Evaluation of energy and dietary intake estimates from a food frequency questionnaire using independent energy expenditure measurement and weighed food records

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>We have developed a food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) for the assessment of habitual diet, with special focus on the intake of fruit, vegetables and other antioxidant-rich foods and beverages. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the relative validity of the intakes of energy, food and nutrients from the FFQ.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Energy intake was evaluated against independent measures of energy expenditure using the ActiReg^®system (motion detection), whereas 7-days weighed food records were used to study the relative validity of food and nutrient intake. The relationship between methods was investigated using correlation analyses and cross-classification of participants. The visual agreement between the methods was evaluated using Bland-Altman plots.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We observed that the FFQ underestimated the energy intake by approximately 11% compared to the energy expenditure measured by the ActiReg^®. The correlation coefficient between energy intake and energy expenditure was 0.54 and 32% of the participants were defined as under-reporters. Compared to the weighed food records the percentages of energy from fat and added sugar from the FFQ were underestimated, whereas the percentage of energy from total carbohydrates and protein were slightly overestimated. The intake of foods rich in antioxidants did not vary significantly between the FFQ and weighed food records, with the exceptions of berries, coffee, tea and vegetables which were overestimated. Spearman's Rank Order Correlations between FFQ and weighed food records were 0.41 for berries, 0.58 for chocolate, 0.78 for coffee, 0.61 for fruit, 0.57 for fruit and berry juices, 0.40 for nuts, 0.74 for tea, 0.38 for vegetables and 0.70 for the intake of wine.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Our new FFQ provides a good estimate of the average energy intake and it obtains valid data on average intake of most antioxidant-rich foods and beverages. Our study also showed that the FFQs ability to rank participants according to intake of total antioxidants and most of the antioxidant-rich foods was good.</p

Two non-consecutive 24 h recalls using EPIC-Soft software are sufficiently valid for comparing protein and potassium intake between five European centres: results from the European Food Consumption Validation (EFCOVAL) study

The use of two non-consecutive 24 h recalls using EPIC-Soft for standardised dietary monitoring in European countries has previously been proposed in the European Food Consumption Survey Method consortium. Whether this methodology is sufficiently valid to assess nutrient intake in a comparable way, among populations with different food patterns in Europe, is the subject of study in the European Food Consumption Validation consortium. The objective of the study was to compare the validity of usual protein and K intake estimated from two non-consecutive standardised 24 h recalls using EPIC-Soft between five selected centres in Europe. A total of 600 adults, aged 45-65 years, were recruited in Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, The Netherlands and Norway. From each participant, two 24 h recalls and two 24 h urines were collected. The mean and distribution of usual protein and K intake, as well as the ranking of intake, were compared with protein and K excretions within and between centres. Underestimation of protein (range 2-13%) and K (range 4-17 %) intake was seen in all centres, except in the Czech Republic. We found a fair agreement between prevalences estimated based on the intake and excretion data at the lower end of the usual intake distribution (<10% difference), but larger differences at other points. Protein and K intake was moderately correlated with excretion within the centres (ranges = 0.39-0.67 and 0.37-0.69, respectively). These were comparable across centres. In conclusion, two standardised 24 h recalls (EPIC-Soft) appear to be sufficiently valid for assessing and comparing the mean and distribution of protein and K intake across five centres in Europe as well as for ranking individuals