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
. 1998 Nov;52(11):832-8.
doi: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1600655.

Energy intake and expenditure: validation of a diet history by heart rate monitoring, activity diary and doubly labeled water

Affiliations

Energy intake and expenditure: validation of a diet history by heart rate monitoring, activity diary and doubly labeled water

E Rothenberg et al. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1998 Nov.

Abstract

Objective: To validate a diet history (DH).

Design: Energy intake (EI) estimated by a diet history (DH) was validated against total energy expenditure (TEE) measured by doubly labeled water (DLW) (n = 12) used as reference, by heart rate monitoring (HR) and by an activity diary (AD).

Setting: Department of Geriatric Medicine, Göteborg University, Vasa Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Subjects: 20 healthy free-living elderly subjects (73 years) from the gerontological and geriatric population studies, Gothenburg, Sweden (H70).

Results: Mean value for EI was 9.02 (s.d. 2.30), for TEE by HR was 9.66 (s.d. 2.25) MJ/d, and for TEE by AD was 9.40 (s.d. 2.08) MJ/d. In the 12 individuals measured with DLW, EI was 8.62 (s.d. 2.06), TEE by DLW was 9.90 (s.d. 1.43) MJ/d, TEE by HR was 8.94 (s.d. 1.96) MJ/d, and TEE by AD was 9.24 (s.d. 2.15)MJ/d. Mean difference between DH and DLW was 1.28 (s.d. 2.17) MJ (NS) and the DH/DLW ratio was 0.88. Four subjects were identified as under-reporters and one as an over-reporter.

Conclusion: The DH slightly underestimated EI compared to the HR, but was in concordance with the AD. Compared to DLW, DH underestimated EI by 12%. On group level, the DH method gave comparable values to HR and AD. The DH was not valid for ranking of individuals. Compared to DLW, the HR method seemed to perform somewhat better than the AD for detection of under- and over-reporters.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types