Low energy reporting may increase in intervention participants enrolled in dietary intervention trials
Low energy reporting may increase in intervention participants enrolled in dietary intervention trials
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jada.2003.12.023
复制
发表时间：
2004-03-01
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Lanza, E
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Caan, B;Ballard-Barbash, R;Lanza, E
目的研究干预和对照组之间的低能量摄入量报告的差异在饮食intervention trial.Design回顾性数据分析，从一个亚队列的参与者在息肉预防试验（PPT），一个4年，多地点，随机，对照饮食干预试验。干预措施包括教育材料和咨询会议，支持低脂肪，高纤维饮食。基线和年度人口统计学，行为特征，能量摄入（EI）的基础上自我报告的4天的食物记录，身高和体重的参与者收集在基线和每年。基础代谢率（BMR）估计（使用斯科菲尔德方程），以计算EI/BMR。受试者在443名参与者（302名男性，141名女性）在基线时，195（43.3%）小于60岁，394（91%）是白色。在第四年，383名参与者仍然：186（122名男性，64名女性），统计分析使用配对t检验或方差分析，在基线、第1年，第四年为留在第四年的参与者。Goldberg EI/BMR临界值为1.06（对于合理的EI），确定了报告低EI的参与者。线性回归用于量化各种危险因素与EI/BMR的相关性，并用于组内多变量分析。结果在基线时，46.8%的女性和11.6%的男性报告低于合理的能量水平。在随机化后，只有男性的低能量报告显著增加。在第1年，18.9%的干预组男性报告低EI，而对照组男性为9.8%（P
Objective To examine differences in low energy intake reporting between intervention and control groups during a dietary intervention trial.Design Retrospective data analysis from a subcohort of participants in the Polyp Prevention Trial (PPT), a 4-year, multisite, randomized, controlled dietary intervention trial. Intervention consisted of educational material and counseling sessions supporting a low-fat, high-fiber diet. Baseline and annual demographics, behavioral characteristics, energy intake (EI) based on self-reported 4-day food records, and height and weight of participants were collected at baseline and annually. Basal metabolic rate (BMR) was estimated (using the Schofield equation) to calculate EI/BMR.Subjects Of the 443 participants (302 male, 141 female) at baseline, 195 (43.3%) were younger than 60 years, and 394 (91%) were white. At Year 4, 383 participants remained: 186 (122 men, 64 women) in the intervention group, and 197 (133 men, 64 women) in the control group.Statistical Analyses Using either paired t tests or analysis of variance, the differences between the means for EI, weight, and EI/BMR were compared at baseline, Year 1, and Year 4 for the participants who remained at Year 4. The Goldberg EI/BMR cutoff value of 1.06 (for plausible EI) identified participants who reported low EI. Linear regression was used to quantify the association of various risk factors to EI/BMR and for multivariate analyses within groups. chi(2) contingency table analysis quantified differences of low energy reporting within groups.Results At baseline, 46.8% of women and 11.6% of men reported lower than plausible El. Only men had a significant increase in low energy reporting after randomization. At Year 1, 18.9% of intervention group men reported low EI compared with 9.8% of control group men (P