4.4 Article

Under-reporting of energy intake is more prevalent in a healthy dietary pattern cluster

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
Volume 100, Issue 5, Pages 1060-1068

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0007114508971300

Keywords

Under-reporting; Energy intake; Doubly labelled water; Dietary pattern analysis

Funding

  1. State of Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of the present study was to determine whether under-reporting rates vary between dietary pattern Clusters. Subjects were sixty-five Brazilian women. During 3 weeks, anthropometric data were collected. total energy expenditure (TEE) was determined by the doubly labelled water method and diet Was Measured. Energy intake (El) and the daily frequency of consumption per 1000 kJ of twenty-two food groups were obtained from a FFQ. These frequencies were entered into a Cluster analysis procedure in order to obtain dietary patterns. Under-reporters were defined Lis those who did not lose more than 1 kg of body weight during the study and presented EI:TEE less than 0.82. Three dietary pattern clusters were identified and named according to their most recurrent food groups: sweet foods (SW). starchy foods (ST) and health), (H). Subjects from the healthy cluster had the lowest mean EI:TEE (SW = 0.86, ST = 0.71 and H = 0.58: P = 0.003) and EI - TEE (SW = -0.49 MJ, ST = - 3.20 MJ and H = -5.09 MJ; P = 0.008). The proportion of Under-reporters was 45.2 (95 % CI 35.5, 55.0) % in the SW Cluster: 58.3 (95 % CI 48.6, 68.0) % in the ST Cluster and 70.0 (95 % CI 61.0, 79) % in the H cluster (P=0.34). Thus, in Brazilian women, Under-reporting of El is not uniformly distributed among, dietary pattern clusters and tends to be more severe among subjects from the healthy cluster. This cluster is more consistent with both dietary guidelines and with what lay individuals usually consider 'healthy eating'.

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