Abstract
PurposeComparison of food consumption, nutrient intake and underreporting of diet history interviews, 24-h recalls and weighed food records to gain further insight into specific strength and limitations of each method and to support the choice of the adequate dietary assessment method.MethodsFor 677 participants (14–80 years) of the German National Nutrition Survey II confidence intervals for food consumption and nutrient intake were calculated on basis of bootstrapping samples, Cohen’s d for the relevance of differences, and intraclass correlation coefficients for the degree of agreement of dietary assessment methods. Low energy reporters were identified with Goldberg cut-offs.ResultsIn 7 of 18 food groups diet history interviews showed higher consumption means than 24-h recalls and weighed food records. Especially mean values of food groups perceived as socially desirable, such as fruit and vegetables, were highest for diet history interviews. For “raw” and “cooked vegetables”, the diet history interviews showed a mean consumption of 144 and 109 g/day in comparison with 68 and 70 g/day in 24-h recalls and 76 and 75 g/day in weighed food records, respectively. For “fruit”, diet history interviews showed a mean consumption of 256 g/day in comparison with 164 g/day in 24-h recalls and 147 g/day in weighed food records. No major differences regarding underreporting of energy intake were found between dietary assessment methods.ConclusionsWith regard to estimating food consumption and nutrient intake, 24-h recalls and weighed food records showed smaller differences and better agreement than pairwise comparisons with diet history interviews.
Highlights
Each dietary assessment method has its own strengths and limitations
There have been efforts to harmonize the assessment of food consumption in Europe to allow international comparisons [4,5,6,7]. 24-h recalls and food records are currently most often used in populationbased dietary surveys in Europe [7,8,9] and were applied
For the diet history interviews, seven higher and two lower consumption means were found compared to the results of weighed food records and 24-h recalls (Fig. 1)
Summary
Each dietary assessment method has its own strengths and limitations. The method which suits best for a special research focus has to be chosen [1,2,3]. The more is known about strengths and limitations, the better the choice of the dietary assessment method can be made. For interpretation and comparison of existing studies and nutrition surveys, methodological aspects need to be considered. In Europe, most countries conduct national food consumption surveys. There have been efforts to harmonize the assessment of food consumption in Europe to allow international comparisons [4,5,6,7]. 24-h recalls and food records are currently most often used in populationbased dietary surveys in Europe [7,8,9] and were applied There have been efforts to harmonize the assessment of food consumption in Europe to allow international comparisons [4,5,6,7]. 24-h recalls and food records are currently most often used in populationbased dietary surveys in Europe [7,8,9] and were applied
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
