A comparison of dietary methods in nutritional studies

Abstract

Dietary intakes of 40 lactating women were measured by a 7-day record (7DR) and compared with results using a 1-day record (1DR), 3-day record (3DR), and a newly developed food frequency form. The estimated intakes of energy, protein, calcium, phosphorus, and iron were used in the comparison. The subjects ranged from 3 wk to 6 months postpartum and all were totally breast-feeding their infants at the time of the study. The 7DR was recorded by the subjects and random days were chosen to provide 1DR and 3DR. The food frequency form is a method developed to estimate nutrient intakes based on the consumption of 105 food items. Intraclass correlation coefficients used to compare methods indicated good, moderate, and poor agreement for 3DR/7DR, 1DR/7DR, and food frequency form/7DR comparisons, respectively. Regression analysis was used to assess further the agreement between 3DR and 7DR. This analysis indicated that the 3DR cannot provide good individual estimates of nutrient intakes, but can provide a reasonable estimate of the general quality of the diet. Intakes also were classified as high (greater than 1 1/3 Recommended Daily Allowance), medium (2/3 to 1 1/3 Recommended Daily Allowance), or low (less than 2/3 Recommended Daily Allowance), and Cohen's kappa was used to measure agreement between methods. None of the intakes was found to agree with the 7DR classification. Intraindividual variation was found to be greater than interindividual variation.

Nutrient intake patterns, body mass index, and vitamin levels in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

“…It must be stressed that there are limitations of using 1-day dietary recalls to assess nutrient intake (35)(36)(37). Because an average of 5 1-day intakes over 1 year were evaluated in each patient, it is likely that an average intake will be estimated (i.e., under-reporting and overreporting of kilocalories will likely be balanced).…”

Energy density of the diet, food volume and energy intake by age and sex in a healthy population

“…This method, because of its characteristics (its realization does not need too much time, fact which favours high participation rates; it has a relatively cheap cost; it does not modify the usual dietary habits; and the estimation of the foods consumed is good, as the interval of time between the intake and the interview is short), appears to be one of the most appropriate to provide estimates for population groups (Cubeau, 1982;Stuff et al, 1983).…”

Assessment of habitual energy and macronutrient intake in adults: comparison of a seven day food record with a dietary history interview

“…However, in practice the diet history interview and 7 day food records have interchangeably served as 'gold standards' (Willett et al, 1985;Block & Woods 1990;Block et al, 1992;Jain et al, 1996). So far, relatively few studies have compared the results of dietary history interviews with those of a 7 day food record in the same individuals (Huenemann & Turner, 1942;Jain et al, 1980;Stuff et al, 1983;Mahalko et al, 1985;Hankin et al, 1991;Block et al, 1992;Jain et al, 1996). Since the purpose of the majority of these studies has been to evaluate the relative validity of the two diet assessment methods, the agreement between methods has typically been summarised by calculation of the correlation or regression coefficients or the degree of crossclassification.…”

“…Since the purpose of the majority of these studies has been to evaluate the relative validity of the two diet assessment methods, the agreement between methods has typically been summarised by calculation of the correlation or regression coefficients or the degree of crossclassification. Indeed, only few studies have actually focused on the absolute agreement between the methods and the individual variation of the between-method differences (Huenemann & Turner, 1942;Stuff et al, 1983;Mahalko et al, 1985).…”