Evan C Johnson1, François Péronnet2, Lisa T Jansen3, Catalina Capitan-Jiménez4, J D Adams3, Isabelle Guelinckx5, Liliana Jiménez5, Andy Mauromoustakos6, Stavros A Kavouras7,8. 1. Human Integrated Physiology Laboratory, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. 2. Department of Kinesiology, University of Montreal, Montreal, Québec, Canada. 3. Hydration Science Laboratory and. 4. Hispanoamerican University, San Jose, Costa Rica. 5. Danone Research, Palaiseau, France; and. 6. Agricultural Statistics Laboratory, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR. 7. Hydration Science Laboratory and kavouras@uark.edu. 8. Division of Endocrinology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR.
Abstract
Background: Mean daily water intake from fluids (WATER-FL) has proven to be difficult to measure because of a range of nonvalidated data collection techniques. Few questionnaires have been validated to estimate WATER-FL against self-reported diaries or urinary hydration markers, which may limit their objectivity. Objectives: The goals of this investigation were 1) to assess the validity of a 7-d fluid record (7dFLR) to measure WATER-FL (WATER-FL-7dFLR) through comparison with WATER-FL as calculated by measuring deuterium oxide (D2O) disappearance (WATER-FL-D2O), and 2) to evaluate the reliability of the 7dFLR in measuring WATER-FL. Methods: Participants [n = 96; 51% female; mean ± SD age: 41 ± 14 y; mean ± SD body mass index (in kg/m2): 26.2 ± 5.1] completed body water turnover analysis over 3 consecutive weeks. They completed the 7dFLR and food diaries during weeks 2 and 4 of the observation. The records were entered into nutritional software to determine the water content of all foods and fluids consumed. WATER-FL-D2O was calculated from water turnover (via the D2O dilution method), minus water from food and metabolic water. The agreement between the 2 methods of determining WATER-FL were compared according to a Bland-Altman plot at week 2. The test-retest reliability of 7dFLR between weeks 2 and 4 was assessed via intraclass correlation (ICC). Results: The mean ± SD difference between WATER-FL-7dFLR and WATER-FL-D2O was -131 ± 845 mL/d. In addition, no bias was observed (F[1,94] = 0.484; R2 = 0.006; P = 0.488). When comparing WATER-FL-7dFLR from weeks 2 and 4, no significant difference (mean ± SD difference: 71 ± 75 mL/d; t[79] = 0.954; P = 0.343) and an ICC of 0.85 (95% CI: 0.77, 0.90) was observed.Conclusions: The main findings of this study were that the use of the 7dFLR is an effective and reliable method to estimate WATER-FL in adults. This style of questionnaire may be extremely helpful for collecting water intake data for large-scale epidemiologic studies.
Background: Mean daily water intake from fluids (WATER-FL) has proven to be difficult to measure because of a range of nonvalidated data collection techniques. Few questionnaires have been validated to estimate WATER-FL against self-reported diaries or urinary hydration markers, which may limit their objectivity. Objectives: The goals of this investigation were 1) to assess the validity of a 7-d fluid record (7dFLR) to measure WATER-FL (WATER-FL-7dFLR) through comparison with WATER-FL as calculated by measuring deuterium oxide (D2O) disappearance (WATER-FL-D2O), and 2) to evaluate the reliability of the 7dFLR in measuring WATER-FL. Methods:Participants [n = 96; 51% female; mean ± SD age: 41 ± 14 y; mean ± SD body mass index (in kg/m2): 26.2 ± 5.1] completed body water turnover analysis over 3 consecutive weeks. They completed the 7dFLR and food diaries during weeks 2 and 4 of the observation. The records were entered into nutritional software to determine the water content of all foods and fluids consumed. WATER-FL-D2O was calculated from water turnover (via the D2O dilution method), minus water from food and metabolic water. The agreement between the 2 methods of determining WATER-FL were compared according to a Bland-Altman plot at week 2. The test-retest reliability of 7dFLR between weeks 2 and 4 was assessed via intraclass correlation (ICC). Results: The mean ± SD difference between WATER-FL-7dFLR and WATER-FL-D2O was -131 ± 845 mL/d. In addition, no bias was observed (F[1,94] = 0.484; R2 = 0.006; P = 0.488). When comparing WATER-FL-7dFLR from weeks 2 and 4, no significant difference (mean ± SD difference: 71 ± 75 mL/d; t[79] = 0.954; P = 0.343) and an ICC of 0.85 (95% CI: 0.77, 0.90) was observed.Conclusions: The main findings of this study were that the use of the 7dFLR is an effective and reliable method to estimate WATER-FL in adults. This style of questionnaire may be extremely helpful for collecting water intake data for large-scale epidemiologic studies.
Authors: Adam D Seal; Abigail T Colburn; Evan C Johnson; François Péronnet; Lisa T Jansen; J D Adams; Costas N Bardis; Isabelle Guelinckx; Erica T Perrier; Stavros A Kavouras Journal: Eur J Nutr Date: 2022-08-09 Impact factor: 4.865
Authors: P W Laksmi; C Morin; J Gandy; L A Moreno; S A Kavouras; H Martinez; J Salas-Salvadó; I Guelinckx Journal: Eur J Nutr Date: 2018-06-13 Impact factor: 5.614
Authors: Hao Zheng; Weijie Zhou; Lan Zhang; Xiaobo Li; Jian Cheng; Zhen Ding; Yan Xu; Wenbiao Hu Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-04-25 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: J Gandy; H Martinez; E Carmuega; J L Arredondo; C Pimentel; L A Moreno; S A Kavouras; J Salas-Salvadó Journal: Eur J Nutr Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 5.614
Authors: C Morin; J Gandy; L A Moreno; S A Kavouras; H Martinez; J Salas-Salvadó; I Guelinckx Journal: Eur J Nutr Date: 2018-06-12 Impact factor: 5.614
Authors: N Zhang; C Morin; I Guelinckx; L A Moreno; S A Kavouras; J Gandy; H Martinez; J Salas-Salvadó; G Ma Journal: Eur J Nutr Date: 2018-06-14 Impact factor: 5.614
Authors: C Morin; J Gandy; R Brazeilles; L A Moreno; S A Kavouras; H Martinez; J Salas-Salvadó; J Bottin; Isabelle Guelinckx Journal: Eur J Nutr Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 5.614