4.6 Article

Underreporting of food intake by dietary recall is not universal: A comparison of data from Egyptian and American women

期刊

JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 130, 期 8, 页码 2049-2054

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1093/jn/130.8.2049

关键词

food intake; dietary surveys; 24-h recall; Egypt; women

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Underreporting of dietary intake has been observed consistently in food consumption surveys in affluent societies and in clinical studies in a variety of settings. Almost one third of quantitative 24-h recalls provided by adults in U.S. surveys appear to result in estimates that are biologically implausible. Underreporting has been linked to obesity in both the U.S. and Europe, with heavier individuals underreporting to a greater degree than lean persons. A relative dearth of data exists from developing countries and those in transition to address the question whether such underreporting is universal. We present the first data from a large survey of women in a rapidly urbanizing developing country to address this question. More than 4500 adult women in Egypt provided quantitative 24-h recalls of food intake on the previous day in 1993-1994, and weights and heights were measured. We compared the data, in terms of the ratio of reported energy intake to estimated basal metabolic rate, to data from 3010 women in the 1994-1996 U.S. Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals, on whom quantitative 24-h recalls were also conducted. The Egyptian women reported food intakes consistent with FAO/WHO recommendations for energy intakes for women of comparable activity levels, whereas the data for U.S. women showed underreporting consistent with other U.S. surveys. Only 10% of Egyptian women reported energy intakes below accepted criteria for plausibility, compared with one third of American women. We discuss: possible reasons for this difference, including cultural and food supply differences, and methodological differences between the two surveys.

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