Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK.
Nutrients. 2022 Jan 18;14(3):411. doi: 10.3390/nu14030411.
Food diaries are used to estimate meat intake at an individual level but it is unclear whether simpler methods would provide similar results. This study assessed the agreement between 7 day food diaries in which composite dishes were disaggregated to assess meat content (reference method), and two simpler methods: (1) frequency meal counts from 7 day food diaries; and (2) 7 day dietary recalls, each using standard estimated portion sizes. We compared data from a randomized controlled trial testing a meat reduction intervention. We used Bland-Altman plots to assess the level of agreement between methods at baseline and linear mixed-effects models to compare estimates of intervention effectiveness. At baseline, participants consumed 132 g/d (±75) of total meat; frequency meal counts and dietary recalls underestimated this by an average of 30 and 34 g/day, respectively. This was partially explained by an underestimation of the assumed portion size. The two simpler methods also underestimated the effect of the intervention, relative to control, though the significant effect of the intervention was unchanged. Simpler methods underestimated absolute meat intake but may be suitable for use in studies to measure the change in meat intake in individuals over time.
饮食日记通常用于估计个体的肉类摄入量，但目前尚不清楚是否更简单的方法也能得出类似的结果。本研究评估了将复合菜肴分解以评估肉类含量的 7 天饮食日记（参考方法）与两种更简单的方法（1）7 天饮食日记中的频率餐数；（2）7 天饮食回忆，每种方法均使用标准的估计份量之间的一致性。我们比较了一项测试肉类减少干预措施的随机对照试验的数据。我们使用 Bland-Altman 图评估了方法在基线时的一致性水平，并使用线性混合效应模型比较了干预效果的估计值。在基线时，参与者每天摄入 132 克（±75 克）的总肉；频率餐数和饮食回忆平均分别低估了 30 克和 34 克/天。这部分归因于对假定份量的低估。与对照组相比，两种更简单的方法也低估了干预的效果，尽管干预的显著效果保持不变。更简单的方法低估了绝对肉类摄入量，但可能适合用于研究随时间变化个体肉类摄入量的变化。
