4.4 Article

Diet misreporting can be corrected: confirmation of the association between energy intake and fat-free mass in adolescents

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
Volume 116, Issue 8, Pages 1425-1436

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0007114516003317

Keywords

Under-reporting; Plausible reporting; Subjective energy intake; Objective energy intake; Dietary interviews; Selection bias

Funding

  1. Estonian Ministry of Education and Science [IUT 20-58, IUT2-13]
  2. Doctoral School of Behavioral, Social and Health Sciences under the European Social Fund

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Subjective energy intake (sEI) is often misreported, providing unreliable estimates of energy consumed. Therefore, relating sEI data to health outcomes is difficult. Recently, Bornhorst et al. compared various methods to correct sEI-based energy intake estimates. They criticised approaches that categorise participants as under-reporters, plausible reporters and over-reporters based on the sEI:total energy expenditure (TEE) ratio, and thereafter use these categories as statistical covariates or exclusion criteria. Instead, they recommended using external predictors of sEI misreporting as statistical covariates. We sought to confirm and extend these findings. Using a sample of 190 adolescent boys (mean age=14), we demonstrated that dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry-measured fat-free mass is strongly associated with objective energy intake data (onsite weighted breakfast), but the association with sEI (previous 3-d dietary interview) is weak. Comparing sEI with TEE revealed that sEI was mostly under-reported (74 %). Interestingly, statistically controlling for dietary reporting groups or restricting samples to plausible reporters created a stronger-than-expected association between fat-free mass and sEI. However, the association was an artifact caused by selection bias - that is, data re-sampling and simulations showed that these methods overestimated the effect size because fat-free mass was related to sEI both directly and indirectly via TEE. A more realistic association between sEI and fat-free mass was obtained when the model included common predictors of misreporting (e.g. BMI, restraint). To conclude, restricting sEI data only to plausible reporters can cause selection bias and inflated associations in later analyses. Therefore, we further support statistically correcting sEI data in nutritional analyses. The script for running simulations is provided.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available