Premium
Do we need information about portion sizes to rank individuals by their nutrient intakes?
Author(s) -
Fehily Ann M.,
Hopkinson Tracey
Publication year - 1993
Publication title -
journal of human nutrition and dietetics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.951
H-Index - 70
eISSN - 1365-277X
pISSN - 0952-3871
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-277x.1993.tb00354.x
Subject(s) - medicine , nutrient , demography , population , zoology , statistics , environmental health , mathematics , ecology , sociology , biology
Nutrient intakes calculated from 7‐day weighed intake records for a community sample of 99 men and women were compared with those estimated from the same records, but with mean portion weights substituted for the actual weights. For many nutrients, approximately half of the mean portion records yielded intakes within 10% of the weighed record values. Correlation coefficients between the two estimates of intakes were high (0.64‐0.97). Between 58 and 74 subjects were classified in the same third of the nutrient distributions and only between zero and four classified in opposite thirds. Using estimated portion weights is likely to reduce the degree of misclassification only slightly. It is therefore concluded that for most nutrients a diary with standard portion weights may be as likely to detect diet‐disease relationships in population studies as a diary with estimated weights and only slightly less likely to detect such associations than a weighed intake survey.