Bingham S A, Gill C, Welch A, Day K, Cassidy A, Khaw K T, Sneyd M J, Key T J, Roe L, Day N E
MRC Dunn Clinical Nutrition Centre, Cambridge.
Br J Nutr. 1994 Oct;72(4):619-43. doi: 10.1079/bjn19940064.
Women (n 160) aged 50 to 65 years were asked to weigh their food for 4 d on four occasions over the period of 1 year, using the PETRA (Portable Electronic Tape Recorded Automatic) scales. Throughout the year, they were asked to complete seven other dietary assessment methods: a simple 24 h recall, a structured 24 h recall with portion size assessments using photographs, two food-frequency questionnaires, a 7 d estimated record or open-ended food diary, a structured food-frequency (menu) record, and a structured food-frequency (menu) record with portion sizes assessed using photographs. Comparisons between the average of the 16 d weighed records and the first presentation of each method indicated that food-frequency questionnaires were not appreciably better at placing individuals in the distribution of habitual diet than 24 h recalls, due partly to inaccuracies in the estimation of frequency of food consumption. With a 7 d estimated record or open-ended food diary, however, individual values of nutrients were most closely associated with those obtained from 16 d weighed records, and there were no significant differences in average food or nutrient intakes.
160名年龄在50至65岁之间的女性被要求在1年的时间里分四次,每次用PETRA(便携式电子录音自动)秤称量她们的食物,为期4天。在这一年中,她们还被要求完成其他七种饮食评估方法:简单的24小时回忆法、使用照片进行份量评估的结构化24小时回忆法、两份食物频率问卷、7天估计记录或开放式食物日记、结构化食物频率(菜单)记录以及使用照片评估份量的结构化食物频率(菜单)记录。16天称重记录的平均值与每种方法的首次呈现结果之间的比较表明,食物频率问卷在将个体置于习惯性饮食分布方面并不比24小时回忆法明显更好,部分原因是食物消费频率估计不准确。然而,对于7天估计记录或开放式食物日记,个体营养素值与16天称重记录获得的值最为密切相关,并且平均食物或营养素摄入量没有显著差异。