Discipline of Exercise and Sport Science, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, Lidcombe, NSW 2141, Australia.
Sport Performance Innovation and Knowledge Excellence, Queensland Academy of Sport, Brisbane, QLD 4111, Australia.
Nutrients. 2017 Dec 2;9(12):1313. doi: 10.3390/nu9121313.
Dietary assessment methods that are recognized as appropriate for the general population are usually applied in a similar manner to athletes, despite the knowledge that sport-specific factors can complicate assessment and impact accuracy in unique ways. As dietary assessment methods are used extensively within the field of sports nutrition, there is concern the validity of methodologies have not undergone more rigorous evaluation in this unique population sub-group. The purpose of this systematic review was to compare two or more methods of dietary assessment, including dietary intake measured against biomarkers or reference measures of energy expenditure, in athletes. Six electronic databases were searched for English-language, full-text articles published from January 1980 until June 2016. The search strategy combined the following keywords: diet, nutrition assessment, athlete, and validity; where the following outcomes are reported but not limited to: energy intake, macro and/or micronutrient intake, food intake, nutritional adequacy, diet quality, or nutritional status. Meta-analysis was performed on studies with sufficient methodological similarity, with between-group standardized mean differences (or effect size) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) being calculated. Of the 1624 studies identified, 18 were eligible for inclusion. Studies comparing self-reported energy intake (EI) to energy expenditure assessed via doubly labelled water were grouped for comparison ( = 11) and demonstrated mean EI was under-estimated by 19% (-2793 ± 1134 kJ/day). Meta-analysis revealed a large pooled effect size of -1.006 (95% CI: -1.3 to -0.7; < 0.001). The remaining studies ( = 7) compared a new dietary tool or instrument to a reference method(s) (e.g., food record, 24-h dietary recall, biomarker) as part of a validation study. This systematic review revealed there are limited robust studies evaluating dietary assessment methods in athletes. Existing literature demonstrates the substantial variability between methods, with under- and misreporting of intake being frequently observed. There is a clear need for careful validation of dietary assessment methods, including emerging technical innovations, among athlete populations.
用于评估一般人群的膳食评估方法通常以相似的方式应用于运动员,尽管人们知道运动特异性因素会以独特的方式使评估复杂化并影响准确性。由于膳食评估方法在运动营养领域得到广泛应用,人们担心这些方法在这个特殊的人群亚组中还没有经过更严格的评估。本系统评价的目的是比较两种或多种膳食评估方法,包括用生物标志物或能量消耗的参考测量值来衡量膳食摄入量,评估运动员的膳食情况。从 1980 年 1 月至 2016 年 6 月,6 个电子数据库检索了英文全文文章。搜索策略结合了以下关键词:饮食、营养评估、运动员和有效性;其中报告了以下但不限于以下结果:能量摄入、宏量和/或微量营养素摄入、食物摄入、营养充足度、饮食质量或营养状况。对具有足够方法学相似性的研究进行了荟萃分析,计算了组间标准化均数差(或效应大小)和 95%置信区间(CI)。在确定的 1624 项研究中,有 18 项符合纳入标准。将比较自我报告的能量摄入(EI)与双标记水评估的能量消耗的研究进行分组比较(= 11),结果表明 EI 平均低估了 19%(-2793 ± 1134 kJ/天)。荟萃分析显示,-1.006(95%CI:-1.3 至-0.7;<0.001)的效应值较大。其余 7 项研究(= 7)将新的饮食工具或仪器与参考方法(如食物记录、24 小时膳食回忆、生物标志物)进行比较,作为验证研究的一部分。本系统评价表明,目前评估运动员膳食评估方法的研究很少。现有文献表明,方法之间存在很大的可变性,经常观察到摄入量的低估和错误报告。显然需要仔细验证膳食评估方法,包括运动员人群中的新兴技术创新。