Literature DB >> 2200586

Inaccuracies in self-reported intake identified by comparison with the doubly labelled water method.

D A Schoeller1, L G Bandini, W H Dietz.   

Abstract

To test the accuracy of self-reported energy intake, reported intake was compared with measured energy expenditure. Results from nine studies were reviewed in which intake data were obtained by recall or weighed record for at least 7 days. Expenditure was measured for 7 days or more by the doubly labelled water method. Individual differences between reported intake and expenditure were large (range +25 to -76%). Group mean differences were smaller. Lean, nonathletic groups living in industrialized countries demonstrated the smallest mean difference between self-reported energy intakes and expenditure (0 to -20%). Obese populations demonstrated the largest mean differences (-35 and -50%), but women living in the Gambia and elite athletes also demonstrated large mean differences. Most of the difference appears to be due to under-reporting, but some subjects lost weight during the reporting period indicating that some of the difference was due to undereating. Because the greatest bias was observed in obese subjects, current methods for self-reported energy intake are not recommended for use in obesity research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2200586     DOI: 10.1139/y90-143

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can J Physiol Pharmacol        ISSN: 0008-4212            Impact factor:   2.273


  55 in total

Review 1.  Energy balance measurement: when something is not better than nothing.

Authors:  N V Dhurandhar; D Schoeller; A W Brown; S B Heymsfield; D Thomas; T I A Sørensen; J R Speakman; M Jeansonne; D B Allison
Journal:  Int J Obes (Lond)       Date:  2014-11-13       Impact factor: 5.095

2.  Breaking the feast.

Authors:  David A Levitsky
Journal:  Am J Clin Nutr       Date:  2015-08-12       Impact factor: 7.045

3.  Plausible reports of energy intake may predict body mass index in pre-adolescent girls.

Authors:  Jennifer S Savage; Diane C Mitchell; Helen Smiciklas-Wright; Danielle Symons Downs; Leann L Birch
Journal:  J Am Diet Assoc       Date:  2008-01

4.  Influence of weekend lifestyle patterns on body weight.

Authors:  Susan B Racette; Edward P Weiss; Kenneth B Schechtman; Karen Steger-May; Dennis T Villareal; Kathleen A Obert; John O Holloszy
Journal:  Obesity (Silver Spring)       Date:  2008-06-12       Impact factor: 5.002

5.  Increased intramuscular lipid synthesis and low saturation relate to insulin sensitivity in endurance-trained athletes.

Authors:  Bryan C Bergman; Leigh Perreault; Devon M Hunerdosse; Mary C Koehler; Ali M Samek; Robert H Eckel
Journal:  J Appl Physiol (1985)       Date:  2010-03-18

6.  Comparison of methods to account for implausible reporting of energy intake in epidemiologic studies.

Authors:  Jinnie J Rhee; Laura Sampson; Eunyoung Cho; Michael D Hughes; Frank B Hu; Walter C Willett
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2015-02-05       Impact factor: 4.897

7.  Pre-Practice Hydration Status and the Effects of Hydration Regimen on Collegiate Division III Male Athletes.

Authors:  Meir Magal; Rebekah J Cain; Josh C Long; Kathleen S Thomas
Journal:  J Sports Sci Med       Date:  2015-03-01       Impact factor: 2.988

Review 8.  Food Revolution.

Authors:  Christopher D Gardner; Michelle E Hauser
Journal:  Am J Lifestyle Med       Date:  2017-03-08

9.  Video chat technology to remotely quantify dietary, supplement and medication adherence in clinical trials.

Authors:  Courtney M Peterson; John W Apolzan; Courtney Wright; Corby K Martin
Journal:  Br J Nutr       Date:  2016-10-18       Impact factor: 3.718

10.  Quantification of food intake using food image analysis.

Authors:  Corby K Martin; Sertan Kaya; Bahadir K Gunturk
Journal:  Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc       Date:  2009
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.