Yikyung Park1, Kevin W Dodd2, Victor Kipnis2, Frances E Thompson3, Nancy Potischman4, Dale A Schoeller5, David J Baer6, Douglas Midthune2, Richard P Troiano3, Heather Bowles2, Amy F Subar3. 1. Division of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO. 2. Divisions of Cancer Prevention and Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD. 3. Divisions of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD. 4. Office of Dietary Supplements, NIH, Bethesda, MD. 5. Department of Nutritional Sciences, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI. 6. USDA, Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center, Beltsville, MD.
Abstract
Background: A limited number of studies have evaluated self-reported dietary intakes against objective recovery biomarkers. Objective: The aim was to compare dietary intakes of multiple Automated Self-Administered 24-h recalls (ASA24s), 4-d food records (4DFRs), and food-frequency questionnaires (FFQs) against recovery biomarkers and to estimate the prevalence of under- and overreporting. Design: Over 12 mo, 530 men and 545 women, aged 50-74 y, were asked to complete 6 ASA24s (2011 version), 2 unweighed 4DFRs, 2FFQs, two 24-h urine collections (biomarkers for protein, potassium, and sodium intakes), and 1 administration of doubly labeled water (biomarker for energy intake). Absolute and density-based energy-adjusted nutrient intakes were calculated. The prevalence of under- and overreporting of self-report against biomarkers was estimated. Results: Ninety-two percent of men and 87% of women completed ≥3 ASA24s (mean ASA24s completed: 5.4 and 5.1 for men and women, respectively). Absolute intakes of energy, protein, potassium, and sodium assessed by all self-reported instruments were systematically lower than those from recovery biomarkers, with underreporting greater for energy than for other nutrients. On average, compared with the energy biomarker, intake was underestimated by 15-17% on ASA24s, 18-21% on 4DFRs, and 29-34% on FFQs. Underreporting was more prevalent on FFQs than on ASA24s and 4DFRs and among obese individuals. Mean protein and sodium densities on ASA24s, 4DFRs, and FFQs were similar to biomarker values, but potassium density on FFQs was 26-40% higher, leading to a substantial increase in the prevalence of overreporting compared with absolute potassium intake. Conclusions: Although misreporting is present in all self-report dietary assessment tools, multiple ASA24s and a 4DFR provided the best estimates of absolute dietary intakes for these few nutrients and outperformed FFQs. Energy adjustment improved estimates from FFQs for protein and sodium but not for potassium. The ASA24, which now can be used to collect both recalls and records, is a feasible means to collect dietary data for nutrition research. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society for Nutrition 2018.
RCT Entities:
Background: A limited number of studies have evaluated self-reported dietary intakes against objective recovery biomarkers. Objective: The aim was to compare dietary intakes of multiple Automated Self-Administered 24-h recalls (ASA24s), 4-d food records (4DFRs), and food-frequency questionnaires (FFQs) against recovery biomarkers and to estimate the prevalence of under- and overreporting. Design: Over 12 mo, 530 men and 545 women, aged 50-74 y, were asked to complete 6 ASA24s (2011 version), 2 unweighed 4DFRs, 2 FFQs, two 24-h urine collections (biomarkers for protein, potassium, and sodium intakes), and 1 administration of doubly labeled water (biomarker for energy intake). Absolute and density-based energy-adjusted nutrient intakes were calculated. The prevalence of under- and overreporting of self-report against biomarkers was estimated. Results: Ninety-two percent of men and 87% of women completed ≥3 ASA24s (mean ASA24s completed: 5.4 and 5.1 for men and women, respectively). Absolute intakes of energy, protein, potassium, and sodium assessed by all self-reported instruments were systematically lower than those from recovery biomarkers, with underreporting greater for energy than for other nutrients. On average, compared with the energy biomarker, intake was underestimated by 15-17% on ASA24s, 18-21% on 4DFRs, and 29-34% on FFQs. Underreporting was more prevalent on FFQs than on ASA24s and 4DFRs and among obese individuals. Mean protein and sodium densities on ASA24s, 4DFRs, and FFQs were similar to biomarker values, but potassium density on FFQs was 26-40% higher, leading to a substantial increase in the prevalence of overreporting compared with absolute potassium intake. Conclusions: Although misreporting is present in all self-report dietary assessment tools, multiple ASA24s and a 4DFR provided the best estimates of absolute dietary intakes for these few nutrients and outperformed FFQs. Energy adjustment improved estimates from FFQs for protein and sodium but not for potassium. The ASA24, which now can be used to collect both recalls and records, is a feasible means to collect dietary data for nutrition research. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society for Nutrition 2018.
Authors: Laurence S Freedman; John M Commins; James E Moler; Walter Willett; Lesley F Tinker; Amy F Subar; Donna Spiegelman; Donna Rhodes; Nancy Potischman; Marian L Neuhouser; Alanna J Moshfegh; Victor Kipnis; Lenore Arab; Ross L Prentice Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2015-03-18 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Sharon I Kirkpatrick; Amy F Subar; Deirdre Douglass; Thea P Zimmerman; Frances E Thompson; Lisa L Kahle; Stephanie M George; Kevin W Dodd; Nancy Potischman Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2014-04-30 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Frances E Thompson; Sujata Dixit-Joshi; Nancy Potischman; Kevin W Dodd; Sharon I Kirkpatrick; Lawrence H Kushi; Gwen L Alexander; Laura A Coleman; Thea P Zimmerman; Maria E Sundaram; Heather A Clancy; Michelle Groesbeck; Deirdre Douglass; Stephanie M George; TusaRebecca E Schap; Amy F Subar Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2015-05-10 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Sharon I Kirkpatrick; Nancy Potischman; Kevin W Dodd; Deirdre Douglass; Thea P Zimmerman; Lisa L Kahle; Frances E Thompson; Stephanie M George; Amy F Subar Journal: J Nutr Date: 2016-11-02 Impact factor: 4.798
Authors: Arthur Schatzkin; Victor Kipnis; Raymond J Carroll; Douglas Midthune; Amy F Subar; Sheila Bingham; Dale A Schoeller; Richard P Troiano; Laurence S Freedman Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Alanna J Moshfegh; Donna G Rhodes; David J Baer; Theophile Murayi; John C Clemens; William V Rumpler; David R Paul; Rhonda S Sebastian; Kevin J Kuczynski; Linda A Ingwersen; Robert C Staples; Linda E Cleveland Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: J T Holbrook; K Y Patterson; J E Bodner; L W Douglas; C Veillon; J L Kelsay; W Mertz; J C Smith Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 1984-10 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Marleen A H Lentjes; Alison McTaggart; Angela A Mulligan; Natasha A Powell; David Parry-Smith; Robert N Luben; Amit Bhaniani; Ailsa A Welch; Kay-Tee Khaw Journal: Br J Nutr Date: 2013-09-17 Impact factor: 3.718
Authors: Sanna Nybacka; Heléne Bertéus Forslund; Elisabet Wirfält; Ingrid Larsson; Ulrika Ericson; Eva Warensjö Lemming; Göran Bergström; Bo Hedblad; Anna Winkvist; Anna Karin Lindroos Journal: J Nutr Sci Date: 2016-10-03
Authors: Regan L Bailey; Kevin W Dodd; Jaime J Gahche; Johanna T Dwyer; Alexandra E Cowan; Shinyoung Jun; Heather A Eicher-Miller; Patricia M Guenther; Anindya Bhadra; Paul R Thomas; Nancy Potischman; Raymond J Carroll; Janet A Tooze Journal: J Nutr Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 4.798
Authors: Mary J Christoph; Nicole I Larson; Megan R Winkler; Melanie M Wall; Dianne Neumark-Sztainer Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2019-03-01 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Puthiery Va; Kevin W Dodd; Lixia Zhao; Angela M Thompson-Paul; Carla I Mercado; Ana L Terry; Sandra L Jackson; Chia-Yih Wang; Catherine M Loria; Alanna J Moshfegh; Donna G Rhodes; Mary E Cogswell Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2019-06-01 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Andrea B Goldschmidt; E Whitney Evans; Jared M Saletin; Katie O'Sullivan; Dorit Koren; Scott G Engel; Alissa Haedt-Matt Journal: Appetite Date: 2019-11-18 Impact factor: 3.868
Authors: Rima Itani Al-Nimr; K C S Wright; Christina L Aquila; Curtis L Petersen; Tyler L Gooding; John A Batsis Journal: Clin Nutr ESPEN Date: 2020-09-19
Authors: Amanda E Staiano; Corby K Martin; Catherine M Champagne; Jennifer C Rood; Peter T Katzmarzyk Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Modou L Jobarteh; Megan A McCrory; Benny Lo; Mingui Sun; Edward Sazonov; Alex K Anderson; Wenyan Jia; Kathryn Maitland; Jianing Qiu; Matilda Steiner-Asiedu; Janine A Higgins; Tom Baranowski; Peter Olupot-Olupot; Gary Frost Journal: Curr Dev Nutr Date: 2020-02-07
Authors: Richard A Washburn; Lauren T Ptomey; Anna M Gorczyca; Patricia R Smith; Matthew S Mayo; Robert Lee; Joseph E Donnelly Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2020-08-06 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Amy F Subar; Nancy Potischman; Kevin W Dodd; Frances E Thompson; David J Baer; Dale A Schoeller; Douglas Midthune; Victor Kipnis; Sharon I Kirkpatrick; Beth Mittl; Thea P Zimmerman; Deirdre Douglass; Heather R Bowles; Yikyung Park Journal: J Acad Nutr Diet Date: 2020-08-17 Impact factor: 4.910