Assessing dietary intake: Who, what and why of under-reporting
Open Access
- 14 December 1998
- journal article
- Published by Cambridge University Press (CUP) in Nutrition Research Reviews
- Vol. 11 (2) , 231-253
- https://doi.org/10.1079/nrr19980017
Abstract
Under-reporting of food intake is one of the fundamental obstacles preventing the collection of accurate habitual dietary intake data. The prevalence of under-reporting in large nutritional surveys ranges from 18 to 54% of the whole sample, but can be as high as 70% in particular subgroups. This wide variation between studies is partly due to different criteria used to identify under-reporters and also to non-uniformity of under-reporting across populations. The most consistent differences found are between men and women and between groups differing in body mass index. Women are more likely to under-report than men, and under-reporting is more common among overweight and obese individuals. Other associated characteristics, for which there is less consistent evidence, include age, smoking habits, level of education, social class, physical activity and dietary restraint.Determining whether under-reporting is specific to macronutrients or food is problematic, as most methods identify only low energy intakes. Studies that have attempted to measure under-reporting specific to macronutrients express nutrients as percentage of energy and have tended to find carbohydrate under-reported and protein over-reported. However, care must be taken when interpreting these results, especially when data are expressed as percentages. A logical conclusion is that food items with a negative health image (e.g. cakes, sweets, confectionery) are more likely to be under-reported, whereas those with a positive health image are more likely to be over-reported (e.g. fruits and vegetables). This also suggests that dietary fat is likely to be under-reported.However, it is necessary to distinguish between under-reporting and genuine under-eating for the duration of data collection. The key to understanding this problem, but one that has been widely neglected, concerns the processes that cause people to under-report their food intakes. The little work that has been done has simply confirmed the complexity of this issue. The importance of obtaining accurate estimates of habitual dietary intakes so as to assess health correlates of food consumption can be contrasted with the poor quality of data collected. This phenomenon should be considered a priority research area. Moreover, misreporting is not simply a nutritionist's problem, but requires a multidisciplinary approach (including psychology, sociology and physiology) to advance the understanding of under-reporting in dietary intake studies.Keywords
This publication has 65 references indexed in Scilit:
- How can energy balance be achieved by free-living human subjects?Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 1997
- Ethnic influences on weaning diet in the UKProceedings of the Nutrition Society, 1997
- Acute thermogenic effects of nicotine and alcohol in healthy male and female smokersPhysiology & Behavior, 1996
- The effects of snacking on energy intake and body weightNutrition Bulletin, 1996
- Biochemical validation of a self-administered semi-quantitative food-frequency questionnaireBritish Journal of Nutrition, 1995
- Human nutritionists' guilty secretNutrition Bulletin, 1995
- Social Desirability Bias in Dietary Self-Report May Compromise the Validity of Dietary Intake MeasuresInternational Journal of Epidemiology, 1995
- Editorial–Can we measure what people eat?Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, 1995
- Nutrient intakes in North Glasgow: results from the Scottish MONICA studies of 1986 and 1989Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, 1994
- Women, but not Men, Are What They EatPersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1987