321435_Print.indd

(やまだぃちぅ) #1

Allman-Farinelli 2014 ). Methodologies include electronic food diaries with image


capabilities such as My Meal Mate (Carter et al. 2013 ), the application of digital


images to aid in recall and analysis with a dietitian (Hongu et al. 2011 ), the use of


photos that may be joined with voice recording for later review with a healthcare


professional such as with the Nutricam dietary assessment method (Rollo et al.


2011 ), andfinally, mobile technologies which may be combined with video where a


short video segment is used through automated image segmentation to estimate


dietary intake (to include volume) with the DietCam (Kong and Tan 2012 ).


Additionally, applications such as MyFitnessPal, Weight Watchers, and


SparkPeople are available to the general population for download onto personal


devices to electronically track food intake. Although these technologies may lower


participant burden, limitations commonly associated with traditional recall methods


such as portion size estimates or omission of food still exist (Sharp and


Allman-Farinelli 2014 ).


Misreporting


Misreporting of dietary intake is a well-known limitation to self-reported dietary intake
assessments (Poslusna et al. 2009 ). A review conducted in 2002 evaluated the


available studies comparing self-reported energy intake to that ascertained through the


gold standard biomarker approach—doubly labeled water (Westerterp and Goris


2002 ). Results suggested that underreporting of dietary intake is common and sources


of error are varied, ranging from elimination of socially less acceptable food or


beverages to underestimation of portion size to lack of detail on menu item ingredients


and/or preparation method, to change in food selections resulting from the act of


recording/reporting intake. Overall, there was no clear indication of gender differences


in energy misreporting. However, obesity had a major influence on underreporting


with an average 41% underestimation of energy intake as compared to an average


16% in normal-weight individuals. Surrogate reporting (i.e., parent report of children’s


intake) did not demonstrate reporting error. Overestimation of energy intake was more


common in surrogate reports from caregivers of disabled children (Stallings et al.


1996 ) and from caregivers of elderly people residing in assisted living facilities


(Kayser-Jones et al. 1998 ). Of importance to research studies, self-report of intake


seems to be reduced with each subsequent report over the course of a study, regardless


of the diet intervention applied.


The impact of misreporting energy intake on diet–disease association studies is


significant. A clear example is the rise in obesity despite a lower overall reported


energy intake in US adults (although physical inactivity likely also plays a role)


(Heini and Weinsier 1997 ). To illustrate the impact of misreporting, investigators in


the Women’s Health Initiative completed an assessment of doubly labeled water for


estimation of true energy intake on a subsample of women and then used the energy


calibration equations derived from a comparison of measured versus self-report
energy intake to test the hypothesis that energy intake was associated with


176 T.E. Crane and C.A. Thomson

Free download pdf