Bio Psychology Group, School of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK.
Nutr Res Rev. 1998 Dec;11(2):231-53. doi: 10.1079/NRR19980017.
Under-reporting of food intake is one of the fundamental obstacles preventing the collection of accurate habitual dietary intake data. The prevalence of under-reporting in large nutritional surveys ranges from 18 to 54% of the whole sample, but can be as high as 70% in particular subgroups. This wide variation between studies is partly due to different criteria used to identify under-reporters and also to non-uniformity of under-reporting across populations. The most consistent differences found are between men and women and between groups differing in body mass index. Women are more likely to under-report than men, and under-reporting is more common among overweight and obese individuals. Other associated characteristics, for which there is less consistent evidence, include age, smoking habits, level of education, social class, physical activity and dietary restraint. Determining whether under-reporting is specific to macronutrients or food is problematic, as most methods identify only low energy intakes. Studies that have attempted to measure under-reporting specific to macronutrients express nutrients as percentage of energy and have tended to find carbohydrate under-reported and protein over-reported. However, care must be taken when interpreting these results, especially when data are expressed as percentages. A logical conclusion is that food items with a negative health image (e.g. cakes, sweets, confectionery) are more likely to be under-reported, whereas those with a positive health image are more likely to be over-reported (e.g. fruits and vegetables). This also suggests that dietary fat is likely to be under-reported. However, it is necessary to distinguish between under-reporting and genuine under-eating for the duration of data collection. The key to understanding this problem, but one that has been widely neglected, concerns the processes that cause people to under-report their food intakes. The little work that has been done has simply confirmed the complexity of this issue. The importance of obtaining accurate estimates of habitual dietary intakes so as to assess health correlates of food consumption can be contrasted with the poor quality of data collected. This phenomenon should be considered a priority research area. Moreover, misreporting is not simply a nutritionist's problem, but requires a multidisciplinary approach (including psychology, sociology and physiology) to advance the understanding of under-reporting in dietary intake studies.
进食量少报是妨碍收集准确习惯性饮食摄入数据的基本障碍之一。大型营养调查中，少报的流行率在整个样本中为 18%至 54%，但在特定亚组中可能高达 70%。研究之间的这种广泛差异部分归因于用于识别少报者的不同标准，也归因于人群中少报的不一致性。发现的最一致差异是男女之间以及体重指数不同的人群之间。女性比男性更有可能少报，超重和肥胖者中少报更为常见。其他相关特征，其证据不太一致，包括年龄、吸烟习惯、教育水平、社会阶层、身体活动和饮食限制。确定少报是否特定于宏量营养素或食物是有问题的，因为大多数方法仅识别低能量摄入。试图测量特定于宏量营养素的少报的研究将营养素表示为能量的百分比，并倾向于发现碳水化合物少报和蛋白质多报。然而，在解释这些结果时必须小心，尤其是当数据以百分比表示时。一个合乎逻辑的结论是，具有负面健康形象的食物（例如蛋糕、糖果、甜食）更有可能少报，而具有正面健康形象的食物更有可能多报（例如水果和蔬菜）。这也表明膳食脂肪可能会少报。然而，在数据收集期间，有必要区分少报和真正的少吃。理解这个问题的关键，但这一点被广泛忽视，涉及导致人们少报食物摄入量的过程。已经完成的少量工作只是简单地证实了这个问题的复杂性。获得习惯性饮食摄入的准确估计以评估食物消费与健康的相关性的重要性与收集数据的质量差形成对比。这种现象应被视为优先研究领域。此外，错误报告不仅仅是营养师的问题，而是需要采用多学科方法（包括心理学、社会学和生理学）来加深对饮食摄入研究中少报的理解。
