Evaluation of four methods for determining energy intake in young and older women: Comparison with doubly labeled water measurements of total energy expenditure
Evaluation of four methods for determining energy intake in young and older women: Comparison with doubly labeled water measurements of total energy expenditure
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/ajcn/63.4.491
复制
发表时间：
1996-04-01
影响因子：
7.1
通讯作者：
Roberts, SB
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Sawaya, AL;Tucker, K;Roberts, SB
通过将报告的能量摄入量与双标记水测量总能量消耗（TEE）进行比较，评估了年轻和老年女性四种不同食物摄入量评估方法的准确性和精确度。对 10 名年龄为 25.2 +/- 1.1 岁的年轻女性（(x) over bar +/- SEM）和 10 名年龄为 74.0 +/- 1.4 岁的老年女性进行了一项持续 8 天的研究。对自由生活的 TEE 进行了 7 天的测量，并根据称重的食物摄入数据（7 天）、24 小时食物召回（一式两份）和两份不同的食物频率调查问卷来确定食物消耗量 [Fred Hutchinson 癌症研究中心 (FHCRC)/Block 和 Willett，均一式两份]。此外，通过水密度测定法测定身体成分，并通过问卷调查测定剧烈体力活动和饮食限制程度。在年轻女性中，24 小时回忆给出的平均能量摄入量最接近 TEE 的测量值（与 TEE 相比，-0.34 +/- 3.71 MJ/d，P = 0.178），并且食物频率问卷调查的能量摄入量是唯一与 TEE 个体值显着相关的摄入数据（P < 0.05）。在老年女性中，食物频率问卷给出的平均能量摄入量最接近测量的 TEE（Willett 问卷为 +0.53 +/- 2.95 MJ/d，FHCRC/Block 问卷为 -1.19 +/- 3.02 MJ/d）。该组的能量摄入数据与 TEE 值没有显着相关。年轻和老年女性的 7 天称重膳食摄入量均显着低于测量的 TEE（年轻和老年女性合计为 -2.0 MJ/d，P < 0.001），并且与 TEE 值没有显着相关性，尽管它们最接近地反映了年轻和老年女性 TEE 的平均差异（TEE 为 2.30 MJ/d，7 天称重摄入量为 2.11 MJ/d）。这些数据表明，所研究的方法都无法准确估计个体受试者通常的能量需求。此外，结果表明，对于某些类型的研究，评估群体平均膳食摄入量的简单方法实际上可能比称重膳食摄入量提供更准确的信息。
The accuracy and precision of four different food intake assessment methods were evaluated in young and older women by comparing reported energy intakes with doubly labeled water measurements total energy expenditure (TEE). A study lasting 8 d was conducted in 10 young women aged 25.2 +/- 1.1 y ((x) over bar +/- SEM) and in 10 older women aged 74.0 +/- 1.4 y. Free-living TEE was measured over 7 d and food consumption was determined from weighed food intake data (7 d), a 24-h food recall (in duplicate), and two different food-frequency questionnaires [Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (FHCRC)/Block and Willett, both in duplicate]. In addition, body composition was determined by using hydrodensitometry, and strenuous physical activity and the extent of dietary restraint were determined by questionnaire. In young women, 24-h recall gave mean energy intakes that were closest to measures of TEE (-0.34 +/- 3.71 MJ/d compared with TEE, P = 0.178), and energy intakes by food-frequency questionnaires were the only intake data that correlated significantly with individual values for TEE (P < 0.05). In older women, food-frequency questionnaires gave mean energy intakes that were closest to measured TEE (+0.53 +/- 2.95 MJ/d with the Willett questionnaire and -1.19 +/- 3.02 MJ/d with the FHCRC/Block questionnaire). No energy intake data from this group correlated significantly with values for TEE. The 7-d weighed dietary intakes were significantly lower than measured TEE in both young and older women (-2.0 MJ/d in young and older women combined, P < 0.001), and did not correlate significantly with values for TEE, although they did most closely mirror the mean difference in TEE between the young and older women (2.30 MJ/d for TEE and 2.11 MJ/d for 7-d weighed intake). These data suggest that none of the methods studied gave accurate estimates of the usual energy requirements of individual subjects. In addition, the results suggest that for some types of studies, simple methods for assessing group mean dietary intake may actually give more accurate information than weighed dietary intakes.