| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Original Research Communication |
1 From the Department of Human Biology, Maastricht University, Netherlands.
See corresponding editorial on page 3
2 Address reprint requests to AHC Goris, Department of Human Biology, Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, Netherlands. E-mail: a.goris{at}hb.unimaas.nl.
.
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONSUBJECTS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Objective: One aim of this study was to assess to what extent underreporting by obese men is explained by underrecording (failure to record in a food diary everything that is consumed) or undereating. Another aim of the study was to find out whether there was an indication for selective underreporting.
Design: Subjects were 30 obese men with a mean (±SD) body mass index (in kg/m2) of 34 ± 4. Total food intake was measured over 1 wk. Energy expenditure (EE) was measured with the doubly labeled water method, and water loss was estimated with deuterium-labeled water. Energy balance was checked for by measuring body weight at the start and end of the food-recording week and 1 wk after the recording week.
Results: Mean energy intake and EE were 10.4 ± 2.5 and 16.7 ± 2.4 MJ/d, respectively; underreporting was 37 ± 16%. The mean body mass loss of 1.0 ± 1.3 kg over the recording week was significantly different (P < 0.05) from the change in body mass over the nonrecording week, and indicated 26% undereating. Water intake (reported + metabolic water) and water loss were significantly different from each other and indicated 12% underrecording. The reported percentage of energy from fat was a function of the level of underreporting: percentage of energy from fat = 46 – 0.2 x percentage of underreporting (r2 = 0.28, P = 0.003).
Conclusions: Total underreporting by the obese men was explained by underrecording and undereating. The obese men selectively underreported fat intake.
Key Words: Undereating • underrecording • underreporting • energy balance • doubly labeled water • obesity • men
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONSUBJECTS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
20–50% have been described in obese subjects (4–12). The degree of underreporting is positively correlated with body mass index (6–8, 13–15). The aim of the present study was to assess whether this underreporting (ie, a discrepancy between energy intake and expenditure) is also selective for macronutrients, meal types, and snacks. A second aim of the study was to assess to what extent underreporting in obese subjects is explained by underrecording or undereating. We defined underrecording (the failure to record in a food diary everything that is consumed) as a discrepancy between reported energy intake and measured energy expenditure without a change in body mass; we defined undereating as the consumption of less than usual because of the requirement to record food intake, with a resultant decline in body mass (16). Compliance with food recording was checked with the water balance technique, as we described previously (16). Briefly, healthy subjects are in water balance. The recording of water intake appears to represent total food recording; thus, a recorded water intake below the measured water loss indicates the underrecording of water and food intakes. In an earlier study in a group of lean, motivated women, the underreporting of habitual food intake was entirely explained by undereating (16). Subjects changed their food patterns during the recording period. In obese subjects reporting their total food intake, underrecording and undereating have not yet been distinguished. |
SUBJECTS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONSUBJECTS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Protocol
The study included a 2-wk observation period for the measurement of energy expenditure. Food intake, water intake, and water loss were measured over the first week. Energy balance was checked for by measuring body weight changes over each of the 2 wk separately. Thus, possible weight fluctuations resulting because subjects consumed less when they had to record their food intake could be compared with normal weight fluctuations measured over a nonrecording week.
Food and water intake
Total food intake was estimated with use of a 7-d dietary record. Subjects received instructions from a dietitian on how to keep a food record and were asked to not change their habitual food intakes. The data on the food records were used to calculate intakes of total energy, protein, fat, carbohydrate, and water with a computer program based on food tables (BECEL NUTRITION PROGRAM, 1988; Nederlandse Unilever Bedrijven BV, Rotterdam, Netherlands) (17). Total water intake was calculated from reported food and water intakes and the calculated amount of metabolic water. The amount of metabolic water was calculated by multiplying energy expenditure by the percentages of energy from protein, fat, and carbohydrate (from the 7-d food record). Oxidation water is 0.41 mL/g for protein, 1.07 mL/g for fat, and 0.6 mL/g for carbohydrate (18).
Energy expenditure and water loss
Energy expenditure was measured with the doubly labeled water method according to Westerterp et al (19). Water loss was calculated from deuterium elimination as included in the doubly labeled water method. Subjects were given, on the evening of day 0, a weighed dose of a mixture of 99.84 atom% 2H2O in 10.05 atom% H218O, such that baseline levels were increased to 
300 ppm for 2H and 2300 ppm for 18O. A background urine sample was collected on the evening of day 0. Additional urine samples were collected on day 1 (from the second void) on the evening of day 1, the morning and evening of day 8, and the morning and evening of day 15.
Body mass
Body mass was measured 3 times at 7-d intervals. Subjects were weighed (in underwear) in the morning, before any food or beverage consumption and after voiding, on a digital balance accurate to 0.1 kg (Seca, Almere, Netherlands). Body composition was determined by underwater weighing as described elsewhere (20).
Statistics
The results are presented as means ± SDs for 30 subjects. Simple regression analyses were performed for energy intake and energy expenditure and water intake and loss. A one-factor analysis of variance for repeated measures and a post hoc Scheffe test were used to compare the 3 measurements of body mass. Changes in body mass were compared with a paired t test.
Underreporting, underrecording, and undereating were calculated as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
where 1 kg body mass was assumed to be equivalent to 30 MJ (21).
Simple regression analyses were also conducted by using the percentage of underreporting and reported percentages of energy from protein, fat, and carbohydrate to determine whether there was selective underreporting. Calculations of the percentages of energy from protein, fat, and carbohydrate included the amount of energy derived from alcohol. Significance was set at P < 0.05. The STATVIEW SE+ program (1988; Abacus Concepts, Inc, Berkeley, CA) was used for the statistical analysis.
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONSUBJECTS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
. Most subjects had a reported energy intake below the measured energy expenditure. Only one subject had a reported energy intake within 10% of the measured energy expenditure. The average percentage of underreporting was 37 ± 16% in this group. There was no relation between the reported energy intake and the measured energy expenditure (r2 = 0.05, P = 0.2; simple regression analysis).
|
). The percentage of undereating, based on the change in body mass over the recording week, was 26 ± 33%.
Fifty-five percent of the variation in total water intake (recorded + metabolic) was explained by water loss (regression equation: total water intake (L/d) = 1.35 x water loss (L/d) - 1.7; P = 0.0001). The percentage of underrecording, based on the negative water balance, was 12 ± 16%. The reported percentages of energy from protein [(-0.04 x % underreporting) + 14.3; r2 = 0.11, P = 0.07] and carbohydrate (r2 = 0.1) were not significantly related to the percentage of underreporting (simple regression analysis). The reported percentage of energy from fat was related to the percentage of underreporting (Figure 1). The intercept of the regression line, which indicates the percentage of energy from fat in the case of no underreporting, was 46% of energy from fat. The 95% CIs for the adjusted 46% of energy from fat were 41% and 51%. The mean reported percentage of energy from fat was 39 ± 6%. The reported percentages of energy from fat and carbohydrate were not significantly related to the percentage of undereating [r2 = 0.01 (P = 0.96) and r2 = 0.0 (P = 0.9), respectively] or to the percentage of underrecording [r2 = 0.01 (P = 0.6) and r2 = 0.01 (P = 0.6), respectively]. The reported percentage of energy from protein was positively related to the percentage of undereating (r2 = 0.22, P = 0.009), but not to the percentage of underrecording (r2 = 0.03, P = 0.4).
|
). The same relation was found for the reported percentages of energy from fat from the afternoon and evening snacks (simple regression analysis: r2 = 0.12 and r2 = 0.13, respectively, P = 0.05). The results of A simple regression analysis on reported energy intakes at the different meals and the percentage of underreporting are shown in Table 2. The reported energy intakes at lunch, dinner, and the evening snack were related to the total percentage of underreporting. The reported energy intake in the morning (breakfast and morning snack) was not significantly related to the total percentage of underreporting.
|
|
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONSUBJECTS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
About 70% of the total underreporting was due to a diminished intake of food over the recording period. In an earlier study with lean women, total underreporting (16%) was entirely explained by undereating (16). The present study also indicated that recording itself is a useful tool for losing body mass: 70% of the total amount of underreporting was undereating. The level of underreporting found in this study (37%) was of the same magnitude as found in other studies of obese subjects (4–12).
Besides this total underreporting of 37%, there was also a selective underreporting of fat intake. The reported percentage of energy from fat was negatively correlated with the amount of underreporting, and, in the case of no underreporting, the percentage of energy from fat would be 46 ± 5%. The reported percentage of energy from fat of 39 ± 6% was relatively high (higher than the recommended dietary guidelines of 30–35%), although not higher than that reported previously in a sample of 34 obese subjects partly controlled for underreporting (2). In a representative sample of the Dutch population (n = 2625), the average percentage of energy from fat, measured with a 2-d dietary record, was 40% for men (22). This value may have been underestimated because of the underreporting of food intake.
Selective underreporting of fat intake was also found in the study by Voss et al (23), in which the percentage of energy from fat decreased with lower quintiles of the ratio of energy intake to basal metabolic rate. Food intake in this study was measured with a food-frequency questionnaire, and energy expenditure was estimated from calculations of basal metabolic rate (with use of age and weight) and from the assessment of physical activity by using a questionnaire.
Lissner and Lindroos (24) compared reported intakes from 2 dietary assessment methods. Reported energy intakes differed with the 2 methods, but the various macronutrients did not. They concluded that there was no qualitative underreporting of food intake in obese men and women. Rutishauser (25) performed a similar analysis in lean and obese adults and found significantly different percentages of energy from fat and carbohydrate but no significant differences in reported energy intakes between the methods used. External validation was needed in those studies because dietary assessment methods are mostly subject to the same errors.
Specific information on the energy expenditure of subjects was available in our study and this made it possible to compare the reported percentages of energy from the macronutrients with an external validation, the percentage of underreporting. In a study by Heitmann and Lissner (15), reported intakes were compared with nitrogen loss and estimated energy expenditure in 323 men and women (lean and obese). The underreporting of protein was disproportional to the underreporting of energy, suggesting a selective underreporting of fat and carbohydrate-rich foods. The degree of obesity also influenced the dietary reporting both quantitatively and qualitatively (15). Livingstone et al (26) suggested in their study that the underreporting of total food intake was explained by a selective underreporting of snacks. However, subjects who underreported total food intake did not report a significantly lower snack intake. Further analysis to determine any selective underreporting was not done.
In a study by Poppitt et al (27), nonobese women stayed for 24 h in a metabolic facility and had ad libitum food intake, which was covertly measured. The next day, subjects had to write down what they ate and drank during the previous 24 h. Food items eaten during a meal were reported accurately, but the between-meal snack foods were underreported. The snacks provided were mostly carbohydrate rich and there was a selective underreporting of carbohydrate, but not of fat and protein. In our study, there was no selective omission of snacks in the reporting of food intake. In general, the foods consumed in the morning (breakfast and morning snack) were reported accurately. Subjects reported the foods consumed at lunch, at dinner, and in the evening less accurately (higher values of underreporting were associated with lower reported energy intakes at those meals). The reported percentages of energy from fat at the different meals were higher in subjects with a lower percentage of underreporting.
Why would subjects selectively underreport their fat intakes? In general, 30% underrecording of underreporting does not show a complete lack of compliance. Obese subjects might often consume energy-dense foods (foods with a high percentage of fat according to the Atwater factors) in larger than culturally determined portion sizes (2). Therefore, when they report a normal portion of an energy-dense food with a high fat content, they might in fact consume a portion that is normal to them, but should be recorded as "large" by the dietitian. A selective underreporting of fat intake at the meals would be the consequence.Thus, a simple energy intake adjustment would not solve the problem of underreporting for estimation of energy intake. Selective underreporting might have more severe implications than would nonselective underreporting in a dietary survey of obese subjects (28, 29).
The national health campaigns aimed at lowering fat intakes are thought to be successful because results from national food consumption measurements have shown a decline in reported fat intakes over several years (30–32). However, has there been a true decline in reported fat intakes or has there been a selective underreporting of fat intake, as was found in the present study? Results from the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III, phase 1, 1988–1991) show a decline in the reported percentage of energy from fat, an increase in reported energy intakes, and an increase in the prevalence of overweight compared with NHANES II (1976–1980) (32–34). The ratio of reported energy intake to estimated basal metabolic rate was 1.36 for the total population (age 20 y) in NHANES III. For a sedentary population, one would expect a ratio between 1.50 and 1.55, which indicates that energy intake was underreported (34). This underreporting of energy was also probably associated with a selective underreporting of macronutrients, at least in obese participants.
In conclusion, we observed 37% underreporting of energy intake in obese men, consisting of 26% undereating and 12% underrecording. Selective underreporting of fat intake as observed in the obese men in the present study might throw a different light on the outcome of dietary surveys.
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONSUBJECTS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Related articles in AJCN:
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  A. J Moshfegh, D. G Rhodes, D. J Baer, T. Murayi, J. C Clemens, W. V Rumpler, D. R Paul, R. S Sebastian, K. J Kuczynski, L. A Ingwersen, et al. The US Department of Agriculture Automated Multiple-Pass Method reduces bias in the collection of energy intakes Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, August 1, 2008; 88(2): 324 - 332. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. A. Tooze, M. Z. Vitolins, S. L. Smith, T. A. Arcury, C. C. Davis, R. A. Bell, R. F. DeVellis, and S. A. Quandt High Levels of Low Energy Reporting on 24-Hour Recalls and Three Questionnaires in an Elderly Low-Socioeconomic Status Population J. Nutr., May 1, 2007; 137(5): 1286 - 1293. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. L Hutton, L. Martin, C. J Field, W. V Wismer, E. D Bruera, S. M Watanabe, and V. E Baracos Dietary patterns in patients with advanced cancer: implications for anorexia-cachexia therapy. Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, November 1, 2006; 84(5): 1163 - 1170. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. A. Blanton, A. J. Moshfegh, D. J. Baer, and M. J. Kretsch The USDA Automated Multiple-Pass Method Accurately Estimates Group Total Energy and Nutrient Intake J. Nutr., October 1, 2006; 136(10): 2594 - 2599. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. S Freedman, N. Potischman, V. Kipnis, D. Midthune, A. Schatzkin, F. E Thompson, R. P Troiano, R. Prentice, R. Patterson, R. Carroll, et al. A comparison of two dietary instruments for evaluating the fat-breast cancer relationship Int. J. Epidemiol., August 1, 2006; 35(4): 1011 - 1021. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. R. Paul, D. G. Rhodes, M. Kramer, D. J. Baer, and W. V. Rumpler Validation of a Food Frequency Questionnaire by Direct Measurement of Habitual ad Libitum Food Intake Am. J. Epidemiol., October 15, 2005; 162(8): 806 - 814. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Desroches, P Y. Chouinard, I. Galibois, L. Corneau, J. Delisle, B. Lamarche, P. Couture, and N. Bergeron Lack of effect of dietary conjugated linoleic acids naturally incorporated into butter on the lipid profile and body composition of overweight and obese men Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, August 1, 2005; 82(2): 309 - 319. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. Boon, L. L. J. Koppes, W. H. M. Saris, and W. Van Mechelen The Relation between Calcium Intake and Body Composition in a Dutch Population: The Amsterdam Growth and Health Longitudinal Study Am. J. Epidemiol., July 1, 2005; 162(1): 27 - 32. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. H. Pietilainen, A. Rissanen, J. Kaprio, S. Makimattila, A.-M. Hakkinen, J. Westerbacka, J. Sutinen, S. Vehkavaara, and H. Yki-Jarvinen Acquired obesity is associated with increased liver fat, intra-abdominal fat, and insulin resistance in young adult monozygotic twins Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab, April 1, 2005; 288(4): E768 - E774. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 I. Ferreira, J. W. R. Twisk, W. van Mechelen, H. C. G. Kemper, and C. D. A. Stehouwer Development of Fatness, Fitness, and Lifestyle From Adolescence to the Age of 36 Years: Determinants of the Metabolic Syndrome in Young Adults: The Amsterdam Growth and Health Longitudinal Study Arch Intern Med, January 10, 2005; 165(1): 42 - 48. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. R Farshchi, M. A Taylor, and I. A Macdonald Beneficial metabolic effects of regular meal frequency on dietary thermogenesis, insulin sensitivity, and fasting lipid profiles in healthy obese women Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, January 1, 2005; 81(1): 16 - 24. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. B. Ebbeling, K. B. Sinclair, M. A. Pereira, E. Garcia-Lago, H. A. Feldman, and D. S. Ludwig Compensation for Energy Intake From Fast Food Among Overweight and Lean Adolescents JAMA, June 16, 2004; 291(23): 2828 - 2833. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. de Graaf, W. A. Blom, P. A. Smeets, A. Stafleu, and H. F. Hendriks Biomarkers of satiation and satiety Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, June 1, 2004; 79(6): 946 - 961. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. A Tooze, A. F Subar, F. E Thompson, R. Troiano, A. Schatzkin, and V. Kipnis Psychosocial predictors of energy underreporting in a large doubly labeled water study Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, May 1, 2004; 79(5): 795 - 804. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. A van Baak, E. van Mil, A. V Astrup, N. Finer, L. F Van Gaal, J. Hilsted, P. G Kopelman, S. Rossner, W P. James, and W. H. Saris Leisure-time activity is an important determinant of long-term weight maintenance after weight loss in the Sibutramine Trial on Obesity Reduction and Maintenance (STORM trial) Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, August 1, 2003; 78(2): 209 - 214. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. S Rosell, M.-L. B Hellenius, U. H de Faire, and G. K Johansson Associations between diet and the metabolic syndrome vary with the validity of dietary intake data Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, July 1, 2003; 78(1): 84 - 90. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. H Ledikwe, H. Smiciklas-Wright, D. C Mitchell, G. L Jensen, J. M Friedmann, and C. D Still Nutritional risk assessment and obesity in rural older adults: a sex difference Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, March 1, 2003; 77(3): 551 - 558. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. B. E. Livingstone and A. E. Black Markers of the Validity of Reported Energy Intake J. Nutr., March 1, 2003; 133(3): 895S - 920. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Dwyer, M. F. Picciano, and D. J. Raiten Estimation of Usual Intakes: What We Eat in America-NHANES J. Nutr., February 1, 2003; 133(2): 609S - 623. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. A Bray, J. C Lovejoy, M. Most-Windhauser, S. R Smith, J. Volaufova, Y. Denkins, L. de Jonge, J. Rood, M. Lefevre, A. L Eldridge, et al. A 9-mo randomized clinical trial comparing fat-substituted and fat-reduced diets in healthy obese men: the Ole Study Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, November 1, 2002; 76(5): 928 - 934. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. K. Kant Nature of Dietary Reporting by Adults in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988-1994 J. Am. Coll. Nutr., August 1, 2002; 21(4): 315 - 327. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. E Hise, D. K Sullivan, D. J Jacobsen, S. L Johnson, and J. E Donnelly Validation of energy intake measurements determined from observer-recorded food records and recall methods compared with the doubly labeled water method in overweight and obese individuals Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, February 1, 2002; 75(2): 263 - 267. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. O'Connor, E. J Ball, K. S Steinbeck, P. S. Davies, C. Wishart, K. J Gaskin, and L. A Baur Comparison of total energy expenditure and energy intake in children aged 6-9 y Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, November 1, 2001; 74(5): 643 - 649. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Trabulsi and D. A. Schoeller Evaluation of dietary assessment instruments against doubly labeled water, a biomarker of habitual energy intake Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab, November 1, 2001; 281(5): E891 - E899. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. S Westerterp-Plantenga, W. H. Saris, C. J Hukshorn, and L A. Campfield Effects of weekly administration of pegylated recombinant human OB protein on appetite profile and energy metabolism in obese men Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, October 1, 2001; 74(4): 426 - 434. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. P. van Wijk, M. C. Cabezas, C. J. Halkes, and D W. Erkelens Effects of different nutrient intakes on daytime triacylglycerolemia in healthy, normolipemic, free-living men Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, August 1, 2001; 74(2): 171 - 178. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. M McKeown, N. E Day, A. A Welch, S. A Runswick, R. N Luben, A. A Mulligan, A. McTaggart, and S. A Bingham Use of biological markers to validate self-reported dietary intake in a random sample of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer United Kingdom Norfolk cohort Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, August 1, 2001; 74(2): 188 - 196. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. H. Goris, E. P Meijer, A. Kester, and K. R Westerterp Use of a triaxial accelerometer to validate reported food intakes Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, March 1, 2001; 73(3): 549 - 553. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. Maffeis, Y. Schutz, A. Grezzani, S. Provera, G. Piacentini, and L. Tatò Meal-Induced Thermogenesis and Obesity: Is a Fat Meal a Risk Factor for Fat Gain in Children? J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., January 1, 2001; 86(1): 214 - 219. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. E Blundell What foods do people habitually eat? A dilemma for nutrition, an enigma for psychology1 Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, January 1, 2000; 71(1): 3 - 5. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||
), and dinner (
) as a function of the percentage of underreporting in obese men (n = 30). The linear regression lines are as follows: % energy from fat reported at breakfast = 46 - 0.2 x % underreporting (r2 = 0.19, P = 0.02), % energy from fat reported at lunch = 49 - 0.2 x % underreporting (r2 = 0.23, P = 0.008), and % energy from fat reported at dinner = 50 - 0.2 x % underreporting (r2 = 0.19, P = 0.02).