Background: The assessment of polyphenol intake in free-living subjects is challenging, mostly because of the difficulty in accurately measuring phenolic content and the wide presence of phenolics in foods.Objective: The aims of this study were to evaluate the validity of polyphenol intake estimated from food-frequency questionnaires (FFQs) by using the mean of 6 measurements of a 24-h dietary recall (24-HR) as a reference and to apply a unique method-of-triads approach to assess validity coefficients (VCs) between latent "true" dietary estimates, total urinary polyphenol (TUP) excretion, and a surrogate biomarker (plasma carotenoids).Design: Dietary intake data from 899 adults of the Adventist Health Study 2 (AHS-2; 43% blacks and 67% women) were obtained. Pearson correlation coefficients (r), corrected for attenuation from within-person variation in the recalls, were calculated between 24-HRs and FFQs and between 24-HRs and TUPs. VCs and 95% CIs between true intake and polyphenol intakes from FFQs, 24-HRs, and the biomarkers TUPs and plasma carotenoids were calculated. Results: Mean ± SD polyphenol intakes were 717 ± 646 mg/d from FFQs and 402 ± 345 mg/d from 24-HRs. The total polyphenol intake from 24-HRs was correlated with FFQs in crude (r = 0.51, P < 0.001) and deattenuated (r = 0.63; 95% CI: 0.61, 0.69) models. In the triad model, the VC between the FFQs and theoretical true intake was 0.46 (95% CI: 0.20, 0.93) and between 24-HRs and true intake was 0.61 (95% CI: 0.38, 1.00).Conclusions: The AHS-2 FFQ is a reasonable indicator of total polyphenol intake in the AHS-2 cohort. Urinary polyphenol excretion is limited by genetic variance, metabolism, and bioavailability and should be used in addition to rather than as a replacement for dietary intake assessment.
Background: The assessment of polyphenol intake in free-living subjects is challenging, mostly because of the difficulty in accurately measuring phenolic content and the wide presence of phenolics in foods.Objective: The aims of this study were to evaluate the validity of polyphenol intake estimated from food-frequency questionnaires (FFQs) by using the mean of 6 measurements of a 24-h dietary recall (24-HR) as a reference and to apply a unique method-of-triads approach to assess validity coefficients (VCs) between latent "true" dietary estimates, total urinary polyphenol (TUP) excretion, and a surrogate biomarker (plasma carotenoids).Design: Dietary intake data from 899 adults of the Adventist Health Study 2 (AHS-2; 43% blacks and 67% women) were obtained. Pearson correlation coefficients (r), corrected for attenuation from within-person variation in the recalls, were calculated between 24-HRs and FFQs and between 24-HRs and TUPs. VCs and 95% CIs between true intake and polyphenol intakes from FFQs, 24-HRs, and the biomarkers TUPs and plasma carotenoids were calculated. Results: Mean ± SD polyphenol intakes were 717 ± 646 mg/d from FFQs and 402 ± 345 mg/d from 24-HRs. The total polyphenol intake from 24-HRs was correlated with FFQs in crude (r = 0.51, P < 0.001) and deattenuated (r = 0.63; 95% CI: 0.61, 0.69) models. In the triad model, the VC between the FFQs and theoretical true intake was 0.46 (95% CI: 0.20, 0.93) and between 24-HRs and true intake was 0.61 (95% CI: 0.38, 1.00).Conclusions: The AHS-2 FFQ is a reasonable indicator of total polyphenol intake in the AHS-2 cohort. Urinary polyphenol excretion is limited by genetic variance, metabolism, and bioavailability and should be used in addition to rather than as a replacement for dietary intake assessment.
Authors: V Neveu; J Perez-Jiménez; F Vos; V Crespy; L du Chaffaut; L Mennen; C Knox; R Eisner; J Cruz; D Wishart; A Scalbert Journal: Database (Oxford) Date: 2010-01-08 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Margreet R Olthof; Peter C H Hollman; Michel N C P Buijsman; Johan M M van Amelsvoort; Martijn B Katan Journal: J Nutr Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 4.798
Authors: Michael J Orlich; Karen Jaceldo-Siegl; Joan Sabaté; Jing Fan; Pramil N Singh; Gary E Fraser Journal: Br J Nutr Date: 2014-09-23 Impact factor: 3.718
Authors: Gary E Fraser; Karen Jaceldo-Siegl; Susanne M Henning; Jing Fan; Synnove F Knutsen; Ella H Haddad; Joan Sabaté; W Lawrence Beeson; Hannelore Bennett Journal: J Nutr Date: 2016-02-03 Impact factor: 4.798
Authors: Raul Zamora-Ros; Nita G Forouhi; Stephen J Sharp; Carlos A González; Brian Buijsse; Marcela Guevara; Yvonne T van der Schouw; Pilar Amiano; Heiner Boeing; Lea Bredsdorff; Guy Fagherazzi; Edith J Feskens; Paul W Franks; Sara Grioni; Verena Katzke; Timothy J Key; Kay-Tee Khaw; Tilman Kühn; Giovanna Masala; Amalia Mattiello; Esther Molina-Montes; Peter M Nilsson; Kim Overvad; Florence Perquier; M Luisa Redondo; Fulvio Ricceri; Olov Rolandsson; Isabelle Romieu; Nina Roswall; Augustin Scalbert; Matthias Schulze; Nadia Slimani; Annemieke M W Spijkerman; Anne Tjonneland; Maria Jose Tormo; Marina Touillaud; Rosario Tumino; Daphne L van der A; Geertruida J van Woudenbergh; Claudia Langenberg; Elio Riboli; Nicholas J Wareham Journal: J Nutr Date: 2013-12-24 Impact factor: 4.798
Authors: Erin D Clarke; Megan E Rollo; Clare E Collins; Lisa Wood; Robin Callister; Mark Philo; Paul A Kroon; Rebecca L Haslam Journal: Nutrients Date: 2020-11-09 Impact factor: 5.717