Validity of absolute intake and nutrient density of protein, potassium, and sodium assessed by various dietary assessment methods: An exploratory study

Laura Trijsburg*, Anouk Geelen, Paul J.M. Hulshof, Pieter Van’T Veer, Hendriek C. Boshuizen, Peter C.H. Hollman, Gertjan van Dijk, Edith J.M. Feskens, Jeanne H.M. de Vries

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

It is suggested that nutrient densities are less affected by measurement errors than absolute intake estimates of dietary exposure. We compared the validity of absolute intakes and densities of protein (kJ from protein/total energy (kJ)), potassium, and sodium (potassium or sodium (in mg)/total energy (kJ)) assessed by different dietary assessment methods. For 69 Dutch subjects, two duplicate portions (DPs), five to fifteen 24-h dietary recalls (24 hRs, telephone-based and web-based) and two food frequency questionnaires (FFQs) were collected and compared to duplicate urinary biomarkers and one or two doubly labelled water measurements. Multivariate measurement error models were used to estimate validity coefficients (VCs) and attenuation factors (AFs). This research showed that group bias diminished for protein and sodium densities assessed by all methods as compared to the respective absolute intakes, but not for those of potassium. However, the VCs and AFs for the nutrient densities did not improve compared to absolute intakes for all four methods; except for the AF of sodium density (0.71) or the FFQ which was better than that of the absolute sodium intake (0.51). Thus, using nutrient densities rather than absolute intakes does not necessarily improve the performance of the DP, FFQ, or 24 hR.

Original languageEnglish
Article number109
JournalNutrients
Volume12
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2020

Fingerprint

nutrient density
Potassium
Sodium
potassium
sodium
food frequency questionnaires
Food
Proteins
proteins
methodology
diet recall
dietary exposure
energy
biomarkers
Telephone
Biomarkers
Water
Research
water
Surveys and Questionnaires

Keywords

  • Dietary assessment
  • Doubly labeled water
  • Measurement errors
  • Multivariate models
  • Nutrient density
  • Validation

Cite this

@article{abaefeb998174b018c2005cecd524882,
title = "Validity of absolute intake and nutrient density of protein, potassium, and sodium assessed by various dietary assessment methods: An exploratory study",
abstract = "It is suggested that nutrient densities are less affected by measurement errors than absolute intake estimates of dietary exposure. We compared the validity of absolute intakes and densities of protein (kJ from protein/total energy (kJ)), potassium, and sodium (potassium or sodium (in mg)/total energy (kJ)) assessed by different dietary assessment methods. For 69 Dutch subjects, two duplicate portions (DPs), five to fifteen 24-h dietary recalls (24 hRs, telephone-based and web-based) and two food frequency questionnaires (FFQs) were collected and compared to duplicate urinary biomarkers and one or two doubly labelled water measurements. Multivariate measurement error models were used to estimate validity coefficients (VCs) and attenuation factors (AFs). This research showed that group bias diminished for protein and sodium densities assessed by all methods as compared to the respective absolute intakes, but not for those of potassium. However, the VCs and AFs for the nutrient densities did not improve compared to absolute intakes for all four methods; except for the AF of sodium density (0.71) or the FFQ which was better than that of the absolute sodium intake (0.51). Thus, using nutrient densities rather than absolute intakes does not necessarily improve the performance of the DP, FFQ, or 24 hR.",
keywords = "Dietary assessment, Doubly labeled water, Measurement errors, Multivariate models, Nutrient density, Validation",
author = "Laura Trijsburg and Anouk Geelen and Hulshof, {Paul J.M.} and {Van’T Veer}, Pieter and Boshuizen, {Hendriek C.} and Hollman, {Peter C.H.} and {van Dijk}, Gertjan and Feskens, {Edith J.M.} and {de Vries}, {Jeanne H.M.}",
year = "2020",
month = "1",
doi = "10.3390/nu12010109",
language = "English",
volume = "12",
journal = "Nutrients",
issn = "2072-6643",
publisher = "MDPI",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Validity of absolute intake and nutrient density of protein, potassium, and sodium assessed by various dietary assessment methods: An exploratory study

AU - Trijsburg, Laura

AU - Geelen, Anouk

AU - Hulshof, Paul J.M.

AU - Van’T Veer, Pieter

AU - Boshuizen, Hendriek C.

AU - Hollman, Peter C.H.

AU - van Dijk, Gertjan

AU - Feskens, Edith J.M.

AU - de Vries, Jeanne H.M.

PY - 2020/1

Y1 - 2020/1

N2 - It is suggested that nutrient densities are less affected by measurement errors than absolute intake estimates of dietary exposure. We compared the validity of absolute intakes and densities of protein (kJ from protein/total energy (kJ)), potassium, and sodium (potassium or sodium (in mg)/total energy (kJ)) assessed by different dietary assessment methods. For 69 Dutch subjects, two duplicate portions (DPs), five to fifteen 24-h dietary recalls (24 hRs, telephone-based and web-based) and two food frequency questionnaires (FFQs) were collected and compared to duplicate urinary biomarkers and one or two doubly labelled water measurements. Multivariate measurement error models were used to estimate validity coefficients (VCs) and attenuation factors (AFs). This research showed that group bias diminished for protein and sodium densities assessed by all methods as compared to the respective absolute intakes, but not for those of potassium. However, the VCs and AFs for the nutrient densities did not improve compared to absolute intakes for all four methods; except for the AF of sodium density (0.71) or the FFQ which was better than that of the absolute sodium intake (0.51). Thus, using nutrient densities rather than absolute intakes does not necessarily improve the performance of the DP, FFQ, or 24 hR.

AB - It is suggested that nutrient densities are less affected by measurement errors than absolute intake estimates of dietary exposure. We compared the validity of absolute intakes and densities of protein (kJ from protein/total energy (kJ)), potassium, and sodium (potassium or sodium (in mg)/total energy (kJ)) assessed by different dietary assessment methods. For 69 Dutch subjects, two duplicate portions (DPs), five to fifteen 24-h dietary recalls (24 hRs, telephone-based and web-based) and two food frequency questionnaires (FFQs) were collected and compared to duplicate urinary biomarkers and one or two doubly labelled water measurements. Multivariate measurement error models were used to estimate validity coefficients (VCs) and attenuation factors (AFs). This research showed that group bias diminished for protein and sodium densities assessed by all methods as compared to the respective absolute intakes, but not for those of potassium. However, the VCs and AFs for the nutrient densities did not improve compared to absolute intakes for all four methods; except for the AF of sodium density (0.71) or the FFQ which was better than that of the absolute sodium intake (0.51). Thus, using nutrient densities rather than absolute intakes does not necessarily improve the performance of the DP, FFQ, or 24 hR.

KW - Dietary assessment

KW - Doubly labeled water

KW - Measurement errors

KW - Multivariate models

KW - Nutrient density

KW - Validation

U2 - 10.3390/nu12010109

DO - 10.3390/nu12010109

M3 - Article

VL - 12

JO - Nutrients

JF - Nutrients

SN - 2072-6643

IS - 1

M1 - 109

ER -