A systematic review of methods to assess intake of fruits and vegetables among healthy European adults and children: a DEDIPAC (DEterminants of DIet and Physical Activity) study

Evidence suggests that health benefits are associated with consuming recommended amounts of fruits and vegetables (F&V), yet standardised assessment methods to measure F&V intake are lacking. The current review aims to identify methods to assess F&V intake among children and adults in pan-European studies and inform the development of the DEDIPAC (DEterminants of DIet and Physical Activity) toolbox of methods suitable for use in future European studies. A literature search was conducted using three electronic databases and by hand-searching reference lists. English-language studies of any design which assessed F&V intake were included in the review. Studies involving two or more European countries were included in the review. Healthy, free-living children or adults. The review identified fifty-one pan-European studies which assessed F&V intake. The FFQ was the most commonly used (n 42), followed by 24 h recall (n 11) and diet records/diet history (n 7). Differences existed between the identified methods; for example, the number of F&V items on the FFQ and whether potatoes/legumes were classified as vegetables. In total, eight validated instruments were identified which assessed F&V intake among adults, adolescents or children. The current review indicates that an agreed classification of F&V is needed in order to standardise intake data more effectively between European countries. Validated methods used in pan-European populations encompassing a range of European regions were identified. These methods should be considered for use by future studies focused on evaluating intake of F&V

Validating fatty acid intake as estimated by an FFQ : how does the 24 h recall perform as reference method compared with the duplicate portion?

Objective: To compare the performance of the commonly used 24 h recall (24hR) with the more distinct duplicate portion (DP) as reference method for validation of fatty acid intake estimated with an FFQ. Design: Intakes of SFA, MUFA, n-3 fatty acids and linoleic acid (LA) were estimated by chemical analysis of two DP and by on average five 24hR and two FFQ. Plasma n-3 fatty acids and LA were used to objectively compare ranking of individuals based on DP and 24hR. Multivariate measurement error models were used to estimate validity coefficients and attenuation factors for the FFQ with the DP and 24hR as reference methods. Setting: Wageningen, the Netherlands. Subjects: Ninety-two men and 106 women (aged 20–70 years). Results: Validity coefficients for the fatty acid estimates by the FFQ tended to be lower when using the DP as reference method compared with the 24hR. Attenuation factors for the FFQ tended to be slightly higher based on the DP than those based on the 24hR as reference method. Furthermore, when using plasma fatty acids as reference, the DP showed comparable to slightly better ranking of participants according to their intake of n-3 fatty acids (0·33) and n-3:LA (0·34) than the 24hR (0·22 and 0·24, respectively). Conclusions: The 24hR gives only slightly different results compared with the distinctive but less feasible DP, therefore use of the 24hR seems appropriate as the reference method for FFQ validation of fatty acid intake.</p

Pre-to-post diagnosis weight trajectories in colorectal cancer patients with non-metastatic disease

Item does not contain fulltex

Women, their Offspring and iMproving lifestyle for Better cardiovascular health of both (WOMB project) : A protocol of the follow-up of a multicentre randomised controlled trial

The LIFEstyle study was supported by a grant from The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (50-50110-96-518). The WOMB project is funded by the Dutch Heart Foundation (2013T085) and the European Commission (Horizon2020 project ‘DynaHealth’, 633595).Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Preconception Lifestyle and Cardiovascular Health in the Offspring of Overweight and Obese Women

Funding: The LIFEstyle study was funded by ZonMw, the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development, grant number: 50-50110-96-518. The follow-up of the LIFEstyle trial was funded by grants from the Dutch Heart Foundation (2013T085) and the European Commission (Horizon2020 project 633595 DynaHealth). None of these organizations had a role in data collection, analysis, interpretation of data, or writing the report. Acknowledgments: We thank all participants of the WOMB project, all participating hospitals and their staff and the members of the Dutch Consortium (www.studies-obsgyn.nl) for their hard work and dedication. Furthermore,we thank all members of the WOMB project who contributed to the follow-up study.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Design aspects of 24 h recall assessments may affect the estimates of protein and potassium intake in dietary surveys

AbstractObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of different modes of administration (face-to-facev. telephone), recall days (firstv. second), days of the week (weekdayv. weekend) and interview days (1 d laterv. 2 d later) on bias in protein and K intakes collected with 24 h dietary recalls (24-HDR).DesignTwo non-consecutive 24-HDR (collected with standardised EPIC-Soft software) were used to estimate protein and K intakes by a face-to-face interview at the research centres and a telephone interview, and included all days of the week. Two 24 h urine collections were used to determine biomarkers of protein and K intake. The bias in intake was defined as the ratio between the 24-HDR estimate and the biomarker.SettingFive centres in Belgium, Czech Republic, France, the Netherlands and Norway in the European Food Consumption Validation (EFCOVAL) study.SubjectsAbout 120 adults (aged 45–65 years) per centre.ResultsThe bias in protein intake in the Czech Republic and Norway was smaller for telephone than face-to-face interviews (P= 0·01). The second 24-HDR estimates of protein intake in France and K intake in Belgium had a larger bias than the first 24-HDR (P= 0·01 and 0·04, respectively). In the Czech Republic, protein intake estimated during weekends and K intake estimated during weekdays had a larger bias than during other days of the week (P= 0·01). In addition, K intake collected 2 d later in the Czech Republic was likely to be overestimated.ConclusionsThe biases in protein and K intakes were comparable between modes of administration, recall days, days of the week and interview days in some, but not all, study centres.</jats:sec

Validity of absolute intake and nutrient density of protein, potassium, and sodium assessed by various dietary assessment methods:An exploratory study

It is suggested that nutrient densities are less affected by measurement errors than absolute intake estimates of dietary exposure. We compared the validity of absolute intakes and densities of protein (kJ from protein/total energy (kJ)), potassium, and sodium (potassium or sodium (in mg)/total energy (kJ)) assessed by different dietary assessment methods. For 69 Dutch subjects, two duplicate portions (DPs), five to fifteen 24-h dietary recalls (24 hRs, telephone-based and web-based) and two food frequency questionnaires (FFQs) were collected and compared to duplicate urinary biomarkers and one or two doubly labelled water measurements. Multivariate measurement error models were used to estimate validity coefficients (VCs) and attenuation factors (AFs). This research showed that group bias diminished for protein and sodium densities assessed by all methods as compared to the respective absolute intakes, but not for those of potassium. However, the VCs and AFs for the nutrient densities did not improve compared to absolute intakes for all four methods; except for the AF of sodium density (0.71) or the FFQ which was better than that of the absolute sodium intake (0.51). Thus, using nutrient densities rather than absolute intakes does not necessarily improve the performance of the DP, FFQ, or 24 hR.</p

Comparison of duplicate portion and 24 h recall as reference methods for validating a FFQ using urinary markers as the estimate of true intake

AbstractAs FFQ are subject to measurement error, associations between self-reported intake by FFQ and outcome measures should be adjusted by correction factors obtained from a validation study. Whether the correction is adequate depends on the characteristics of the reference method used in the validation study. Preferably, reference methods should (1) be unbiased and (2) have uncorrelated errors with those in the FFQ. The aim of the present study was to assess the validity of the duplicate portion (DP) technique as a reference method and compare its validity with that of a commonly used reference method, the 24 h recall (24hR), for protein, K and Na using urinary markers as the unbiased reference method. For 198 subjects, two DP, two FFQ, two urinary biomarkers and between one and fifteen 24hR (web based and/or telephone based) were collected within 1·5 years. Multivariate measurement error models were used to estimate bias, error correlations between FFQ and DP or 24hR, and attenuation factors of these methods. The DP was less influenced by proportional scaling bias (0·58 for protein, 0·72 for K and 0·52 for Na), and correlated errors between DP and FFQ were lowest (protein 0·28, K 0·17 and Na 0·19) compared with the 24hR. Attenuation factors (protein 0·74, K 0·54 and Na 0·43) also indicated that the DP performed better than the 24hR. Therefore, the DP is probably the best available reference method for FFQ validation for nutrients that currently have no generally accepted recovery biomarker.</jats:p

Effects of a preconception lifestyle intervention in obese infertile women on diet and physical activity; : A secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial

Funding: The LIFEstyle study was funded by ZonMw, the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development, grant number: 50- 50110-96-518. TvE is supported by grants from the Dutch Heart Foundation (2013T085) and the European Commission (Horizon2020 project 633595 DynaHealth). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscriptPeer reviewedPublisher PD