No abstract

No abstract

The methodology used in dietary surveys could, to a large extent, follow the instructions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), where 24-h dietary recall (24HDR) is recommended for (sub) population studies. However, it is necessary to examine the suitability of 24HDR for indicative dietary intake in older adults. This study aimed to compare participants’ dietary intakes with the recommendations and to compare dietary intakes derived from a 24HDR using an OPEN web-based application to those obtained from reference weighed food records (WFRs). Forty-nine Slovenian residential home residents completed both assessments, and a comparison with dietary reference values was performed. Estimates from these two methods were compared and the correlations between them were assessed. The findings revealed that dietary intakes derived from the WFR method mostly differed from the recommended intakes. The 24HDR underestimated dietary intake compared to the WFR for 66% of monitored parameters, while 75% of these parameters were correlated, mostly at a moderate level (0.3–0.69). In conclusion, the diets of residential home residents in this study mostly differed from recommendations. Both methods for dietary intake assessment provided comparable results for most of the monitored parameters in expected deviations. A web-based 24HDR could be a valid tool for the indicative assessment of dietary intake in older adults. However, further validations are required.

Objective: Several methods for the assessment of body composition exist, yet they yield different results. The present study aimed to assess the extent of these differences on a sample of young, healthy subjects. We hypothesised that differences in body composition results obtained with different methods will vary to the extent that a subject can be misclassified into different nutritional categories. Research Methods and Procedures: Underwater weighing (UWW), bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), anthropometry (ANT), and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) were used to assess body composition. An extensive list of ANT regression equations (or sets of equations) was analysed in terms of accuracy and precision relative to DXA. Results: When DXA-determined body fat (BF) values were taken as a reference, UWW overestimated BF in both genders. In contrast, BIA (measured with a given bioimpedance analyser) underestimated BF in females, although BIA-determined BF did not differ from DXA in males. A huge difference in BF estimates (8-29% for females and 6-29% for males, for DXA-determined BF of 25.5% and 13.9% for females in males, respectively) was observed across a number of ANT regression equations; yet, ANT proved not to be inferior to DXA, provided that regression equations with the highest combinations of accuracy and precision were chosen. Conclusions: The study proved grounds for comparison of body composition results of young, healthy subjects, obtained with different methods and across a wide range of ANT regression equations. It also revealed a list of the most appropriate ANT regression equations for the selected sample and reported their accuracy and precision.

Body position affects body water distribution and in turn the accuracy of bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), which may consequently distort conclusions about an individual's body composition.We compared body fat percentage (BFP) obtained with leg-to-leg-BIA (LL) and hand-to-leg-BIA (HL) with the reference values.The BFPs of 97 individuals were determined with an LL- (Tanita TBF 215GS, Japan) and HL- (Akern, STA/BIA, Italy) BIA-analyser and with reference skinfold thickness (SF) measurements. Each subject was measured upright with the LL-analyser, and upright and supine with the HL-analyser, both before and after 20 min of supine rest. The one-way ANOVA for repeated measures (HL-BIA), Student's t-test (LL-BIA), intraclass correlation coefficients, and Bland-Altman's plots were used for statistical analysis.BFPs determined with HL/LL BIA in upright/supine positions differ significantly. Compared to the SF method, HL-BIA mostly overestimates, while LL-BIA mostly underestimates BFP. Agreement between anthropometrically determined BFP and HL/LL-BIA determined BFP is better with HL for both sexes, and generally better in females than males.HL-BIA-determined estimates of BFP are more similar to reference values than LL-BIA. However, for both BIA methods, BIA-determined estimates of BFP are significantly affected by body position. Consequently, different BIA methods will classify approximately one fifth of subjects into the erroneous body-fat-content category, which calls for urgent standardization.