Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2001 Feb;55(2):124-9.
doi: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1601128.

Validation of food diary method for assessment of dietary energy and macronutrient intake in infants and children aged 6-24 months

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Validation of food diary method for assessment of dietary energy and macronutrient intake in infants and children aged 6-24 months

J A Lanigan et al. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2001 Feb.

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the estimated food diary record (ED) method against weighed intake record method (WI) for assessing dietary intake in infants and children aged 6-24 months; additionally, to compare WI with metabolisable energy intake (ME) measured by doubly labelled water (DLW) in infants aged 6 12 months.

Design: Cross-over study of 5 day WI vs 5 day ED.

Subjects: Seventy-two children aged 6-24 months.

Methods: Subjects were randomly assigned to one method during week 1 crossing over to the alternative method in week 2. Data were coded and translated into daily nutrient intakes using COMP-EAT version 5 nutritional analysis software. The analysis compared energy, protein, fat and carbohydrate. Twenty-one infants were dosed with DLW for measurement of total energy expenditure (TEE) and ME.

Results: Mean energy intake calculated from WI and ED was 3,782 and 3,920 kJ/day, respectively. There was no significant difference between these values. Using WI as a reference, ED showed a mean bias of 138 kJ/day, equivalent to 3.6% of mean energy intake. Limits of agreement (+/- 2 s.d. of the bias) were wide at +/- 1,385 kJ/day. There were no significant differences between methods for any of the nutrient sub-classes. Using DLW as a reference, WI showed a mean bias of 243 kJ/day, equivalent to 7.3% of mean energy intake, limits of agreement were wide at +/- 1686 kJ/day.

Conclusion: There is no evidence from the present analysis that ED is less accurate than WI for assessing energy and nutrient sub-class intakes in groups of this age but this good agreement between methods in groups does not extend to individuals.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources