Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-frp75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T06:12:12.718Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of a dietary record using reported portion size versus standard portion size for assessing nutrient intake

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2007

Desiree C Welten ,
Ruth A Carpenter ,
R Sue McPherson ,
Suzanne Brodney ,
Deirdre Douglass ,
James B Kampert  and
Steven N Blair
Desiree C Welten
Affiliation:
The Cooper Institute, 12330 Preston Road, Dallas, TX 75230, USA
Ruth A Carpenter
Affiliation:
The Cooper Institute, 12330 Preston Road, Dallas, TX 75230, USA
R Sue McPherson
Affiliation:
University of Texas, Houston School of Public Health, Houston, TX 75225, USA
Suzanne Brodney
Affiliation:
University of Texas, Houston School of Public Health, Houston, TX 75225, USA
Deirdre Douglass
Affiliation:
University of Texas, Houston School of Public Health, Houston, TX 75225, USA
James B Kampert
Affiliation:
The Cooper Institute, 12330 Preston Road, Dallas, TX 75230, USA
Steven N Blair*
Affiliation:
The Cooper Institute, 12330 Preston Road, Dallas, TX 75230, USA
*
*Corresponding author: Email sblair@cooperinst.org
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Objective

Because the percentage of missing portion sizes was large in the Aerobics Center Longitudinal Study (ACLS), careful consideration of the accuracy of standard portion sizes was necessary. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the consequences of using standard portion sizes instead of reported portion sizes on subjects' nutrient intake.

Methods

In 2307 men and 411 women, nutrient intake calculated from a 3-day dietary record using reported portion sizes was compared with nutrient intake calculated from the same record in which standard portion sizes were substituted for reported portion sizes.

Results

The standard portion sizes provided significantly lower estimates (> 20%) of energy and nutrient intakes than the reported portion sizes. Spearman correlation coefficients obtained by the two methods were high, ranging from 0.67 to 0.93. Furthermore, the agreement between both methods was fairly good. Thus, in the ACLS the use of standard portion sizes rather than reported portion sizes did not appear to be suitable to assess the absolute intake at the group level, but appeared to lead to a good ranking of individuals according to nutrient intake. These results were confirmed by the Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII), in which the assessment of the portion size was optimal. When the standard portion sizes were adjusted using the correction factor, the ability of the standard portion sizes to assess the absolute nutrient intake at the group level was considerably improved.

Conclusions

This study suggests that the adjusted standard portion sizes may be able to replace missing portion sizes in the ACLS database.

Keywords

Dietary recordEpidemiological methodsFoodNutrient intakePortion size

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Public Health Nutrition , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , June 2000 , pp. 151 - 158
Copyright
Copyright © CABI Publishing 2000

References

1Chu, SY, Kolonel, LN, Hankin, JH, Lee, J.A comparison of frequency and quantitative dietary methods for epidemiologic studies of diet and disease. Am. J. Epidemiol. 1984; 119: 323–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2Clapp, JA, McPherson, RS, Reed, DB, Hsi, BP. Comparison of a food frequency questionnaire using reported vs standard portion sizes for classifying individuals according to nutrient intake. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 1991; 91: 316–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Humble, CG, Samet, JM, Skipper, BE. Use of quantified and frequency indices of vitamin A intake in a case–control study of lung cancer. Int. J. Epidemiol. 1987; 16: 341–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4Hunter, DJ, Sampson, L, Stampfer, MJ, Colditz, GA, Rosner, B, Willett, WC. Variability in portion sizes of commonly consumed foods among a population of women in the United States. Am. J. Epidemiol. 1988; 127: 1240–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Nelson, M, Atkinson, M, Darbyshire, S.Food photography II: use of food photographs for estimating portion size and the nutrient content of meals. Br. J. Nutr. 1996; 76: 31–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6Samet, JM, Humble, CG, Skipper, BE. Alternatives in the collection and analysis of food frequency interview data. Am. J. Epidemiol. 1984; 120: 572–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Tjonneland, A, Haroldsdottir, J, Overvad, K, Stripp, C, Ewertz, M, Jensen, OM. Influence of individually estimated portion size data on the validity of a semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire. Int. J. Epidemiol. 1992; 21: 770–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8Fogelholm, M, Lahti-Koski, M.The validity of a food use questionnaire in assessing the nutrient intake of physically active young men. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 1991; 45: 267–72.Google ScholarPubMed
9 Food Intake Analysis System, Version 3.0. The University of Texas-Houston, School of Public Health, Houston, TX, 1996.Google Scholar
10SAS Institute Inc. SAS/STAT User's Guide, Version 6, 4th edn.Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc., 1989.Google Scholar
11National Technical Information Service, US Department of Commerce, US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. 1994 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals and 1994 Diet and Health Knowledge Survey. CD-ROM, accession no. PB96–501010. Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, US Department of Commerce, 1996.Google Scholar