Nutrition epidemiology: how do we know what they ate?

https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/54.1.182SGet rights and content

ABSTRACT

It is generally believed but difficult to prove that diet plays a role in the risk of various diseases. This paper reviews strengths and deficiencies of select diet-assessment methods used in epidemiologic studies with particular reference to their use in the study of osteoporosis. Direct observation or weighed food records are useful primarily as validation for less intrusive methods. Complete food history by interview or food diary (by self report) is expensive and time consuming. A 24-h diet recall obtained by a trained dietitian can provide accurate, quantitative information on recent intake but does not represent usual intake. Food frequency questionnaires provide better estimates of usual diet but are less quantitative and subject to problems of recall and seasonality. No method is universally the best. Lack of an expected diet-disease association may reflect exposure misclassification, inadequate statistical power, or limited range of the nutrients studied. Given the differences in diet-assessment methods, studies of dietary calcium and osteoporotic fracture have had surprisingly similar results.

REFERENCES (33)

  • LinussonEEI et al.

    Validating the 24-hour recall method as a dietary survey tool

    Latinoam Nutr

    (1974)
  • ShekelleRB et al.

    Diet, serum cholesterol, and death from coronary heart disease. The Western Electric Study.

    N Engl J Med

    (1981)
  • MorganRW et al.

    A comparison of dietary methods in epidemiologic studies

    Am J Epidemiol

    (1978)
  • BeatonGH et al.

    Sources of variance in 24-hour dietary recall data: implications for nutrition study design and interpretation

    Am J Clin Nutr

    (1979)
  • LiuK

    Measurement error and its impact on partial correlations and multiple linear regression analyses

    Am J Epidemiol

    (1988)
  • BlockG

    A review of validations of dietary assessment methods

    Am J Epidemiol

    (1982)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text