Two studies are reported; a pilot study to demonstrate feasibility followed by a larger validity study. Study 1’s objective was to test the effect of two ecological momentary assessment (EMA) approaches that varied in intensity on the validity/accuracy of estimating energy intake with the Remote Food Photography Method (RFPM) over six days in free-living conditions. When using the RFPM, Smartphones are used to capture images of food selection and plate waste and to send the images to a server for food intake estimation. Consistent with EMA, prompts are sent to the Smartphones reminding participants to capture food images. During Study 1, energy intake estimated with the RFPM and the gold standard, doubly labeled water (DLW), were compared. Participants were assigned to receive Standard EMA Prompts (n=24) or Customized Prompts (n=16) (the latter received more reminders delivered at personalized meal times). The RFPM differed significantly from DLW at estimating energy intake when Standard (mean±SD = −895±770 kcal/day, p<.0001), but not Customized Prompts (−270±748 kcal/day, p=.22) were used. Error (energy intake from the RFPM minus that from DLW) was significantly smaller with Customized vs. Standard Prompts. The objectives of Study 2 included testing the RFPM’s ability to accurately estimate energy intake in free-living adults (N=50) over six days, and energy and nutrient intake in laboratory-based meals. The RFPM did not differ significantly from DLW at estimating free-living energy intake (−152±694 kcal/day, p=0.16). During laboratory-based meals, estimating energy and macronutrient intake with the RFPM did not differ significantly compared to directly weighed intake.

The aim of the present study was to report the first reliability and validity tests of the remote food photography method (RFPM), which consists of camera-enabled cell phones with data transfer capability. Participants take and transmit photographs of food selection and plate waste to researchers/clinicians for analysis. Following two pilot studies, adult participants (n 52; BMI 20 -35 kg/m 2 inclusive) were randomly assigned to the dine-in or take-out group. Energy intake (EI) was measured for 3 d. The dine-in group ate lunch and dinner in the laboratory. The take-out group ate lunch in the laboratory and dinner in free-living conditions (participants received a cooler with pre-weighed food that they returned the following morning). EI was measured with the RFPM and by directly weighing foods. The RFPM was tested in laboratory and free-living conditions. Reliability was tested over 3 d and validity was tested by comparing directly weighed EI to EI estimated with the RFPM using Bland -Altman analysis. The RFPM produced reliable EI estimates over 3 d in laboratory (r 0·62; P,0·0001) and free-living (r 0·68; P, 0·0001) conditions. Weighed EI correlated highly with EI estimated with the RFPM in laboratory and free-living conditions (r . 0·93; P, 0·0001). In two laboratory-based validity tests, the RFPM underestimated EI by 24·7 % (P¼ 0·046) and 25·5 % (P¼ 0·076). In free-living conditions, the RFPM underestimated EI by 26·6 % (P¼ 0·017). Bias did not differ by body weight or age. The RFPM is a promising new method for accurately measuring the EI of free-living individuals. Error associated with the method is small compared with self-report methods.Digital photography: Food intake: Energy intake: Measurement: Self-reportThe gold standard for measuring food or energy intake (EI) in free-living humans is the doubly labelled water (DLW) method. DLW provides an accurate measure of total daily energy expenditure and, during a period of energy balance, total daily energy expenditure is equal to EI (1,2) . When a large energy deficit is present during the DLW period, however, it is difficult to obtain an accurate (valid) estimate of an individual's short-term EI using DLW, even if changes in energy stores are considered (3) . This limitation is noteworthy, since researchers and clinicians frequently require an estimate of EI during diets or periods of energy restriction. Additional limitations of the DLW method include: (1) cost; (2) availability; (3) its inability to provide important information about the type and micro-and macronutrient composition of foods ingested. Nevertheless, seemingly few valid and reliable alternatives for estimating EI are available.Self-report methods are frequently used to collect EI data, including 24 h food recall and pen-and-paper food records. When estimating EI with 24 h food recall, a trained individual interviews the participant about his/her food and beverage consumption over the previous 24 h. This method relies on the ability of the participant to accurately recall the types and amou...

Consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages may be one of the dietary causes of metabolic disorders, such as obesity. Therefore, substituting sugar with low-calorie sweeteners may be an efficacious weight management strategy. We tested the effect of preloads containing stevia, aspartame, or sucrose on food intake, satiety, and postprandial glucose and insulin levels. Design: 19 healthy lean (BMI = 20.0 -24.9) and 12 obese (BMI = 30.0 -39.9) individuals 18 to 50 years old completed three separate food test days during which they received preloads containing stevia (290 kcal), aspartame (290 kcal), or sucrose (493 kcal) before the lunch and dinner meal. The preload order was balanced, and food intake (kcal) was directly calculated. Hunger and satiety levels were reported before and after meals, and every hour throughout the afternoon. Participants provided blood samples immediately before and 20 minutes after the lunch preload. Despite the caloric difference in preloads (290 vs. 493 kcals), participants did not compensate by eating more at their lunch and dinner meals when they consumed stevia and aspartame versus sucrose in preloads (mean differences in food intake over entire day between sucrose and stevia = 301 kcal, p < .01; aspartame = 330 kcal, p < .01). Selfreported hunger and satiety levels did not differ by condition. Stevia preloads significantly lowered postprandial glucose levels compared to sucrose preloads (p < .01), and postprandial insulin levels compared to both aspartame and sucrose preloads (p < .05). When consuming stevia and aspartame preloads, participants did not compensate by eating more at either their lunch or dinner meal and reported similar levels of satiety compared to when they consumed the higher calorie sucrose preload.

Objective Test the efficacy of SmartLoss℠, a smartphone-based weight loss intervention, in a pilot study. Design and Methods A 12-week randomized controlled trial. Adults (25

This study tested the efficacy of two school-based programs for prevention of body weight/fat gain in comparison to a control group, in all participants and in overweight children. The Louisiana (LA) Health study utilized a longitudinal, cluster randomized 3-arm controlled design, with 28 months of follow-up. Children (N=2060; M age = 10.5 years, SD = 1.2) from rural communities in Grades 4 to 6 participated in the study. 17 school clusters (M = 123 children/cluster) were randomly assigned to one of three prevention arms: 1) Primary Prevention (PP), an environmental modification program, 2) Primary + Secondary Prevention (PP+SP), the environmental program with an added classroom and internet education component, or 3) Control (C). Primary outcomes were changes in percent body fat and body mass index z scores. Secondary outcomes were changes in behaviors related to energy balance. Comparisons of PP, PP+SP, and C on changes in body fat and BMI z scores found no differences. PP and PP+SP study arms were combined to create an environmental modification arm (EM). Relative to C, EM decreased body fat for boys (−1.7% ± 0.38% versus −0.14% ± 0.69%) and attenuated fat gain for girls (2.9% ± 0.22% versus 3.93% ± 0.37%), but standardized effect sizes were relatively small (< 0.30). In conclusion, this school-based environmental modification programs had modest beneficial effects on changes in percent body fat. Addition of a classroom/internet program to the environmental program did not enhance weight/fat gain prevention, but did impact physical activity and social support in overweight children.