Johnson Evan C, Péronnet François, Jansen Lisa T, Capitan-Jiménez Catalina, Adams J D, Guelinckx Isabelle, Jiménez Liliana, Mauromoustakos Andy, Kavouras Stavros A
Human Integrated Physiology Laboratory, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY.
Department of Kinesiology, University of Montreal, Montreal, Québec, Canada.
J Nutr. 2017 Oct;147(10):2001-2007. doi: 10.3945/jn.117.253377. Epub 2017 Sep 6.
Mean daily water intake from fluids (WATER-FL) has proven to be difficult to measure because of a range of nonvalidated data collection techniques. Few questionnaires have been validated to estimate WATER-FL against self-reported diaries or urinary hydration markers, which may limit their objectivity. The goals of this investigation were ) to assess the validity of a 7-d fluid record (7dFLR) to measure WATER-FL (WATER-FL-7dFLR) through comparison with WATER-FL as calculated by measuring deuterium oxide (DO) disappearance (WATER-FL-DO), and ) to evaluate the reliability of the 7dFLR in measuring WATER-FL. Participants [ = 96; 51% female; mean ± SD age: 41 ± 14 y; mean ± SD body mass index (in kg/m): 26.2 ± 5.1] completed body water turnover analysis over 3 consecutive weeks. They completed the 7dFLR and food diaries during weeks 2 and 4 of the observation. The records were entered into nutritional software to determine the water content of all foods and fluids consumed. WATER-FL-DO was calculated from water turnover (via the DO dilution method), minus water from food and metabolic water. The agreement between the 2 methods of determining WATER-FL were compared according to a Bland-Altman plot at week 2. The test-retest reliability of 7dFLR between weeks 2 and 4 was assessed via intraclass correlation (ICC). The mean ± SD difference between WATER-FL-7dFLR and WATER-FL-DO was -131 ± 845 mL/d. In addition, no bias was observed ( = 0.484; = 0.006; = 0.488). When comparing WATER-FL-7dFLR from weeks 2 and 4, no significant difference (mean ± SD difference: 71 ± 75 mL/d; = 0.954; = 0.343) and an ICC of 0.85 (95% CI: 0.77, 0.90) was observed. The main findings of this study were that the use of the 7dFLR is an effective and reliable method to estimate WATER-FL in adults. This style of questionnaire may be extremely helpful for collecting water intake data for large-scale epidemiologic studies.
由于一系列未经验证的数据收集技术，已证明难以测量每日从液体中摄入的平均水量（WATER-FL）。很少有问卷经过验证，以根据自我报告的日记或尿液水合标志物来估计WATER-FL，这可能会限制其客观性。本研究的目的是：）通过与测量氧化氘（DO）消失量计算得出的WATER-FL（WATER-FL-DO）进行比较，评估7天液体记录（7dFLR）测量WATER-FL（WATER-FL-7dFLR）的有效性；）评估7dFLR测量WATER-FL的可靠性。参与者[ = 96；51%为女性；平均±标准差年龄：41±14岁；平均±标准差体重指数（kg/m）：26.2±5.1]连续3周完成身体水分周转率分析。他们在观察的第2周和第4周完成了7dFLR和食物日记。将记录输入营养软件，以确定所有摄入食物和液体的含水量。WATER-FL-DO通过水分周转率（通过DO稀释法）计算得出，减去食物中的水分和代谢水。在第2周，根据Bland-Altman图比较了两种确定WATER-FL方法之间的一致性。通过组内相关性（ICC）评估第2周和第4周之间7dFLR的重测可靠性。WATER-FL-7dFLR与WATER-FL-DO之间的平均±标准差差异为-131±845 mL/天。此外，未观察到偏差（ = 0.484； = 0.006； = 0.488）。比较第2周和第4周的WATER-FL-7dFLR时，未观察到显著差异（平均±标准差差异：71±75 mL/天； = 0.954； = 0.343），ICC为0.85（95%CI：0.77，0.90）。本研究的主要发现是，使用7dFLR是估计成年人WATER-FL的一种有效且可靠的方法。这种问卷形式对于大规模流行病学研究收集水摄入量数据可能非常有帮助。
