Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Body composition, energy expenditure and physical activity

Is misreporting of dietary intake by weighed food records or 24-hour recalls food specific?

European Journal of Clinical Nutrition volume 72, pages 1026–1034 (2018)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Background/objectives

Healthy eating advice is informed, in part, by dietary surveys that rely on self-reported data. Misreporting of food intake may distort relationships between diet and health outcomes. This study directly quantified the food groups that were under-reported or over-reported in common dietary assessment techniques.

Subjects/methods

Food and drink consumption of 59 adults, with ad libitum access to a range of familiar foods, was objectively and covertly measured by investigators, and validated against independent measures of energy balance, while participants were resident in the Human Nutrition Unit of the Rowett Institute. Participants self-reported their diets using weighed dietary records (WDR) and multiple-pass 24-hr recalls over two periods of 3 days using a cross-over design. Foods and drinks were aggregated into 41 food groups.

Results

The mean daily weight of food and drinks reported was significantly lower than actually consumed; 3.3 kg (p = 0.004, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 3.07–3.55 kg) and 3.0 kg (p < 0.001, CI = 2.80–3.15 kg) for the WDR and 24-hr recall respectively, compared with 3.6 kg for the objective measure. Reported intakes were significantly lower than the objective measure for four and eight food groups (WDR and 24 h recall, respectively), and not significantly different for the remaining food groups.

Conclusions

Although under-reporting was greater for some food groups than for others, ‘healthy’ foods were not over-reported and ‘unhealthy’ foods were not consistently under-reported. A better understanding of which foods tend to be misreported could lead to improvements in the methods of self-reported dietary intakes.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Archer E, Pavela G, Lavie CJ. The inadmissibility of what we eat in America and NHANES dietary data in nutrition and obesity research and the scientific formulation of national dietary guidelines. Mayo Clin Proc. 2015;90:911–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Cook A, Pryer J, Shetty P. The problem of accuracy in dietary surveys. Analysis of the over 65 UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2000;54:611–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Huang TT, Roberts SB, Howarth NC, McCrory MA. Effect of screening out implausible energy intake reports on relationships between diet and BMI. Obes Res. 2005;13:1205–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Stubbs RJ, O’Reilly LM, Whybrow S, Fuller Z, Johnstone AM, Livingstone MBE, et al. Measuring the difference between actual and reported food intakes in the context of energy balance under laboratory conditions. Br J Nutr. 2014;111:2032–43.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Subar AF, Kipnis V, Troiano RP, Midthune D, Schoeller DA, Bingham S, et al. Using intake biomarkers to evaluate the extent of dietary misreporting in a large sample of adults: the OPEN Study. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;158:1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cespedes EM, Hu FB. Dietary patterns: from nutritional epidemiologic analysis to national guidelines. Am J Clin Nutr. 2015;101:899–900.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Bailey RL, Mitchell DC, Miller C, Smiciklas-Wright H. Assessing the effect of underreporting energy intake on dietary patterns and weight status. J Am Diet Assoc. 2007;107:64–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kant AK. Nature of dietary reporting by adults in the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988-1994. J Am Coll Nutr. 2002;21:315–27.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Millen AE, Tooze JA, Subar AF, Kahle LL, Schatzkin A, Krebs-Smith SM. Differences between food group reports of low-energy reporters and non-low-energy reporters on a food frequency questionnaire. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009;109:1194–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Rosell MS, Hellenius MLB, de Faire UH, Johansson GK. Associations between diet and the metabolic syndrome vary with the validity of dietary intake data. Am J Clin Nutr. 2003;78:84–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Summerbell CD, Moody RC, Shanks J, Stock MJ, Geissler C. Relationship between feeding pattern and body mass index in 220 free-living people in four age groups. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1996;50:513–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Pryer JA, Vrijheid M, Nichols R, Kiggins M, Elliott P. Who are the ‘low-energy reporters’ in the dietary and nutritional survey of British adults? Int J Epidemiol. 1997;26:146–54.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Hirvonen T, Mannisto S, Roos E, Pietinen P. Increasing prevalence of underreporting does not necessarily distort dietary surveys. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1997;51:297–301.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Johansson G, Wikman A, Ahren AM, Hallmans G, Johansson I. Underreporting of energy intake in repeated 24-hour recalls related to gender, age, weight status, day of interview, educational level, reported food intake, smoking habits and area of living. Public Health Nutr. 2001;4:919–27.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Bingham SA, Cassidy A, Cole TJ, Welch A, Runswick SA, Black AE, et al. Validation of weighed records and other methods of dietary assessment using the 24 h urine nitrogen technique and other biological markers. Br J Nutr. 1995;73:531–50.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Krebs-Smith SM, Graubard BI, Kahle LL, Subar AF, Cleveland LE, Ballard-Barbash R. Low energy reporters vs others: a comparison of reported food intakes. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2000;54:281–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Lafay L, Mennen L, Basdevant A, Charles MA, Borys JM, Eschwege E, et al. Does energy intake underreporting involve all kinds of food or only specific food items? Results from the Fleurbaix Laventie Ville Sante (FLVS) study. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2000;24:1500–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Gemming L, Ni Mhurchu C. Dietary under-reporting: what foods and which meals are typically under-reported? Eur J Clin Nutr. 2016;70:640–1.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Rumpler WV, Kramer M, Rhodes DG, Moshfegh AJ, Paul DR. Identifying sources of reporting error using measured food intake. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2008;62:544–52.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Thompson FE, Subar AF, Loria CM, Reedy JL, Baranowski T. Need for technological innovation in dietary assessment. J Am Diet Assoc. 2010;110:48–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Jonnalagadda SS, Mitchell DC, Smiciklas-Wright H, Meaker KB, Van Heel N, Karmally W, et al. Accuracy of energy intake data estimated by a multiple-pass, 24-hour dietary recall technique. J Am Diet Assoc. 2000;100:303–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Bingham SA. The dietary assessment of individuals; methods, accuracy, new techniques and recommendations. Nutr Abstr Rev. 1987;57:705–42.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Bates B, Lennox A, Prentice A, Bates C, Page P, Nicholson S. National Diet and Nutrition Survey Results from Years 1, 2, 3 and 4 (combined) of the Rolling Programme (2008/2009–2011/2012). London: Public Health England, Food Standards Agency; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Holland B, Welch AA, Unwin ID, Buss DH, Paul AA, Southgate DAT. The Composition of Foods. 5th edn. Cambridge: The Royal Society of Chemistry and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Friedman M. A correction: the use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normality implicit in the analysis of variance. J Am Stat Assoc. 1939;34:109–109.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Friedman MA. The use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normality implicit in the analysis of variance. J Am Stat Assoc. 1937;32:675–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Poslusna K, Ruprich J, de Vries JH, Jakubikova M, van’t Veer P. Misreporting of energy and micronutrient intake estimated by food records and 24 h recalls, control and adjustment methods in practice. Br J Nutr. 2009;101:S73–85.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Poppitt SD, Swann D, Black AE, Prentice AM. Assessment of selective under-reporting of food intake by both obese and non-obese women in a metabolic facility. Int J Obes. 1998;22:303–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Conway JM, Ingwersen LA, Moshfegh AJ. Accuracy of dietary recall using the USDA five-step multiple-pass method in men: an observational validation study. J Am Diet Assoc. 2004;104:595–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ard JD, Desmond RA, Allison DB, Conway JM. Dietary restraint and disinhibition do not affect accuracy of 24-hour recall in a multiethnic population. J Am Diet Assoc. 2006;106:434–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Conway JM, Ingwersen LA, Vinyard BT, Moshfegh AJ. Effectiveness of the US department of agriculture 5-step multiple-pass method in assessing food intake in obese and nonobese women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2003;77:1171–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Mela DJ, Aaron JI. Honest but invalid: what subjects say about recording their food intake. J Am Diet Assoc. 1997;97:791–3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Macdiarmid JI, Blundell JE. Dietary under-reporting: what people say about recording their food intake. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1997;51:199–200.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Goldberg GR, Black AE, Jebb SA, Cole TJ, Murgatroyd PR, Coward WA, et al. Critical-evaluation of energy-intake data using fundamental principles of energy physiology .1. Derivation of cutoff limits to identify under-recording. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1991;45:569–81.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Henderson L, Gregory J, Swan G. The National Diet and Nutrition Survey: adults aged 19 to 64 years. Vitamins and mineral intake and urinary analytes (Vol. 3). London: HMSO. 2003.

  36. Stubbs RJ, O’Reilley L, Fuller Z, Horgan G, Meyer C, Deary I, et al. Detecting and modelling mis-reporting of food intake in adults. London: Food Standards Agency; 2003.

  37. Vuckovic N, Ritenbaugh C, Taren DL, Tobar M. A qualitative study of participants’ experiences with dietary assessment. J Am Diet Assoc. 2018;100:1023–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Whybrow S, Horgan G, Stubbs RJ. Low-energy reporting and duration of recording period. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2008;62:1148–50.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Maurer J, Taren DL, Teixeira PJ, Thomson CA, Lohman TG, Going SB, et al. The psychosocial and behavioral characteristics related to energy misreporting. Nutr Rev. 2006;64:53–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The original study, from which the current data were taken, was funded by the Food Standards Agency, UK. S.W. was supported by the Scottish Government’s Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services (RESAS) Division.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK

    Leanne Garden

  2. Institute of Applied Health Services, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK

    Heather Clark

  3. Rowett Institute, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK

    Stephen Whybrow

  4. School of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

    R. James Stubbs

Authors
  1. Leanne Garden
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Heather Clark
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stephen Whybrow
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. R. James Stubbs
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen Whybrow.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethics

This study was conducted according to the guidelines laid down in the Declaration of Helsinki, and all procedures involving human participants were approved by the Joint Ethical Committee of the Grampian Health Board and the University of Aberdeen. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants. The real purpose of the study was, necessarily, not explained to the participants and they were informed that it was to examine the relationships between diet and lifestyle.

Electronic supplementary material

41430_2018_199_MOESM1_ESM.docx

Further breakdown of the 41 food groups established, including overall categories in bold and examples of specific foods/drinks

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Garden, L., Clark, H., Whybrow, S. et al. Is misreporting of dietary intake by weighed food records or 24-hour recalls food specific?. Eur J Clin Nutr 72, 1026–1034 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-018-0199-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-018-0199-6

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links