Validation of dietary intakes measured by diet history against24 h urinary nitrogen excretion and energy expenditure measuredby the doubly-labelled water method in middle-aged women
Validation of dietary intakes measured by diet history against24 h urinary nitrogen excretion and energy expenditure measuredby the doubly-labelled water method in middle-aged women
复制标题
通过饮食史测量的饮食摄入量与双标水法测量的 24 小时尿氮排泄和能量消耗在中年女性中的验证
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2000
影响因子：
3.6
通讯作者：
Sheila A Bingham
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Alison E. Black;Ailsa Welch;Sheila A Bingham
以双标记水(DLW)法测量的24小时尿N排泄量和能量消耗为对照，验证了估算能量和N摄入量的饮食历史方法。对48名年龄在50-65岁的女性进行了为期一年的研究。在四季的每一季中，分别采集4d和两次24小时的尿液，测量尿氮排泄量。在这一年结束时，获得了饮食病史，用全身热量法测量了BMR，并用DLW测量了16名妇女的总能量消耗(EE)。能量摄入量(EI)和氮摄入量(NI)用食物表计算。平均NI为11.21(SD2.09)g和11.47(SD2.40)g(NS)，EI为8.08(SD1.54)MJ和8.20(SD1.86)MJ(NS)。平均尿N：Ni和EI：BMR值显示，在一些个体中，通过称重记录和饮食历史技术有倾向于漏报，但在组水平上这些测量之间没有显著差异。尿N与NI的皮尔逊相关系数(R)：称重记录为0.81，饮食史为0.38。体重记录的相关系数为r0·48，饮食记录的相关系数为r0·11。在这项研究中，饮食历史给出了相同的平均摄入量估计，但加权记录似乎在对个人进行排名方面表现更好。
A diet history method for estimating energy and N intakes was validated against 24 h urinary N excretion and energy expenditure measured by the doubly-labelled water (DLW) method. Forty-eight women aged 50–65 years were studied over 1 year. Weighed diet records from 4 d and two 24 h urine collections, for measurement of urinary N excretion, were obtained in each of four seasons. At the end of the year, a diet history was obtained, BMR was measured by whole-body calorimetry, and, in sixteen women, total energy expenditure (EE) was measured by DLW. Energy intake (EI) and N intake (NI) were calculated using food tables. Using weighed records and diet history respectively mean NI were 11·21 (SD 2·09) G AND 11·47 (sd 2·40) g (NS) and EI were 8·08 (sd 1·54) MJ and 8·20 (sd 1·86) MJ (NS). Mean urine N : NI and EI : BMR values indicated bias to under-reporting by weighed record and diet history techniques in some individuals, but there was no significant difference between these measures at the group level. The Pearson correlation coefficient (r) for urine N v. NI was 0·81 for the weighed record and 0·38 for the diet history. The correlation of EE v. EI was r 0·48 for weighed record and r 0·11 for diet history. In this study the diet history gave the same estimate of mean intake, but the weighed record appeared to perform better in ranking individuals.
影响因子：
5
作者：
WILLETT, WC;SAMPSON, L;SPEIZER, FE
通讯作者：
SPEIZER, FE
影响因子：
7.1
作者：
Sawaya, AL;Tucker, K;Roberts, SB
通讯作者：
Roberts, SB
谁在饮食召回中少报了饮食摄入量？
影响因子：
5.9
作者：
Klesges,RC;Eck,LH;Ray,JW
通讯作者：
Ray,JW