OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a modified dietary history method applied in elderly people aged 74-79 y. SETTING AND SUBJECTS: A total of 387 men and 420 women from seven European towns participated in an observational study. METHODS: Dietary intake was assessed with a modified dietary history and compared with a 3-day estimated record. RESULTS: The modified dietary history provided consistently higher intakes of energy and nutrients than the estimated record. For most nutrients this difference was between 10% and 20%. However, in some towns differences were much larger. Physical activity ratios calculated as reported energy intake divided by estimated basal metabolic rate (BMR) showed values less than 1.5 for data obtained with the estimated record, suggesting underreporting of energy intake. Pearson correlation coefficients between estimates by the two methods of the intakes of energy and almost all nutrients ranged from approximately 0.5 to 0.75. CONCLUSION: The size of the overall correlation coefficients indicates an acceptable agreement between the dietary history and record method in ranking individuals according to their intakes. For two towns, this agreement was not that good. Results indicate that the estimated record might not be a good reference method for older adults.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a modified dietary history method applied in elderly people aged 74-79 y. SETTING AND SUBJECTS: A total of 387 men and 420 women from seven European towns participated in an observational study. METHODS: Dietary intake was assessed with a modified dietary history and compared with a 3-day estimated record. RESULTS: The modified dietary history provided consistently higher intakes of energy and nutrients than the estimated record. For most nutrients this difference was between 10% and 20%. However, in some towns differences were much larger. Physical activity ratios calculated as reported energy intake divided by estimated basal metabolic rate (BMR) showed values less than 1.5 for data obtained with the estimated record, suggesting underreporting of energy intake. Pearson correlation coefficients between estimates by the two methods of the intakes of energy and almost all nutrients ranged from approximately 0.5 to 0.75. CONCLUSION: The size of the overall correlation coefficients indicates an acceptable agreement between the dietary history and record method in ranking individuals according to their intakes. For two towns, this agreement was not that good. Results indicate that the estimated record might not be a good reference method for older adults.
Authors: D Schlettwein-Gsell; B Decarli; J A Cruz; J Haller; C P de Groot; W A van Staveren Journal: Z Gerontol Geriatr Date: 1999-07 Impact factor: 1.281
Authors: E D Toffanello; E M Inelmen; N Minicuci; F Campigotto; G Sergi; A Coin; F Miotto; G Enzi; E Manzato Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: W V R Rosilene; R Cumming; T Travison; F Blyth; V Naganathan; M Allman-Farinelli; V Hirani Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: E D Toffanello; E M Inelmen; N Minicuci; F Campigotto; G Sergi; A Coin; F Miotto; G Enzi; E Manzato Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 4.075