intake was 2,078 kcal (SD=430 kcal) for the diet recalls; 2,044 kcal (SD=479 kcal) for the food record and 1,984 kcal (SD=832 kcal) for the FFQ (all energy intake values significantly differed from TEE; P<0.0001). Bland and Altman plots indicated great dispersion, negative mean differences between measurements, and wide limits of agreement. Obese subjects underreported more than normal-weight subjects in the diet recalls and in the food records, but not in the FFQ. Years of education, income and ethnicity were associated with reporting accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: The FFQ produced greater under- and overestimation of energy intake. Underreporting of energy intake is a serious and prevalent error in dietary self-reports provided by Brazilian women, as has been described in studies conducted in developed countries.
Authors: Jaimie N Davis; Kim-Anne Lê; Ryan W Walker; Susanna Vikman; Donna Spruijt-Metz; Marc J Weigensberg; Hooman Allayee; Michael I Goran Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2010-10-20 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: L T Ptomey; E A Willis; J R Goetz; J Lee; A N Szabo-Reed; D K Sullivan; J E Donnelly Journal: J Hum Nutr Diet Date: 2015-02-09 Impact factor: 3.089
Authors: T S Lopes; R R Luiz; D J Hoffman; E Ferriolli; K Pfrimer; A S Moura; R Sichieri; R A Pereira Journal: Eur J Clin Nutr Date: 2016-06-08 Impact factor: 4.016
Authors: Dale A Schoeller; Diana Thomas; Edward Archer; Steven B Heymsfield; Steven N Blair; Michael I Goran; James O Hill; Richard L Atkinson; Barbara E Corkey; John Foreyt; Nikhil V Dhurandhar; John G Kral; Kevin D Hall; Barbara C Hansen; Berit Lilienthal Heitmann; Eric Ravussin; David B Allison Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Archana Shrestha; Rajendra Prasad Koju; Shirley A A Beresford; Kwun Chuen Gary Chan; Biraj Man Karmacharya; Annette L Fitzpatrick Journal: Heart Asia Date: 2016-03-23