Validating dietary assessment tools with energy expenditure measurement methods: Is this accurate?
Abstract
Abstract. Having an accurate dietary assessment tool is a necessity for most nutritional studies. As a result, many validation studies have been carried out to assess the validity of commonly used dietary assessment tools. Since based on the energy balance equation, among individuals with a stable weight, Energy Intake (EI) is equal to Energy Expenditure (EE) and there are precise methods for measurement of EE (e.g. doubly labeled water method), numerous studies have used this technique for validating dietary assessment tools. If there was a discrepancy between measured EI and EE, the researchers have concluded that self-reported dietary assessment tools are not valid or participants misreport their dietary intakes. However, the calculation of EI with common dietary assessment tools such as food frequency questionnaires (FFQs), 24-hour dietary recalls, or weighed food records, is based on fixed factors that were introduced by Atwater and the accuracy of these factors are under question. Moreover, the amount of energy absorption, and utilization from a diet, depends on various factors and there are considerable interindividual differences in this regard, for example in gut microbiota composition. As a result, the EI which is calculated using dietary assessment tools is likely not representative of real metabolizable energy which is equal to EE in individuals with stable weight, thus validating dietary assessment tools with EE measurement methods may not be accurate. We aim to address this issue briefly and propose a feasible elucidation, albeit not a complete solution.
References
1 . Evaluation of dietary assessment instruments against doubly labeled water, a biomarker of habitual energy intake. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2001;281:E891–E899.
2 . A systematic review of the validity of dietary assessment methods in children when compared with the method of doubly labelled water. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2020;74(5):669–81.
3 . Validity of dietary assessment methods when compared to the method of doubly labeled water. A systematic review in adults. Front Endocrinol. 2019;10.
4 . Misreporting of energy and micronutrient intake estimated by food records and 24 hour recalls, control and adjustment methods in practice. Br J Nutr. 2009;101(SUPPL. 2):S73–S85.
5 Energy balance measurement: When something is not better than nothing. Int J Obes. 2015;39(7):1109–13.
6 . Energy balance and its components: implications for body weight regulation. Am J Clin Nutr. 2012;95(4):989–94.
7 . Comparison of doubly labeled water, intake-balance, and direct-and indirect-calorimetry methods for measuring energy expenditure in adult men. Am J Clin Nutr. 1990;52(1):66–71.
8 . Comparison of energy expenditure measurements by diet records, energy intake balance, doubly labeled water and room calorimetry. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1997;51(12):856–63.
9 . Procedures for estimating nutrient values for food composition databases. J Food Compost Anal. 1997;10(2):102–14.
10 . Calculating the metabolizable energy of macronutrients: a critical review of Atwater’s results. Nutr Rev. 2017;75(1):37–48.
11 . Accuracy of the Atwater factors and related food energy conversion factors with low-fat, high-fiber diets when energy intake is reduced spontaneously. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007;86(6):1649–56.
12 . Dietary fiber decreases the metabolizable energy content and nutrient digestibility of mixed diets fed to humans. J Nutr. 1997;127(4):579–86.
13 . Metabolizable energy from cashew nuts is less than that predicted by atwater factors. Nutrients. 2019;11(1):33.
14 . The Atwater energy equivalents overestimate metabolizable energy intake in older humans: results from a 96-day strictly controlled feeding study. J Nutr. 2003;133(8):2581–4.
15 . Mabolizable energy differences between values calculated using energy conversion factors and actual values determined by metabolic study of Korean starch foods. J Food Sci. 2014;79(4):H713–H8.
16 . Individual differences in apparent energy digestibility are larger than generally recognized. Am J Clin Nutr. 2011;94(6):1650–1.
17 . Effects of gut microbes on nutrient absorption and energy regulation. Nutr Clin Pract. 2012;27(2):201–14.
18 . Factors affecting the composition of the gut microbiota, and its modulation. PeerJ. 2019;7:e7502.
19 Gut microbiota from twins discordant for obesity modulate metabolism in mice. Science. 2013;341(6150).
20 . Inter-individual differences in response to dietary intervention: integrating omics platforms towards personalised dietary recommendations. Proc Nutr Soc. 2013;72(2):207–18.
21 . The chaperone Hsp90: changing partners for demanding clients. Trends Biochem Sci. 2013;38(5):253–62.
22 . Conformational activation of Argonaute by distinct yet coordinated actions of the Hsp70 and Hsp90 chaperone systems. Mol Cell. 2018;70(4):722–9.
23 . Molecular chaperones – cellular machines for protein folding. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 2002;41(7):1098–113.
24 . Heat stress and cardiovascular, hormonal, and heat shock proteins in humans. J Athl Train. 2012;47(2):184–90.
25 . A prospective evaluation of the heat shock protein 70 gene polymorphisms and the risk of stroke. Thromb Haemost. 2002;87(4):622–5.
26 Comparison of self-reported and measured metabolizable energy intake with total energy expenditure in overweight teens. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009;89(6):1744–50.
27 . Traditional self-reported dietary instruments are prone to inaccuracies and new approaches are needed. Front Nutr. 2020;7.
28 Evaluation of new technology-based tools for dietary intake assessment – An ilsi europe dietary intake and exposure task force evaluation. Nutrients. 2019;11(1):55.
29 . Measuring food intake with digital photography. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2014;27:72–81.
30 Validity of image-based dietary assessment methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Nutr. 2020;39(10):2945–59.
31 . Review and evaluation of innovative technologies for measuring diet in nutritional epidemiology. Int J Epidemiol. 2012;41(4):1187–203.
32 Fecal bacteria as biomarkers for predicting food intake in healthy adults. J Nutr. 2021;151(2):423–33.
