Jasper Most1, Porsha M Vallo1, Abby D Altazan1, Linda Anne Gilmore1, Elizabeth F Sutton1, Loren E Cain1,2, Jeffrey H Burton3, Corby K Martin4, Leanne M Redman1. 1. Reproductive Endocrinology and Women's Health Laboratory, Biostatistics Core, Ingestive Behavior Laboratory, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA. 2. Department of Women's Health, Dell Medical School, University of Texas, Austin, TX. 3. Biostatistics Core, Ingestive Behavior Laboratory, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA. 4. Ingestive Behavior Laboratory, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA.
Abstract
Background: To improve weight management in pregnant women, there is a need to deliver specific, data-based recommendations on energy intake. Objective: This cross-sectional study evaluated the accuracy of an electronic reporting method to measure daily energy intake in pregnant women compared with total daily energy expenditure (TDEE). Methods: Twenty-three obese [mean ± SEM body mass index (kg/m2): 36.9 ± 1.3] pregnant women (aged 28.3 ±1.1 y) used a smartphone application to capture images of their food selection and plate waste in free-living conditions for ≥6 d in early (13-16 wk) and late (35-37 wk) pregnancy. Energy intake was evaluated by the smartphone application SmartIntake and compared with simultaneous assessment of TDEE obtained by doubly labeled water. Accuracy was defined as reported energy intake compared with TDEE (percentage of TDEE). Ecological momentary assessment prompts were used to enhance data reporting. Two-one-sided t tests for the 2 methods were used to assess equivalency, which was considered significant when accuracy was >80%. Results: Energy intake reported by the SmartIntake application was 63.4% ± 2.3% of TDEE measured by doubly labeled water (P = 1.00). Energy intake reported as snacks accounted for 17% ± 2% of reported energy intake. Participants who used their own phones compared with participants who used borrowed phones captured more images (P = 0.04) and had higher accuracy (73% ± 3% compared with 60% ± 3% of TDEE; P = 0.01). Reported energy intake as snacks was significantly associated with the accuracy of SmartIntake (P = 0.03). To improve data quality, excluding erroneous days of likely underreporting (<60% TDEE) improved the accuracy of SmartIntake, yet this was not equivalent to TDEE (-22% ± 1% of TDEE; P = 1.00). Conclusions: Energy intake in obese, pregnant women obtained with the use of an electronic reporting method (SmartIntake) does not accurately estimate energy intake compared with doubly labeled water. However, accuracy improves by applying criteria to eliminate erroneous data. Further evaluation of electronic reporting in this population is needed to improve compliance, specifically for reporting frequent intake of small meals. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01954342.
Background: To improve weight management in pregnant women, there is a need to deliver specific, data-based recommendations on energy intake. Objective: This cross-sectional study evaluated the accuracy of an electronic reporting method to measure daily energy intake in pregnant women compared with total daily energy expenditure (TDEE). Methods: Twenty-three obese [mean ± SEM body mass index (kg/m2): 36.9 ± 1.3] pregnant women (aged 28.3 ±1.1 y) used a smartphone application to capture images of their food selection and plate waste in free-living conditions for ≥6 d in early (13-16 wk) and late (35-37 wk) pregnancy. Energy intake was evaluated by the smartphone application SmartIntake and compared with simultaneous assessment of TDEE obtained by doubly labeled water. Accuracy was defined as reported energy intake compared with TDEE (percentage of TDEE). Ecological momentary assessment prompts were used to enhance data reporting. Two-one-sided t tests for the 2 methods were used to assess equivalency, which was considered significant when accuracy was >80%. Results: Energy intake reported by the SmartIntake application was 63.4% ± 2.3% of TDEE measured by doubly labeled water (P = 1.00). Energy intake reported as snacks accounted for 17% ± 2% of reported energy intake. Participants who used their own phones compared with participants who used borrowed phones captured more images (P = 0.04) and had higher accuracy (73% ± 3% compared with 60% ± 3% of TDEE; P = 0.01). Reported energy intake as snacks was significantly associated with the accuracy of SmartIntake (P = 0.03). To improve data quality, excluding erroneous days of likely underreporting (<60% TDEE) improved the accuracy of SmartIntake, yet this was not equivalent to TDEE (-22% ± 1% of TDEE; P = 1.00). Conclusions: Energy intake in obese, pregnant women obtained with the use of an electronic reporting method (SmartIntake) does not accurately estimate energy intake compared with doubly labeled water. However, accuracy improves by applying criteria to eliminate erroneous data. Further evaluation of electronic reporting in this population is needed to improve compliance, specifically for reporting frequent intake of small meals. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01954342.
Authors: Diana M Thomas; Jesus E Navarro-Barrientos; Daniel E Rivera; Steven B Heymsfield; Carl Bredlau; Leanne M Redman; Corby K Martin; Sally A Lederman; Linda M Collins; Nancy F Butte Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2011-12-14 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: G R Goldberg; A E Black; S A Jebb; T J Cole; P R Murgatroyd; W A Coward; A M Prentice Journal: Eur J Clin Nutr Date: 1991-12 Impact factor: 4.016
Authors: L Anne Gilmore; Nancy F Butte; Eric Ravussin; Hongmei Han; Jeffrey H Burton; Leanne M Redman Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Christine Delisle Nyström; Elisabet Forsum; Hanna Henriksson; Ylva Trolle-Lagerros; Christel Larsson; Ralph Maddison; Toomas Timpka; Marie Löf Journal: Nutrients Date: 2016-01-15 Impact factor: 5.717
Authors: Jasper Most; Marshall St Amant; Daniel S Hsia; Abby D Altazan; Diana M Thomas; L Anne Gilmore; Porsha M Vallo; Robbie A Beyl; Eric Ravussin; Leanne M Redman Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Emily W Flanagan; Jasper Most; Nicholas T Broskey; Abby D Altazan; Robbie A Beyl; Sarah K Keadle; Kimberly L Drews; Prachi Singh; Leanne M Redman Journal: Sleep Med Date: 2020-12-05 Impact factor: 3.492
Authors: Louise Thornton; Bridie Osman; Katrina Champion; Olivia Green; Annie B Wescott; Lauren A Gardner; Courtney Stewart; Rachel Visontay; Jesse Whife; Belinda Parmenter; Louise Birrell; Zachary Bryant; Cath Chapman; David Lubans; Tim Slade; John Torous; Maree Teesson; Pepijn Van de Ven Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2022-02-17 Impact factor: 4.947