4.6 Article

Energy Intake of Swedish Overweight and Obese Children Is Underestimated Using a Diet History Interview

期刊

JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 139, 期 3, 页码 522-527

出版社

AMER SOC NUTRITIONAL SCIENCE
DOI: 10.3945/jn.108.101311

关键词

-

资金

  1. Vardal Foundation for Healthcare Science and Allergy Research
  2. Swedish Research Council for Environment Agriculture Science and Spatial Planning
  3. Swedish Research Council
  4. Medical Faculty and the Faculty of Social Science at Umea University
  5. Vasterbotten County Council
  6. Dr PersFood AB
  7. Majblommans Riksforbund
  8. Magnus Bergvall's Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Estimating energy intake (EI) of a child by using a diet history interview (DHI) method may be a challenge because of difficulty for the child to remember what has been eaten as well as to report portion sizes. The aim of this research was to validate reported EI from a DHI in children classified as overweight or obese by comparing the reported EI to total energy expenditure (TEE) measured by 2 objective measures. Eighty-five 10.5- +/- 1.1-y-old overweight and obese children, with help from 1 or 2 parents, reported their EI 2 wk retrospectively in a DHI Reported EI was compared with TEE, as measured by SenseWear armband (n = 85) and the doubly-labeled water (DLW) method (n = 21), during the same period as the DHL Reported EI was underestimated by 14% when validated against both the armband and DLW method. Underestimation did not differ between boys and girls. However, the EI of obese children was underestimated by 22%, which is twice the rate as for the overweight children (95% Cl: 0,55, 3.08). Underestimated EI was negatively correlated with BMI (r = -0.38; P = <0.01) as well as age (r = -0.21; P = 0.05). EI is underestimated to a higher extent among children with higher BMI and higher age when using a DHI method. The findings show the importance of validating dietary intake of children in general and in overweight and obese children in particular. J. Nutr. 139: 522-527, 2009.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据