Høidrup S, Andreasen A H, Osler M, Pedersen A N, Jørgensen L M, Jørgensen T, Schroll M, Heitmann B L
Copenhagen County Centre for Preventive Medicine, Research Unit for Dietary Studies, Medical Dept M, Glostrup University Hospital, Glostrup, Denmark.
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2002 Feb;56(2):105-13. doi: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1601292.
To examine the quantitative agreement between a 7 day food record and a diet history interview when these are conducted under the same conditions and to evaluate whether the two methods assess habitual diet intake differently among subgroups of age and body mass index (BMI).
Cross-sectional study.
Population study, Denmark.
A total of 175 men and 173 women aged 30-60 y, selected randomly from a larger population sample of Danish adults.
All subjects had habitual diet intake assessed by a diet history interview and completed a 7 day food record within 3 weeks following the interview. The diet history interview and coding of records were performed by the same trained dietician.
Median between-method difference in assessment of total energy intake, absolute intake of macronutrients, and nutrient energy percentages. Difference between reported energy intake from both methods and estimated energy expenditure in different subgroups.
Energy and macronutrient intake was assessed slightly higher by the 7 day food record than by the diet history interview, but in absolute terms the differences were negligible. The between-method difference in assessment of total energy intake appeared to be stable over the range of age and BMI in both sexes. As compared to estimated total energy expenditure, both diet assessment methods underestimated energy intake by approximately 20%. For both methods the under-reporting increased by BMI in both sexes and by age in men.
Energy and macronutrient intake data collected under even conditions by either a 7 day food record or a diet history interview may be collapsed and analysed independent of the underlying diet method. Both diet methods, however, appear to underestimate energy intake dependent on age and BMI.
Danish Medical Research Council, the FREJA programme.
在相同条件下进行7天食物记录和饮食史访谈，检验二者之间的定量一致性，并评估这两种方法在年龄和体重指数（BMI）亚组中对习惯性饮食摄入量的评估是否存在差异。
横断面研究。
丹麦的人群研究。
从丹麦成年人的更大人群样本中随机选取的175名年龄在30 - 60岁之间的男性和173名女性。
所有受试者通过饮食史访谈评估习惯性饮食摄入量，并在访谈后的3周内完成7天食物记录。饮食史访谈和记录编码由同一位经过培训的营养师进行。
总能量摄入评估、宏量营养素绝对摄入量和营养素能量百分比的方法间中位数差异。两种方法报告的能量摄入量与不同亚组中估计能量消耗之间的差异。
7天食物记录评估的能量和宏量营养素摄入量略高于饮食史访谈，但绝对差异可忽略不计。总能量摄入评估的方法间差异在男女的年龄和BMI范围内似乎是稳定的。与估计的总能量消耗相比，两种饮食评估方法均低估能量摄入约20%。对于两种方法，男女的漏报率均随BMI增加，男性随年龄增加。
在相同条件下通过7天食物记录或饮食史访谈收集的能量和宏量营养素摄入数据可以合并并独立于基础饮食方法进行分析。然而，两种饮食方法似乎都低估了取决于年龄和BMI的能量摄入。
丹麦医学研究理事会，FREJA项目。
