The USDA automated multiple-pass method accurately estimates group total energy and nutrient intake
The USDA automated multiple-pass method accurately estimates group total energy and nutrient intake
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/jn/136.10.2594
复制
发表时间：
2006-10-01
影响因子：
4.2
通讯作者：
Kretsch, Mary J.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Blanton, Cynthia A.;Moshfegh, Alanna J.;Kretsch, Mary J.
解决全国肥胖流行问题的紧迫性促使人们努力开发适用于大规模应用的准确膳食评估方法。本研究使用双标水（DLW）总能量消耗（TEE）和14天估计食物记录（FR）的绝对营养素摄入量作为标准测量指标，评估了美国农业部自动多轮法（AMPM）、为美国国家健康与营养检查调查膳食调查设计的计算机化膳食回顾法，以及两种流行病学方法[布洛克食物频率问卷（Block）和美国国家癌症研究所饮食史问卷（DHQ）]的性能。20名积极性高、体重稳定的正常体重绝经前女性参与了一项自由生活研究，该研究包括2次未事先通知的AMPM回顾以及完成布洛克问卷和DHQ。AMPM和FR的总能量摄入（TEI）与DLW的TEE无显著差异[AMPM：8982±2625 kJ；FR：8416±2217；DLW：8905±1881（均值±标准差）]。相反，问卷低估了TEI约28%（布洛克：6365±2193；DHQ：6215±1976；与DLW相比，P<0.0001）。DLW的TEE与每种膳食方法的TEI的皮尔逊相关系数表明，AMPM（r = 0.53；P = 0.02）和FR（r = 0.41；P = 0.07）的线性关系比布洛克（r = 0.25；P = 0.29）和DHQ（r = 0.15；P = 0.53）更强。大多数平均绝对FR营养素摄入量与AMPM非常接近，但被问卷显著低估。在积极性高的绝经前女性中，AMPM能提供有效的群体总能量和营养素摄入量测量值，而布洛克问卷和DHQ则会低估。
The imperative to address the national obesity epidemic has stimulated efforts to develop accurate dietary assessment methods suitable for large-scale applications. This study evaluated the performance of the USDA Automated Multiple-Pass Method (AMPM), the computerized dietary recall designed for the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey dietary survey, and 2 epidemiological methods [the Block food-frequency questionnaire (Block) and National Cancer Institute's Diet History Questionnaire (DHQ)] using doubly labeled water (DLW) total energy expenditure (TEE) and 14-d estimated food record (FR) absolute nutrient intake as criterion measures. Twenty highly motivated, normal-weight-stable, premenopausal women participated in a free-living study that included 2 unannounced AMPM recalls and completion of the Block and DHQ. AMPM and FR total energy intake (TEI) did not differ significantly from DLW TEE [AMPM: 8982 2625 kJ; FR: 8416 +/- 2217; DLW: 8905 +/- 1881 (mean +/- SD)]. Conversely, the questionnaires underestimated TEI by similar to 28% (Block: 6365 +/- 2193; DHQ: 6215 +/- 1976; P < 0.0001 vs. DLW). Pearson correlation coefficients for DLW TEE with each dietary method TEI showed a stronger linear relation for AMPM (r = 0.53; P = 0.02) and FR (r = 0.41; P = 0.07) than for the Block (r = 0.25; P = 0.29) and DHO (r = 0.15; P = 0.53). Most mean absolute FR nutrient intakes were closely approximated by the AMPM but were significantly underestimated by the questionnaires. In highly motivated premenopausal women, the AMPM provides valid measures of group total energy and nutrient intake whereas the Block and DHO yield underestimations.