Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa

Assessing dietary intake: Who, what and why of under-reporting

  • Jennie Macdiarmid (a1) and John Blundell (a1)

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.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Assessing dietary intake: Who, what and why of under-reporting
      Available formats
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Assessing dietary intake: Who, what and why of under-reporting
      Available formats
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Assessing dietary intake: Who, what and why of under-reporting
      Available formats
Hide All
S. A. Bingham (1991). Limitations of the various methods for collecting dietary intake data. Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism 35, 117127.

A. E. Black , S. A. Jebb , A. Bingham , S. A. Runswick & S. D. Poppitt (1995). The validation of energy and protein intakes by doubly labelled water and 24-hour urinary nitrogen excretion in post-obese subjects. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics 8, 5164.

J. M. de Castro (1991). Weekly rhythms of spontaneous nutrient intake and meal patterns of humans. Physiology & Behavior 50, 729738.

J. M. de Castro (1994). Methodology, correlational analysis, and interpretation of diet diary records of the food and fluid intake of free-living humans. Appetite 23, 179192.

J. Hallfrisch , P. Steele & L. Cohen (1982). Comparison of seven-day diet record with measured food intake of twenty four subjects. Nutrition Research 2, 263273.

J. Haraldsdóttir & B Sandsträm (1994) Detection of underestimated energy intake in young adults. International Journal of Epidemiology 23, 577582.

J. R. Hebert , L. Clemow , L. Pbert , I. S. Ockene & J. K. Ockene (1995). Social desirability bias in dietary self-report may compromise the validity of dietary intake measures. International Journal of Epidemiology 24, 389398.

T. Hirvonen , S. Männistä , E. Roos & P. Pietinen (1997). Increasing prevalence of underreporting does not necessarily distort dietary surveys. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 51, 297301.

L. Johansson , K. Solvoll , S. Opdahl , G.-E. Aa. Bjørneboe & C. A. Drevon (1997). Response rates with different distribution methods and reward, and reproducibility of a quantitative food frequency questionnaire. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 51, 346353.

R. C. Klesges , L. H. Eck & J. W. Ray (1995). Who underreports dietary intake in a dietary recall? Evidence from the second National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 63, 438444.

R. J. Kuczmarski , K. M. Flegal , S. M. Campbell & C. L. Johnson (1994). Increasing prevalence of overweight among US adults: the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys 1960 to 1991. JAMA—Journal of the American Medical Association 272, 205211.

L. Lafay , A. Basdevant . M.-A. Charles , M. Vray , B. Balkau , J.-M. Borys , E. Eschwège & M. Romon (1997). Determinants and nature of dietary underreporting in a free-living population: the Fleurbaix Laventie Ville Santé(IT%) study. International Journal of Obesity 21, 567573. FLVS study.

S. W. Lichtman , K. Pisarska , E. R. Berman , M. Pestone , H. Dowling , E. Offenbacher , H. Weise , S. Heshka , D.E. Matthews & S.B. Heymsfield (1992). Discrepancy between self-reported and actual caloric intake and exercise in obese subjects. New England Journal of Medicine 327, 18931898.

M. B. E. Livingstone . A. M. Prentice , J. J. Strain , W. A. Coward , A. E. Black , M. E. Barker , P. G. McKenna & R. G. Whitehead (1990). Accuracy of weighed dietary records in studies of diet and health. British Medical Journal 300, 708712.

A. J. Nederhof (1985). Methods of coping with social desirability bias: a review. European Journal of Social Psychology 15, 263280.

A. M. Prentice & S. A. Jebb (1995). Obesity in Britain: gluttony or sloth? British Medical Journal 311, 437439.

D. A. Schoeller (1990). How accurate is self-reported dietary energy intake? Nutrition Reviews 48, 373379.

D. A. Schoeller , L. G. Bandini & W. H. Dietz (1990). Inaccuracies in self-reported intake identified by comparison with the doubly-labelled water method. Canadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology 68, 941949.

W. T. Smith , K. L. Webb & P. F. Heywood (1994). The implications of underreporting in dietary studies. Australian Journal of Public Health 18, 311314.

L. Stockley (1985) Changes in habitual food intake during weighed inventory surveys and duplication diet collections. Ecology of Food and Nutrition 17, 263269.

A. J. Stunkard & S. Messick (1985). The three-factor eating questionnaire to measure dietary restraint, disinhibition and hunger. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 29, 7181.

V. Tarasuk & G. H. Beaton (1992). Day-to-day variation in energy and nutrient intake: evidence of individuality in eating behaviour? Appetite 18, 4354.

J. Wardle (1988). Cognitive control of eating. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 32, 607612.

S. Whybrow & T. R. Kirk (1997). Nutrient intakes and snacking frequency in female students. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics 10, 237244.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Nutrition Research Reviews
  • ISSN: 0954-4224
  • EISSN: 1475-2700
  • URL: /core/journals/nutrition-research-reviews
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 7
Total number of PDF views: 1355 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 2578 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 17th October 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.