Evaluation of energy intake estimated by a diet history in three free-living 70 year old populations in Gothenburg, Sweden

Rothenberg, Elisabet; Bosæus, Ingvar; Steen, Bertil

doi:10.1038/sj.ejcn.1600363

Cited by 34 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This procedure, known as the Goldberg cut-off technique, has demonstrated a widespread tendency to underestimation in large national dietary surveys from several countries as well as in many smaller surveys (Heywood et al, 1993;Fogelholm et al, 1996;Briefel et al, 1997;Lafay et al, 1997;Price et al, 1997;Pryer et al, 1997;Rothenberg et al, 1997;Voss et al, 1998). However, this technique was devised to evaluate the overall bias towards under-reporting at the group level.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An evaluation of the sensitivity and specificity of energy expenditure measured by heart rate and the Goldberg cut-off for energy intake: basal metabolic rate for identifying mis-reporting of energy intake by adults and children: a retrospective analysis

et al. 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To identify adults and children as under-(UR), acceptable (AR), or over-reporters (OR) of energy intake (EI) using energy expenditure measured by doubly labelled water (DLW) (EE DLW ), and to use this as a reference to determine the sensitivity and specificity of (i) EE measured by heart rate (EE HR ), and (ii) the Goldberg cut-off technique for classifying subjects into the same categories. Design: Retrospective analysis of a dataset comprising concurrent measurements of EE DLW , EE HR , basal metabolic rate (BMR), and EI by weighed record (EI WR ) on 14 adults and 36 children. EI by diet history (EI DH ) was also measured in the children only. EI WR :EE DLW provided the reference definition of subjects as UR, AR or OR. Three strategies for classifying mis-reporters based on EE HR and Goldberg cut-offs were then explored. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated respectively as the proportion of UR and non-UR correctly identified.Results: Approximately 80% of all subjects were AR. For EI WR and EI DH respectively, the sensitivity of EE HR was 0.50 and 1.00, and specificity was 0.98 and 1.00. Although designating subjects as having low, medium or high activity levels (EE HR :BMR meas ) and calculating cut-offs based on appropriate WHO physical activity level PALs did not change sensitivity, specificity dropped to 0.98 (EI WR ) and 0.97 (EI DH ). Cut-offs based on a PAL of 1.55 reduced sensitivity to 0.33 (EI WR ) and 0.00 (EI DH ), but specificity remained unchanged. The sensitivity of all cut-offs based on physical activity level (PALs) for EI WR was 0.50 (adults) and 0.25 (children). Conclusions: If the precision of EE HR was improved, it may be useful for identifying mis-reporters of EI.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An evaluation of the sensitivity and specificity of energy expenditure measured by heart rate and the Goldberg cut-off for energy intake: basal metabolic rate for identifying mis-reporting of energy intake by adults and children: a retrospective analysis

et al. 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although results from most studies consistently show that underreporting is more likely in obese subjects, it is also evident that obese subjects do not necessarily underestimate energy intake (Bandini et al, 1990;de Vries et al, 1994). Normalweight subjects were also among the underreporters and underreporting may be related to other factors as well (Fogelholm et al, 1996;Pryer et al, 1997;Rothenberg et al, 1997). Independent of the individual characteristics that were related to underreporting, underreporting is observed in many dietary studies and raises the question about the quantity and the quality of non-reported components of the diet.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a Finnish study, reported energy intakes below cut-off 1.28 were seen in 42% of the men and 47% of the women (Fogelholm et al, 1996). Rothenberg et al (1997) found more than 50% of subjects reporting energy intakes below a ratio EIaBMR of 1.52 in a cohort of 70 y old Swedish men and women. In the present study the overall mean EIaBMR of 1.47 for men and 1.49 for women was close to the average value of 1.55 for men and 1.56 for women suggested by FAOa WHOaUNU (1985).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this study lower percentage of energy from carbohydrates and higher percentage of energy from protein, ®bre, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids was found in low energy reporters. In a recent study by Rothenberg et al (1997) macronutrient intake obtained by the dietary history method was investigated in relation to EIaBMR. Percent energy from fat was lower in low energy reporters and proportion of protein in the diet was higher.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Is macronutrient composition of dietary intake data affected by underreporting? Results from the EPIC-Potsdam study

et al. 1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To investigate whether subjects with low reported relative energy intake differ from those with higher relative energy intake according to characteristics such as obesity, physical activity, and macronutrient composition of the diet. Design: Cross-sectional data from a cohort study employing a semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire (SFFQ). To determine energy intake relative to BMR the ratio of reported energy intake (EI) to BMR was used and categorized by quintiles. Setting: East German (Potsdam) cohort of the EPIC study (European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition) Subjects: 2862 women and 2356 men taking part in the EPIC-Potsdam study from January 1st to December 31st 1995. Results: A signi®cant declining trend could be observed for BMI, percentage of body fat, and body weight from the lowest to the highest quintile of EIaBMR. BMR was slightly decreasing, whereas physical acitivity was slightly increasing with quintiles of EIaBMR. Absolute macronutrient intake was directly related to EIaBMR. Percent macronutrient intake indicated lower fat intake, and higher carbohydrate and protein intake in low energy reporters. Energy adjusted macronutrient intake by the residual method showed no dependencies on EIaBMR. Conclusions: Underestimation of energy intake is related to obesity and affects the relation of macronutrients in the reported diet. This implies, that the assumption of adequate ranking of subjects by a SFFQ cannot be maintained. Energy adjusted intake values according to the residual method should be employed in diet-disease risk analysis since they were found to be independent of the methodological in¯uence of underreporting.

show abstract

“…In 63 % of groups mean EI was more than 10 % below mean EE and in only one group was it more than 10 % above EE. Comparisons of EI expressed as a multiple of BMR (EI : BMR) with the physical activity level (PAL) for a sedentary lifestyle have confirmed the widespread tendency to underestimation of EI in large national dietary surveys from several countries (Heywood et al 1993;Klesges et al 1995;Ballard-Barbash et al 1996;Fogelholm et al 1996;Briefel et al 1997;Lafay et al 1997;Price et al 1997;Pryer et al 1997;Rothenberg et al 1997;Braam et al 1998;Gnardellis et al 1998;Voss et al 1998) and also many smaller studies. Mean reported EI : BMR values were predominantly in the range of 1⋅2-1⋅5, whereas DLW studies suggest that EE is greater than 1⋅55 × BMR in all age groups except those aged over 75 years .…”

mentioning

confidence: 86%

Validation of dietary intakes measured by diet history against24 h urinary nitrogen excretion and energy expenditure measuredby the doubly-labelled water method in middle-aged women

Black¹,

Welch²,

Bingham³

2000

Br J Nutr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A diet history method for estimating energy and N intakes was validated against 24 h urinary N excretion and energy expenditure measured by the doubly-labelled water (DLW) method. Fortyeight women aged 50-65 years were studied over 1 year. Weighed diet records from 4 d and two 24 h urine collections, for measurement of urinary N excretion, were obtained in each of four seasons. At the end of the year, a diet history was obtained, BMR was measured by whole-body calorimetry, and, in sixteen women, total energy expenditure (EE) was measured by DLW. Energy intake (EI) and N intake (NI) were calculated using food tables. Using weighed records and diet history respectively mean NI were 11⋅21 (SD 2⋅09) g and 11⋅47 (SD 2⋅40) g (NS) and EI were 8⋅08 (SD 1⋅54) MJ and 8⋅20 (SD 1⋅86) MJ (NS). Mean urine N : NI and EI : BMR values indicated bias to under-reporting by weighed record and diet history techniques in some individuals, but there was no significant difference between these measures at the group level. The Pearson correlation coefficient (r) for urine N v. NI was 0⋅81 for the weighed record and 0⋅38 for the diet history. The correlation of EE v. EI was r 0⋅48 for weighed record and r 0⋅11 for diet history. In this study the diet history gave the same estimate of mean intake, but the weighed record appeared to perform better in ranking individuals. Diet history: Diet record: ValidationThe diet history method of assessing dietary intake is favoured for two reasons. First, as a retrospective questionnaire method, it places less burden on subjects than do prospective diet records. Second, it is believed to obtain a better measure of long-term habitual intake than diet records, which, of necessity, record intake on a limited number of days. The debate over the respective merits of the weighed diet record and the diet history is a long one and many studies over several decades have compared their relative validity. On balance the diet history tends to obtain higher mean energy intakes (EI) (see reviews by Bingham, 1987;Black et al. 1991). However, without external validation such studies have been unable to reach a firm conclusion as to which, if either, is valid in absolute terms.A valid dietary assessment should give an estimate of mean intake that is close to the true intake and also be able to rank individuals correctly for intake within acceptable limits of precision. The two requirements do not necessarily go together. For example, a dataset of valid 24 h recalls would give a valid estimate of mean intake but could not rank individuals correctly for habitual intake. A diet record of sufficient length to measure habitual intake might rank individuals correctly but give an invalid estimate of mean intake due to systematic bias across all subjects. If random errors are large and if systematic bias is variable across individuals, then ranking will also be poor. Studies of relative validity indicate whether one method gives a higher intake than another, and comparison with expected energy requirements can help determine ...

show abstract

Evaluation of energy intake estimated by a diet history in three free-living 70 year old populations in Gothenburg, Sweden

Cited by 34 publications

References 38 publications

An evaluation of the sensitivity and specificity of energy expenditure measured by heart rate and the Goldberg cut-off for energy intake: basal metabolic rate for identifying mis-reporting of energy intake by adults and children: a retrospective analysis

An evaluation of the sensitivity and specificity of energy expenditure measured by heart rate and the Goldberg cut-off for energy intake: basal metabolic rate for identifying mis-reporting of energy intake by adults and children: a retrospective analysis

Is macronutrient composition of dietary intake data affected by underreporting? Results from the EPIC-Potsdam study

Validation of dietary intakes measured by diet history against24 h urinary nitrogen excretion and energy expenditure measuredby the doubly-labelled water method in middle-aged women

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About