Use of a triaxial accelerometer to validate reported food intakes12

An easy and cheap method for validating reported energy intake (EI) is needed. Reported EI was compared with calculated energy expenditure (EEcalc) and with energy expenditure measured by the doubly labeled water method (EEDLW). EE was calculated on the basis of basal metabolic rate (BMR) measured w...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The American journal of clinical nutrition 2001-03, Vol.73 (3), p.549-553
Main Authors: Goris, Annelies HC, Meijer, Erwin P, Kester, Arnold, Westerterp, Klaas R
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
basal metabolic rate
doubly labeled water
elderly
energy expenditure
Energy intake
physical activity
triaxial accelerometer
underrecording
underreporting
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:An easy and cheap method for validating reported energy intake (EI) is needed. Reported EI was compared with calculated energy expenditure (EEcalc) and with energy expenditure measured by the doubly labeled water method (EEDLW). EE was calculated on the basis of basal metabolic rate (BMR) measured with the ventilated-hood technique and physical activity (PA) measured with a triaxial accelerometer (EEVH+PA) and on the basis of BMR estimated by using World Health Organization equations and PA (EEWHO+PA): EEcalc = −1.259 + 1.55 × BMR + 0.076 × counts/min ( r2 = 0.90, P = 0.0001). Subjects [ n = 12 men and 12 women aged 60 ± 3 y; body mass index (in kg/m2): 26 ± 4] reported their food intakes for 7 d and EEDLW, EEVH+PA, and EEWHO+PA were assessed over the same 7 d. Reported EI (9.0 ± 2.1 MJ/d) was lower ( P < 0.0001) than were EEDLW (11.3 ± 2.3 MJ/d), EEVH+PA (10.8 ± 1.7 MJ/d), and EEWHO+PA (10.8 ± 1.8 MJ/d). Underreporting was 19.4 ± 14.0%, 16.7 ± 13.6%, and 16.4 ± 15.5% on the basis of EEDLW, EEVH+PA, and EEWHO+PA, respectively. The difference of 2.7 ± 8.0% between EEDLW and EEVH+PA was not related to the average of both percentages and was not significantly different from zero. The percentage of underreporting calculated with EEWHO+PA was not significantly different from that calculated with EEDLW. The use of a combination of BMR (measured or estimated) and PA is a good method for validating reported EI. There was no significant difference between the percentage of underreporting calculated with EEVH+PA, EEWHO+PA, or EEDLW.
ISSN:0002-9165
DOI:10.1093/ajcn/73.3.549