• search hit 1 of 9
Back to Result List

An easy-to-use semiquantitative food record validated for energy intake by using doubly labelled water technique

  • Background: Estimating dietary intake is important for both epidemiological and clinical studies, but often lacks accuracy. Objective: To investigate the accuracy and validity of energy intake estimated by an easy-to-use semiquantitative food record (EISQFR) compared to total energy expenditure ( TEE) estimated by doubly labelled water technique (EEDLW). Design: TEE was measured in 29 nonobese subjects using the doubly labelled water method over a period of 14 days. Within this period, subjects reported their food consumption by a newly developed semiquantitative food record for 4 consecutive days. Energy intake was calculated using the German Food Code and Nutrition Data Base BLS II.3. Results: A good correlation was observed between EISQFR and EEDLW (r = 0.685, P<0.001). The mean difference between EISQFR and EEDLW was - 1.7 +/- 2.6 MJ/ day ( - 14 +/- 21%, P = 0.002). An underestimation of EISQFR <10% was observed in nine subjects (31%), of 10 - 20% in six subjects (21%), and of >20% in nine subjects (31%). In five subjects (17%),Background: Estimating dietary intake is important for both epidemiological and clinical studies, but often lacks accuracy. Objective: To investigate the accuracy and validity of energy intake estimated by an easy-to-use semiquantitative food record (EISQFR) compared to total energy expenditure ( TEE) estimated by doubly labelled water technique (EEDLW). Design: TEE was measured in 29 nonobese subjects using the doubly labelled water method over a period of 14 days. Within this period, subjects reported their food consumption by a newly developed semiquantitative food record for 4 consecutive days. Energy intake was calculated using the German Food Code and Nutrition Data Base BLS II.3. Results: A good correlation was observed between EISQFR and EEDLW (r = 0.685, P<0.001). The mean difference between EISQFR and EEDLW was - 1.7 +/- 2.6 MJ/ day ( - 14 +/- 21%, P = 0.002). An underestimation of EISQFR <10% was observed in nine subjects (31%), of 10 - 20% in six subjects (21%), and of >20% in nine subjects (31%). In five subjects (17%), an overestimation of EISQFR was observed. Conclusions: The easy-to-use semiquantitative food record provided good estimates of EI in free-living and nonobese adults without prior detailed verbal instructions. The presented food record has limitations regarding accuracy at the individual levelshow moreshow less

Export metadata

Additional Services

Share in Twitter Search Google Scholar Statistics
Metadaten
Author:Corinna Koebnick, K. Wagner, F. Thielecke, G. Dieter, A. Hohne, A. Franke, Ada Garcia, H. Meyer, I. Hoffmann, P. Leitzmann, U. Trippo, Hans-Joachim F. Zunft
ISSN:0954-3007
Document Type:Article
Language:English
Year of first Publication:2005
Year of Completion:2005
Release Date:2017/03/24
Source:European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. - ISSN 0954-3007. - 59 (2005), 9, S. 989 - 995
Organizational units:Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultät / Institut für Ernährungswissenschaft
Peer Review:Referiert