Next Article in Journal
A Strategy to Deliver Precise Oral Doses of the Glucosinolates or Isothiocyanates from Moringa oleifera Leaves for Use in Clinical Studies
Previous Article in Journal
How is Satiety Affected When Consuming Food While Working on A Computer?
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Nutrients
Volume 11
Issue 7
10.3390/nu11071546
nutrients-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Estimation of Energy Intake by a Food Frequency Questionnaire: Calibration and Validation with the Doubly Labeled Water Method in Japanese Older People

by
Daiki Watanabe
1,2,
Hinako Nanri
1,
Hiroyuki Sagayama
3,
Tsukasa Yoshida
1,4,5,6,
Aya Itoi
1,7,
Miwa Yamaguchi
1,
Keiichi Yokoyama
4,6,
Yuya Watanabe
1,4,8,
Chiho Goto
9,
Naoyuki Ebine
8,
Yasuki Higaki
10,
Kazuko Ishikawa-Takata
1,
Misaka Kimura
4,6,
Yosuke Yamada
1,4,6,* and
Kyoto-Kameoka Study Group
1
1
National Institute of Health and Nutrition, National Institutes of Biomedical Innovation, Health and Nutrition, Tokyo 162-8636, Japan,
2
Department of Pharmacology, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, Kanagawa 216-8511, Japan
3
Faculty of Health and Sport Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8577, Japan
4
Laboratory of Applied Health Sciences, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Kyoto 602-8566, Japan
5
Senior Citizen’s Welfare Section, Kameoka City Government, Kyoto 621-8501, Japan
6
Institute for Active Health, Kyoto University of Advanced Science, Kyoto 621-8555, Japan
7
Department of Health, Sports and Nutrition, Faculty of Health and Welfare, Kobe Women’s University, Hyogo 650-0046, Japan
8
Faculty of Health and Sports Science, Doshisha University, Kyoto 610-0394, Japan
9
Department of Health and Nutrition, Faculty of Health and Human Life, Nagoya Bunri University, Aichi 492-8520, Japan
10
Faculty of Sports and Health Science, Fukuoka University, Fukuoka 814-0180, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Nutrients 2019, 11(7), 1546; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11071546
Submission received: 27 May 2019 / Revised: 2 July 2019 / Accepted: 5 July 2019 / Published: 9 July 2019
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Accurate assessments of a target population’s energy intake (EI) are essential to prevent poor nutritional status. However, self-reported dietary records (DRs) or food frequency questionnaires (FFQs) are not always accurate, thereby requiring validation and calibration studies. This study aimed to validate the EI estimated by a FFQ using the doubly labeled water (DLW) method. Participants were 109 Japanese older adults (50 women and 59 men) aged 65–88 years. The EI was obtained by a DR and 47-item FFQ over 1 year. The total energy expenditure (TEE) was measured by DLW for ~2 weeks. EI was significantly lower than TEE (p < 0.01); ratios of EI assessed by DR and FFQ against TEE were 0.91 ± 0.17 and 0.82 ± 0.22, respectively. TEE was significantly and moderately correlated with the EI estimated by the DR (r = 0.45, p < 0.01) and FFQ (r = 0.37, p < 0.01). Furthermore, the EI correlation coefficients estimated by DR and the FFQ in this study were not significantly different (p = 0.46). The EI/TEE ratio was significantly and negatively correlated with the body mass index (BMI). In conclusion, EI estimated with a DR or FFQ modestly correlated with TEE, and calibrating EI with a developed equation in this study can attenuate the underestimation of EI.

1. Introduction

Nutritional epidemiological studies are dependent on the accuracy of the habitual dietary survey results they use. The purpose of a dietary assessment is usually one of the following: (1) to compare the mean or median food intake between groups, (2) to rank individuals belonging to the same group, or (3) to evaluate an individual’s habitual food intake [1]. Epidemiological studies usually use food frequency questionnaires (FFQs), dietary records (DRs), or 24-hour dietary recalls (24 HRs) to assess a participant’s dietary habits. Of those, FFQs have been widely used in many epidemiological studies because they are easy to administer to more participants with a lower staff burden and cost than DRs or 24 HRs [2]. However, actual dietary intake has wide variations, which are dependent on food culture and dietary habits of the target population. To limit the burden of the participants, FFQs can include only a limited number of foods to maintain high feasibility. Thus, FFQs need validation studies to accurately and precisely estimate the dietary intake of the target population for these purposes [3].
In validation studies, energy and nutrient intake estimated by FFQs have been commonly compared with those estimated using DRs [4,5] or 24 HRs [6], which are considered more robust methods than FFQs. However, reporting biases associated with variables such as age [7,8,9], sex [10,11], body mass index (BMI) [8,9,11,12], smoking status [8,11], educational attainment [8,11], socioeconomic status [8,13], and social desirability [13] cannot be entirely avoided when evaluating the dietary intake using self-reporting dietary assessment methods such as DRs, 24 HRs, and FFQs. Misreporting can easily happen intentionally or unintentionally in self-reporting dietary assessment methods, which leads to systematical or random errors. In fact, it is known that these self-reporting dietary assessment methods do not accurately estimate an individual’s usual dietary intake [14,15,16,17]. Therefore, calibration with objective biomarkers is necessary to reduce reporting biases to a bare minimum [8,9,18].
For the energy intake (EI), when the body weight status is stable, the doubly labeled water (DLW) method is the preferred validation method when measuring the total energy expenditure (TEE) [7,8,9,10,12,15,16,19]. For example, a previous study has reported a comparison between the EI obtained by a FFQ and the TEE measured by the DLW method in Japanese middle-aged adults [19]. However, to the best of our knowledge, the validation of the EI estimated by FFQ using the DLW method in the Japanese older adult populations has not been addressed [20].
The population of people aged ≥65 years in Japan is rapidly increasing, being currently 35.6 million, a 28.1% increase as of 1 November 2018, and is even expected to increase by over 40% by 2055. Thus, epidemiological studies addressing health issues in the older population are critical to avoid a further increase in social burden and/or social security expenses. For that purpose, adequate tools assessing their food intake are required.
Our study group has launched an epidemiological study based on an older Japanese study, referred to as the Kyoto–Kameoka study. This study used a 47-item FFQ (in which one question is for alcohol) [5,21,22,23], which was originally developed and validated against DR for the middle-aged population [4,24]. This FFQ is currently being used in multi-site studies across the country, such as the Japan Multi-Institutional Collaborative Cohort (J-MICC) study [25]. Recently, we have validated the FFQ against DR in our cohort [5], but there are unresolved questions about the validity of FFQ against biomarkers like the DLW method, which does not rely on self-reporting tools.
In this study, we aimed to examine the validity of the EI estimated by the DR and 47-item FFQ against TEE measured by the DLW method and develop a calibration equation to address self-reporting bias for the EI estimated by FFQ.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Participants

The participants included a community-dwelling older population who lived in Kameoka city, Kyoto prefecture. The Kyoto–Kameoka study was a longitudinal cohort study, which conducted its first baseline survey on 29 July 2011. The details on this cohort have been described elsewhere [5,21,22,23,26,27,28]. Briefly, out of the 8319 participants who responded to the FFQ in the Kyoto–Kameoka study, 1379 participated in the additional face-to-face physical examination [5,26]. Of these participants, 147 individuals participated in the DLW study with a 7-day DR in May/June 2012 [5]. We excluded the participants who did not complete the 7-day DRs (n = 3) and had missing variables in the FFQ (n = 35). As a result, a total of 109 participants (50 women and 59 men) who completed both the FFQ and 7-day DR were included in the current study. The protocol of the Kyoto–Kameoka study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine (RBMR-E-363) and by the National Institute of Health and Nutrition (NIHN187-3). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants, and the research was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.
Height and weight were measured using measurement apparatus combined with digital weight scale and stadiometer (DST-210S, Muratec-KDS Corp., Kyoto, Japan, with accuracy class 3 for weight in the Japanese Industrial Standards).

2.2. Dietary Assessment

The FFQ was administered using the questionnaires developed by Tokudome et al., which consists of 47 food and beverage items. The items inquired about year-round dietary habits [4,5]. Food and beverage consumption (except alcohol) frequencies were classified into eight categories: (1) never or seldom, (2) 1–3 times per month, (3) 1–2 times per week, (4) 3–4 times per week, (5) 5–6 times per week, (6) once per day, (7) twice per day, and (8) 3 or more times per day. For the item that inquired about alcohol consumption, the frequency and amount were recorded. This FFQ has been validated for middle-aged adults [4] and older adults aged ≥65 years [5], and it has been reported that the food and nutrition intake estimated using this FFQ was related to frailty [22,23] or oral health-related quality of life [21,28]. The FFQ was nested in the second baseline mail survey referred to as “the Health and Nutrition Status Survey”. All collected questionnaires were checked by three trained registered dietitians. The energy and nutrient intake was calculated taking into account the portion size, the frequency of appearance of each food and beverage category, and their weighted mean energy and nutrient value [29].
We collected DR over 7 consecutive days including both weekdays and weekends, during the DLW measurement period. The details of DR have been described before [5]. In brief, research staff were educated regarding how to administer the DR to participants. Each participant was provided a digital scale (TANITA, Tokyo, Japan), blank record sheets to record their DR, and paper media for education to record every item of food and beverage consumed daily.

2.3. Doubly Labeled Water (DLW)

The TEE was measured using the DLW method over ~2 weeks [30,31,32] during May and June 2012. On the first day (day 0), participants were summoned to our testing facilities in the morning, and they provided urine samples on site (baseline, BL). After providing BL urine samples, they were given a drink containing a premixed dose of 0.12 g/kg estimated total body water (TBW) of 2H2O (99.9 atom %, Taiyo Nippon Sanso, Tokyo, Japan) and 2.5 g/kg estimated TBW of H218O (10.0 atom %, Taiyo Nippon Sanso, Tokyo, Japan) between 07:00 and 08:00. After drinking the beverage containing H218O and 2H2O, urine samples were collected the next morning (day 1) and the mornings of days 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16. The urine samples were stored at −15 °C for later analysis by isotope ratio mass spectrometry (Hydra 20-20 Stable Isotope Mass Spectrometers; SerCon Ltd., Crewe, UK).
The corresponding references and each sample were measured in duplicates at the Fukuoka University Institute for Physical Activity (FUIPA). The detailed methodology implemented at FUIPA is described elsewhere [33,34]. CO2 was used as the equilibration gas for 18O measurements, and H2 was used for 2H measurements with a Pt catalyst. The 18O (No) and 2H (Nd) dilution spaces were determined by dividing by the dose of the administered tracer (as moles of 2H- or 18O-water) using the intercept method [30,31,32]. Because all of the 18O enrichment of the urine sample at day 16 were above 8‰, the intercept method was used with urine samples obtained at baseline and days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16. The Nd/No of the present study (1.036 ± 0.011, range 1.001–1.061) was similar to the value reported in a previous large-scale pooled analysis [35]. Thus, TBW (moL) was calculated as the mean of Nd (moL) divided by 1.041 and No (moL) divided by 1.007 [36]. We calculated carbon dioxide production rates (rCO2, moL/day) with the following equation: rCO2 = 0.455 × TBW × (1.007 ko − 1.041 kd), where TBW is the total body water and ko and kd are the rates of 18O and 2H elimination per day. The ko and kd were obtained using the modified two-point approach, and the slope between days 1 and 15 and that between days 2 and 16 were calculated and averaged.
TEE (kcal/day) was calculated using the modified Weir’s formula based on the rCO2 (moL/day) and 24-h estimated respiratory exchange ratio (RER) [37]: TEE (kcal/day) = 22.4 × (3.9 × (rCO2/RER) + 1.1 × rCO2), where 22.4 is the molar volume calculated from the dietary survey during the study period. The estimated RER was set at 0.86 for all participants, which was based on the previous study assessing the protein, fat, carbohydrate, and alcohol consumption (P/F/C/A) ratio of community-dwelling older people [31]. We assumed perfect nourishment balance conditions, which determine that food quotient (FQ) must be equal to the RER [38]. The quality control checklist of the DLW method is described in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) documents [39]. Fat-free mass (FFM) was calculated using TBW with the hydration factor of adults (0.732), as described in another IAEA document [39]. Fat mass (FM) was calculated as body weight minus FFM (kg).

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Covariate variables such as smoking status, educational attainment, living alone, socioeconomic status, and physical activity (going out once a week) were extracted from “the Needs in the Sphere of Daily Life survey” (first baseline survey) and “the Health and Nutrition Status survey” (second baseline survey), the details of which have been described elsewhere [5,21,22,23,26,27,28]. The BMI was calculated as body weight (kg) divided by the square of body height (m2). Before analysis, data distribution and normality (skewness and kurtosis) were checked. The continuous variables were shown as mean with standard deviation (SD) and were analyzed using the paired t-test. Ranges were also shown where appropriate. The categorical variables were shown as number with percentage. When missing answers or logical errors were identified, these values were handled as missing data. We previously reported that the accuracy and precision of the dietary intake estimated in the FFQ tend to be different according to age (<75 and ≥75 years) and sex groups [5]. Therefore, to confirm the accuracy and precision of the EI estimated by the DR and 47-item FFQ against those of the TEE measured by DLW, our statistical analyses were examined according to sex- (women and men) and age- (<75 and ≥75 years) stratified models. The accuracy of the mean EI was assessed by the EI/TEE ratio. The precision of ranking an individual’s EI was evaluated by Pearson’s correlation and Spearman’s rank correlation analysis between the TEE and EI estimated by each dietary assessment. To compare the correlation coefficient between the EI estimated by the DR and FFQ against TEE, we investigated whether the participant had an equivalent accuracy using the equation described by Meng et al. [40]. To develop an equation to calibrate the EI estimated by the FFQ using TEE, we conducted a multiple regression analysis with stepwise methods. In this analysis, the variables were age (<75 or ≥75 years), sex (woman or man), BMI (continuous variable), smoking status (never smoker, past smoker, and current smoker), educational attainment (<13 or ≥13 years), living alone (yes or no), socioeconomic status (high or low), physical activity (going out once a week, yes or no), and EI estimated by FFQ (continuous variable). We developed an equation to calibrate the EI estimated by this FFQ using the multiple regression analysis, the details of which were described in the results. The association between BMI groups (<18.5, 18.5–24.9, or ≥25.0 kg/m2) and EI/TEE was shown as median with interquartile range (IQR) and was analyzed using the Jonckheere–Terpstra trend test. A p value of 0.05 from two-sided tests was considered significant. The statistical analyses were performed with the use of STATA MP, version 15.0 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA).

3. Results

The characteristics of the participants in the present study are shown in Table 1. The mean age was 72.2 (range: 65 to 84) and 73.5 (range: 66 to 88) years in women and men, respectively. The mean BMI of men was 23.0 (range: 16.8 to 31.1) and 22.7 (range: 14.3 to 30.0) kg/m2 in women and men, respectively. The mean FFM was 32.8 and 43.9 kg in women and men, respectively. Notably, a low BMI (<18.5 kg/m2) was found in 5 (10.0%) women and 5 (8.5%) men, while 14 (28.0%) women and 13 (22.0%) men were found to be overweight (≥25.0 kg/m2). In addition, we found that 46 (81.6%) women and 57 (94.9%) men went out once a week and that 13 (26.0%) women and 22 (37.3%) men had high educational attainment (≥13 years).
Table 2 shows the comparison of TEE measured by DLW and EIs assessed with DR and FFQ. Among all participants, the mean TEE was 2175 (range: 1246 to 3435) kcal/day, and the mean EI estimated from the DR and 47-item FFQ were 1972 (range: 1306 to 2948) and 1774 (range: 736 to 3461) kcal/day, respectively. The ratios of EI assessed with the DR and 47-item FFQ to TEE measured by DLW were 0.91 (range: 0.57 to 1.52) and 0.82 (range: 0.20 to 1.61). The ratio of EI estimated by FFQ to TEE measured by DLW were significantly lower than ratio of EI estimated by DR to TEE (−0.09, 95% confidence interval: −0.13 to −0.05, p <0.001). We observed similar results in the stratified groups, except in participants aged ≥75 years old.
The correlation coefficients of TEE measured by DLW and of EI assessed with the DR and 47-item FFQ are shown in Table 3. Pearson’s and Spearman’s correlation coefficients of EI estimated by DR and this FFQ were significantly correlated with TEE measured by DLW. Moreover, there was no significant difference in the correlation coefficient between EI estimated by DR and this FFQ against TEE using Meng’s Z-test comparison (p values are shown in the right column). We observed similar results in the stratified groups except in women.
Table 4 shows the results of the multivariate analysis of the linear model with TEE measured by DLW as the dependent variable and the EI estimated by this FFQ as the explanatory variable. The determinant coefficient (R2) of the linear regression analysis was 0.36 for this FFQ. The age, sex, BMI, and EI estimated by this FFQ were included as significant independent variables in the model, while smoking, education, living, socioeconomic status, and physical activity (going out once a week) were not included. We developed an equation to calibrate the EI estimated by this FFQ using the multiple regression analysis. The models followed the equation:
ε = β0 + β1 age1 + β2 sex2 + β3 BMI3 + β4 EI4
This equation is modeled to calibrate the EI estimated by this FFQ, where ε is the calibrated mean EI and the intercept (β0) is 1384.92 kcal in this FFQ. For binary variables, the coefficient of age (β1) was −166.98 kcal for ≥75 years, and the coefficient for sex (β2) was −354.72 kcal for women. For continuous variables, the coefficient for BMI (β3) was 25.55 kcal/[kg/m2], and the coefficient for EI (β4) was 0.24 kcal with the 47-item FFQ. All regression coefficients are shown in Table 4.
A review of previous and current studies on the developed calibration equation for energy intake from a self-reported dietary assessment and DLW is shown in Table 5. Our results were similar to those of previous studies wherein the age, BMI, and EI estimated by FFQ were determined as significant independent variables in the calibration equation.
The comparison of the EI/TEE ratios according to the BMI group is shown in Table 6. We calculated calibrated EI values using the equation (1) that we created based on our multivariate analysis (Table 4). In addition, we determined EI/TEE from both uncalibrated and calibrated EI values divided by TEE measured by DLW. Using the Jonckheere-Terpstra trend test, we found no significant differences in the uncalibrated EI/TEE between the different BMI groups or between all types of dietary assessment. However, we observed that the higher BMI group tended to have lower EI/TEE ratios than the lower BMI group. Pearson’s correlation coefficient indicated that there was a significant correlation between BMIs and uncalibrated EI/TEEs (correlation coefficient; −0.19, p = 0.048) for DR. However, there was no significant correlation between BMI and EI/TEE according to the two types of correlation analysis, and higher BMI tended to be associated with a negative EI/TEE in all uncalibrated dietary assessment methods. The calibrated EI/TEE ratios had lower correlation coefficients than the uncalibrated EI/TEE ratios in FFQ.

4. Discussion

We have recently reported the validation of this 47-item FFQ against the 7-day DR in older adults [5]. However, even in DR, self-reporting methods have large potential error and bias. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the precision and accuracy of EI values estimated by this FFQ against TEE measured by the DLW method in the current study. We have shown that EI estimated by FFQ correlates modestly with TEE measured by DLW. In addition, this study suggests that EI underreporting may be attenuated by our developed calibration equation based on our multiple regression analysis, which included variables affecting self-reporting biases in overweight individuals.
We have shown that EI/TEE ratios estimated using the FFQ are lower than those estimated by DR (Table 2). Moreover, it has been reported that, in comparison with longer questionnaires and DR, short dietary survey questionnaires tend to underestimate the energy and nutrient intake more [41]. However, a previous study has reported the development of several FFQs to assess the habitual Japanese dietary intake, where the median number of food items was 45 (ranging from 9 to 169) [20]. The number of food items in our FFQ was similar to this median. In addition, our FFQ was developed based on foods that contribute to 85% of the between-person variance for each energy and nutrient intake in the middle-aged population [24]. The reason for the underestimation may be that the foods and beverages listed in the short questionnaire may not sufficiently reflect those habitually consumed by the target population. However, the current studies had a higher EI/TEE estimated by FFQ and DLW than that in the previous studies (Table 5) [8,9]. These differences may not be explained due to the differences in the number of food items included in FFQs, but may be because of the differences in sex, race/ethnicity, and BMI. Therefore, these population attributes need to be considered when comparing studies reporting EI by FFQ. For the individual ranking, the EI estimated by DR and FFQ correlated modestly with the TEE measured by DLW (Table 3). Interestingly, we found no significant correlation between EI and TEE with any of the EI assessment methods in women. A previous study has reported that, among middle-aged Japanese adults, women tend to demonstrate a weaker correlation between EI and TEE than men [19]. Both studies in Table 5 included only women, while, in the current study, 54% of the participants were men, which perhaps explains the higher EI/TEE of the current study than the studies presented in Table 5.
In addition, there was a significant difference between the ratio of EI estimated by DR to TEE and that estimated by FFQ to TEE in participants aged <75 years old but not ≥75 years old (Table 2). Moreover, participants aged ≥75 years old tended to have a higher correlation between TEE measured by DLW and EI assessed by FFQ than participants aged <75 years old (Table 3). We previously reported that the number of food items consumed daily tended to decrease in older people [5]. Therefore, we speculated that a lower number of food items may be sufficient to estimate the energy and nutrient intake using an FFQ in older populations, as the number of food items affecting inter-individual variability consumed by older people seemed smaller than that of middle-aged adults. This is perhaps the reason why, even though the FFQ has limited food items compared with the DR, there was no difference in the results obtained from DR and FFQ in the present study.
The EI estimated by self-reporting dietary assessment methods has been reported to be associated with variables such as age [7,8,9], sex [10,11], BMI [8,9,11,12], smoking status [8,11], educational attainment [8,11], socioeconomic status [8,13], and social desirability [13], all of which can generate reporting bias. We included these variables in our multiple regression analysis and showed that age, sex, BMI, and EI were related to TEE measured by DLW (Table 4). Previous studies reported that the reporting bias of dietary intake error was associated with BMI, age, race/ethnicity, annual income, physical activity, and diet change intervention (Table 5). Some epidemiological studies have reported that, for individuals with a high BMI, the EI calculated using self-reporting dietary assessment methods tends to be underestimated [8,9,11,12]. We have shown that there tends to be a negative (but not quite significant) correlation between BMI and EI/TEE calculated using an uncalibrated EI estimated by FFQ (Table 6). Notably, this error may not only decrease the accuracy of the group’s mean EI but also induce the misclassification of individual ranking. This makes EI estimated by self-reporting dietary assessment methods difficult to use in nutritional epidemiological studies. Previous works have reported that calibrating EI using TEE measured by the DLW method using multiple regression analysis improved the measurement error from self-reporting dietary assessment methods [8,9]. Similarly, we have also shown that calibration lowers the correlation coefficient between BMI and EI/TEE (Table 6). Recently, some nutritional epidemiological studies have reported that EI is associated with the incidence of diabetes [42] and cancer [43] only when EI is calibrated. Based on these reports, we could speculate that the calibration of EI attenuates measurement errors due to reporting bias. Therefore, this approach is helpful to assess the relationship between EI and disease in nutritional epidemiological studies because the self-reporting bias problem in EI assessment makes it unsuitable for this type of study.
Our study has several limitations. First, we assumed perfect nourishment balance conditions in all participants to be able to use the DLW method. However, since we did not confirm this assumption, it is possible that not every participant had a perfect nourishment balance. Second, we could not develop a calibration equation of macronutrients by other biomarkers including urinary samples and serum concentrations. It is a definite limitation of the study that the calibration is only useful for studies focused on energy intake, but not useful for studies that are focused on the role of a specific macronutrient in the incidence or prevalence of disease. Third, there was an interval of 2–3 months between the TEE measurement by the DLW method and the survey with FFQ. In addition, we could not follow a multipoint method for the measurement of TEE by the DLW method. These experimental conditions might have led to random and systematic errors because participants may have modified their usual activity. Finally, this study only included participants who consented to participate in the physical check-up examination in the Kyoto–Kameoka study. Such participants might be more health conscious than those who did not. In addition, this study included a smaller number of participants than in previous studies (Table 5). Therefore, the distribution of EI and TEE may not reflect that of the general population because these participants were not randomly sampled from the general Japanese older population.
DR faces the problem of measurement error, and there is also a large burden on the participant. However, in our study, in comparison with the measured TEE by the DLW method, the energy intake estimated from DR tended to have a higher correlation coefficient than that from FFQ. Therefore, DR may invariably be important in nutritional epidemiology. Better-quality studies will help assess the precision and accuracy of energy intake estimated using recovery biomarkers such as DLW. Energy intake estimated by self-reporting dietary assessment methods including FFQ tends to be underestimated. The calibration technique using DLW for energy intake estimated by FFQ may be helpful to assess the relationship between EI and disease in nutritional epidemiological studies.

5. Conclusions

This study suggests that EI estimated with a FFQ is modestly correlated with TEE and that our developed calibration equation may attenuate the effect of self-reporting biases in the estimation of EIs by FFQs in Japanese older adults. This approach could be further our understanding of the relation between EI and disease risk in Japanese older adults, while substantially addressing measurement error problems that have long plagued the field of nutritional epidemiology.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.W., T.Y., and Y.Y.; Methodology, D.W., H.N., H.S., A.I., M.Y., C.G., N.E., Y.H., M.K., and Y.Y.; Software, D.W., H.N., T.Y., C.G., and Y.Y.; Validation, D.W., H.S., T.Y., and Y.Y.; Formal Analysis, D.W., H.N., and Y.Y.; Investigation, H.S., T.Y., A.I., K.Y., Y.W., N.E., Y.H., K.I.-T., M.K., and Y.Y.; Data Curation, D.W., H.N., H.S., T.Y., A.I., K.Y., Y.W., N.E., Y.H., K.I.-T. and Y.Y.; Resources, C.G., M.K. and Y.Y.; Writing-Original Draft Preparation, D.W., H.N., H.S., T.Y., and Y.Y.; Writing-Review & Editing, D.W., H.N., H.S., T.Y., M.Y., K.I.-T., and Y.Y.; Visualization, D.W. and Y.Y.; Supervision, H.N., H.S., K.I.-T., and Y.Y.; Project Administration, M.K. and Y.Y.; Funding Acquisition, M.K. and Y.Y. All authors approved the final manuscript for publication.

Funding

This study was supported by Ajinomoto Co., Inc.

Acknowledgments

The Kyoto-Kameoka study was conducted with JSPS KAKENHI and was supported by a research grant provided to Misaka Kimura (24240091) and Yosuke Yamada (15H05363); a grant and administrative support by the Kyoto Prefecture Community-based Integrated older adults Care Systems Promotion Organization since 2011; Kameoka City under the program of the Long-term Care Insurance and Planning Division of the Health and Welfare Bureau for the older adults, Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare and the World Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Centre on Community Safety Promotion. We acknowledge several administrative staff of Kameoka city and Kyoto prefecture. The current study was funded by Ajinomoto Co., Inc., Tokyo, Japan. We would like to thank the Kyoto–Kameoka Study Group who contributed their resources to the development of this study. The authors also thank Shinkan Tokudome, who was a former director of the National Institute of Nutrition and Health, and Nahomi Imaeda at Shigakkan University for providing useful food frequency questionnaires and a program to calculate nutritional intake. We would like to thank Editage (www.editage.jp) for English-language editing.

Conflicts of Interest

Ajinomoto Co., Inc. provided funding to Y.Y. to conduct this study. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results. Moreover, this study is not related to any particular products of a company, and the results do not recommend any particular products.

References

  1. Fukumoto, A.; Asakura, K.; Murakami, K.; Sasaki, S.; Okubo, H.; Hirota, N.; Notsu, A.; Todoriki, H.; Miura, A.; Fukui, M.; et al. Within- and between-individual variation in energy and nutrient intake in Japanese adults: Effect of age and sex differences on group size and number of records required for adequate dietary assessment. J. Epidemiol. 2013, 23, 178–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Shim, J.S.; Oh, K.; Kim, H.C. Dietary assessment methods in epidemiologic studies. Epidemiol. Health 2014, 36, e2014009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Cade, J.E.; Burley, V.J.; Warm, D.L.; Thompson, R.L.; Margetts, B.M. Food-frequency questionnaires: A review of their design, validation and utilisation. Nutr. Res. Rev. 2004, 17, 5–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Tokudome, Y.; Goto, C.; Imaeda, N.; Hasegawa, T.; Kato, R.; Hirose, K.; Tajima, K.; Tokudome, S. Relative validity of a short food frequency questionnaire for assessing nutrient intake versus three-day weighed diet records in middle-aged Japanese. J. Epidemiol. 2005, 15, 135–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Watanabe, D.; Nanri, H.; Yoshida, T.; Yamaguchi, M.; Sugita, M.; Nozawa, Y.; Okabe, Y.; Itoi, A.; Goto, C.; Yamada, Y.; et al. Validation of Energy and Nutrition Intake in Japanese Elderly Individuals Estimated Based on a Short Food Frequency Questionnaire Compared against a 7-day Dietary Record: The Kyoto-Kameoka Study. Nutrients 2019, 11, 688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Subar, A.F.; Thompson, F.E.; Kipnis, V.; Midthune, D.; Hurwitz, P.; McNutt, S.; McIntosh, A.; Rosenfeld, S. Comparative validation of the Block, Willett, and National Cancer Institute food frequency questionnaires: The Eating at America’s Table Study. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2001, 154, 1089–1099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Sawaya, A.L.; Tucker, K.; Tsay, R.; Willett, W.; Saltzman, E.; Dallal, G.E.; Roberts, S.B. Evaluation of four methods for determining energy intake in young and older women: Comparison with doubly labeled water measurements of total energy expenditure. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1996, 63, 491–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Neuhouser, M.L.; Tinker, L.; Shaw, P.A.; Schoeller, D.; Bingham, S.A.; Horn, L.V.; Beresford, S.A.; Caan, B.; Thomson, C.; Satterfield, S.; et al. Use of recovery biomarkers to calibrate nutrient consumption self-reports in the Women’s Health Initiative. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2008, 167, 1247–1259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Prentice, R.L.; Mossavar-Rahmani, Y.; Huang, Y.; Van Horn, L.; Beresford, S.A.; Caan, B.; Tinker, L.; Schoeller, D.; Bingham, S.; Eaton, C.B.; et al. Evaluation and comparison of food records, recalls, and frequencies for energy and protein assessment by using recovery biomarkers. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2011, 174, 591–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Goran, M.I.; Poehlman, E.T. Total energy expenditure and energy requirements in healthy elderly persons. Metabolism 1992, 41, 744–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bazelmans, C.; Matthys, C.; De Henauw, S.; Dramaix, M.; Kornitzer, M.; De Backer, G.; Leveque, A. Predictors of misreporting in an elderly population: The ‘Quality of life after 65’ study. Public Health Nutr. 2007, 10, 185–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Tomoyasu, N.J.; Toth, M.J.; Poehlman, E.T. Misreporting of total energy intake in older men and women. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 1999, 47, 710–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Scagliusi, F.B.; Ferriolli, E.; Pfrimer, K.; Laureano, C.; Cunha, C.S.; Gualano, B.; Lourenco, B.H.; Lancha, A.H., Jr. Characteristics of women who frequently under report their energy intake: A doubly labelled water study. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2009, 63, 1192–1199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Ford, E.S.; Dietz, W.H. Trends in energy intake among adults in the United States: Findings from NHANES. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2013, 97, 848–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Schoeller, D.A.; Thomas, D.; Archer, E.; Heymsfield, S.B.; Blair, S.N.; Goran, M.I.; Hill, J.O.; Atkinson, R.L.; Corkey, B.E.; Foreyt, J.; et al. Self-report-based estimates of energy intake offer an inadequate basis for scientific conclusions. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2013, 97, 1413–1415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Trabulsi, J.; Schoeller, D.A. Evaluation of dietary assessment instruments against doubly labeled water, a biomarker of habitual energy intake. Am. J. Physiol. Endocrinol. Metab. 2001, 281, E891–E899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Archer, E.; Hand, G.A.; Blair, S.N. Validity of U.S. nutritional surveillance:National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey caloric energy intake data, 1971–2010. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e76632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Cade, J.; Thompson, R.; Burley, V.; Warm, D. Development, validation and utilisation of food-frequency questionnaires-a review. Public Health Nutr. 2002, 5, 567–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Okubo, H.; Sasaki, S.; Rafamantanantsoa, H.H.; Ishikawa-Takata, K.; Okazaki, H.; Tabata, I. Validation of self-reported energy intake by a self-administered diet history questionnaire using the doubly labeled water method in 140 Japanese adults. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2008, 62, 1343–1350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wakai, K. A review of food frequency questionnaires developed and validated in Japan. J. Epidemiol. 2009, 19, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Nanri, H.; Yamada, Y.; Itoi, A.; Yamagata, E.; Watanabe, Y.; Yoshida, T.; Miyake, M.; Date, H.; Ishikawa-Takata, K.; Yoshida, M.; et al. Consumption of green tea but not coffee is associated with the oral health-related quality of life among an older Japanese population: Kyoto-Kameoka cross-sectional study. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Nanri, H.; Yamada, Y.; Yoshida, T.; Okabe, Y.; Nozawa, Y.; Itoi, A.; Yoshimura, E.; Watanabe, Y.; Yamaguchi, M.; Yokoyama, K.; et al. Sex Difference in the Association Between Protein Intake and Frailty: Assessed Using the Kihon Checklist Indexes Among Older Adults. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 2018, 19, 801–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Yamaguchi, M.; Yamada, Y.; Nanri, H.; Nozawa, Y.; Itoi, A.; Yoshimura, E.; Watanabe, Y.; Yoshida, T.; Yokoyama, K.; Goto, C.; et al. Association between the Frequency of Protein-Rich Food Intakes and Kihon-Checklist Frailty Indices in Older Japanese Adults: The Kyoto-Kameoka Study. Nutrients 2018, 10, 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Tokudome, S.; Goto, C.; Imaeda, N.; Tokudome, Y.; Ikeda, M.; Maki, S. Development of a data-based short food frequency questionnaire for assessing nutrient intake by middle-aged Japanese. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2004, 5, 40–43. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  25. Wakai, K.; Hamajima, N.; Okada, R.; Naito, M.; Morita, E.; Hishida, A.; Kawai, S.; Nishio, K.; Yin, G.; Asai, Y.; et al. Profile of participants and genotype distributions of 108 polymorphisms in a cross-sectional study of associations of genotypes with lifestyle and clinical factors: A project in the Japan Multi-Institutional Collaborative Cohort (J-MICC) Study. J. Epidemiol. 2011, 21, 223–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Watanabe, Y.; Yamada, Y.; Yokoyama, K.; Yoshida, T.; Yoshinaka, Y.; Yoshimoto, M.; Tanaka, Y.; Itoi, A.; Yamagata, E.; Ebine, N.; et al. Comprehensive geriatric intervention program with and without weekly class-style exercise: Research protocol of a cluster randomized controlled trial in Kyoto-Kameoka Study. Clin. Interv. Aging 2018, 13, 1019–1033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Yamada, Y.; Nanri, H.; Watanabe, Y.; Yoshida, T.; Yokoyama, K.; Itoi, A.; Date, H.; Yamaguchi, M.; Miyake, M.; Yamagata, E.; et al. Prevalence of Frailty Assessed by Fried and Kihon Checklist Indexes in a Prospective Cohort Study: Design and Demographics of the Kyoto-Kameoka Longitudinal Study. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 2017, 18, 733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Nanri, H.; Yamada, Y.; Itoi, A.; Yamagata, E.; Watanabe, Y.; Yoshida, T.; Miyake, M.; Date, H.; Ishikawa-Takata, K.; Yoshida, M.; et al. Frequency of Fruit and Vegetable Consumption and the Oral Health-Related Quality of Life among Japanese Elderly: A Cross-Sectional Study from the Kyoto-Kameoka Study. Nutrients 2017, 9, 1362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Science and Technology Agency of Japan. Standard Tables of Food Composition in Japan, 5th ed.; Ministry of Finance: Tokyo, Japan, 2001. (In Japanese)
  30. Yamada, Y.; Hashii-Arishima, Y.; Yokoyama, K.; Itoi, A.; Adachi, T.; Kimura, M. Validity of a triaxial accelerometer and simplified physical activity record in older adults aged 64-96 years: A doubly labeled water study. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2018, 118, 2133–2146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Yamada, Y.; Yokoyama, K.; Noriyasu, R.; Osaki, T.; Adachi, T.; Itoi, A.; Naito, Y.; Morimoto, T.; Kimura, M.; Oda, S. Light-intensity activities are important for estimating physical activity energy expenditure using uniaxial and triaxial accelerometers. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2009, 105, 141–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Yamada, Y.; Yokoyama, K.; Noriyasu, R.; Osaki, T.; Adachi, T.; Itoi, A.; Naito, Y.; Morimoto, T.; Kimura, M.; Oda, S. Erratum to: Calculation of total energy expenditure in publications on physical activity energy by Yamada et al. in 2009 and 2013. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2016, 116, 1279–1280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Sagayama, H.; Shizuma, K.; Toguchi, M.; Mizuhara, H.; Machida, Y.; Yamada, Y.; Ebine, N.; Higaki, Y.; Tanaka, H. Effect of the Health Tourism weight loss programme on body composition and health outcomes in healthy and excess-weight adults. Br. J. Nutr. 2018, 119, 1133–1141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Namba, H.; Yamaguchi, Y.; Yamada, Y.; Tokushima, S.; Hatamoto, Y.; Sagayama, H.; Kimura, M.; Higaki, Y.; Tanaka, H. Validation of Web-based physical activity measurement systems using doubly labeled water. J. Med. Internet Res. 2012, 14, e123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Sagayama, H.; Yamada, Y.; Racine, N.M.; Shriver, T.C.; Schoeller, D.A.; Group, D.L.W.S. Dilution space ratio of 2H and 18O of doubly labeled water method in humans. J. Appl. Physiol. 2016, 120, 1349–1354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Racette, S.B.; Schoeller, D.A.; Luke, A.H.; Shay, K.; Hnilicka, J.; Kushner, R.F. Relative dilution spaces of 2H- and 18O-labeled water in humans. Am. J. Physiol. 1994, 267, E585–E590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Weir, J.B. New methods for calculating metabolic rate with special reference to protein metabolism. J. Physiol. 1949, 109, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Black, A.E.; Prentice, A.M.; Coward, W.A. Use of food quotients to predict respiratory quotients for the doubly-labelled water method of measuring energy expenditure. Hum. Nutr. Clin. Nutr. 1986, 40, 381–391. [Google Scholar]
  39. International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA Human Health Series No. 3; Vienna International Centre: Vienna, Austria, 2009; pp. 37–40. [Google Scholar]
  40. Rosenthal, R.; Rubin, D.; Meng, X.L. Comparing Correlated Correlation Coefficients. Psychol. Bull. 1992, 111, 172–175. [Google Scholar]
  41. Kobayashi, S.; Honda, S.; Murakami, K.; Sasaki, S.; Okubo, H.; Hirota, N.; Notsu, A.; Fukui, M.; Date, C. Both comprehensive and brief self-administered diet history questionnaires satisfactorily rank nutrient intakes in Japanese adults. J. Epidemiol. 2012, 22, 151–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Tinker, L.F.; Sarto, G.E.; Howard, B.V.; Huang, Y.; Neuhouser, M.L.; Mossavar-Rahmani, Y.; Beasley, J.M.; Margolis, K.L.; Eaton, C.B.; Phillips, L.S.; et al. Biomarker-calibrated dietary energy and protein intake associations with diabetes risk among postmenopausal women from the Women’s Health Initiative. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2011, 94, 1600–1606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Prentice, R.L.; Shaw, P.A.; Bingham, S.A.; Beresford, S.A.; Caan, B.; Neuhouser, M.L.; Patterson, R.E.; Stefanick, M.L.; Satterfield, S.; Thomson, C.A.; et al. Biomarker-calibrated energy and protein consumption and increased cancer risk among postmenopausal women. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2009, 169, 977–989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of study participants according to sex group.
Table 1. Characteristics of study participants according to sex group.
Women (n = 50)Men (n = 59)
Mean SD or %Mean SD or %
Age (years) a72.2±4.673.5±6.0
≥75 years b16(32.0)23(39.0)
Height (cm) a151±5165±5
Body weight (kg) a52.2±7.861.6±8.6
BMI (kg/m2) a,c23.0±3.522.7±2.8
<18.5 b5(10.0)5(8.5)
18.5-24.9 b31(62.0)41(69.5)
≥25.0 b14(28.0)13(22.0)
Fat free mass (kg) a32.8±3.543.9±5.0
Smoking status b,d
Never smoker25(50.0)36(61.0)
Past smoker21(42.0)19(32.2)
Current smoker3(6.0)1(1.7)
Educational attainment b,e
<13 years33(66.0)35(59.3)
≥13 years13(26.0)22(37.3)
Living alone b,f10(20.4)3(5.1)
Socioeconomic status b,g
Low24(48.0)30(50.8)
High24(48.0)28(47.5)
Once a week go out b,h46(92.0)57(96.6)
Caregiving b0(0.0)0(0.0)
Abbreviations: BMI: body mass index; SD: standard deviation. a Continuous values are shown as mean ± standard deviation. b Categorical values are shown as number (percentage). c BMI was calculated as body weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters (kg/m2). d Missing; women (n = 1) and men (n = 3). e Missing; women (n = 4) and men (n = 2). f Missing; women (n = 1). g Missing; women (n = 2) and men (n = 1). h Missing; women (n = 4) and men (n = 2).
Table
Table 2. Comparison of the total energy expenditure measured by doubly labeled water and energy intake assessed with dietary record and food frequency questionnaire.
Table 2. Comparison of the total energy expenditure measured by doubly labeled water and energy intake assessed with dietary record and food frequency questionnaire.
TEE (kcal/day)Energy Intake (kcal/day)Ratio of EI Estimated by DR to TEERatio of EI Estimated by FFQ to TEEMean Difference bp Value c
DLW7-day DR47 Items FFQ a
Total (n = 109)2175±4201972±2991774±4830.91±0.170.82±0.22−0.09 (−0.13 to −0.05)<0.001
Sex
Women (n = 50)1955±2841815±2051619±3410.93±0.170.83±0.24−0.10 (−0.15 to −0.05)<0.001
Men (n = 59)2368±4302105±3021905±5460.89±0.170.80±0.20−0.09 (−0.15 to −0.03)0.007
Age
<75 years (n = 70)2209±3931993±3211718±4930.90±0.150.78±0.23−0.12 (−0.18 to −0.07)<0.001
≥75 years (n = 39)2114±4631936±2541874±4540.92±0.190.89±0.20−0.03 (−0.10 to 0.02)0.14
Abbreviations: CI: confidence interval; DLW: doubly labeled water; DR: dietary record; FFQ: food frequency questionnaire; SD: standard deviation; TEE: total energy expenditure. The mean ± SD or mean difference (95% confidence interval (CI)) was also shown. a Assessed using the 47-item FFQ previously developed and validated by Tokudome et al. [4,5]. b The mean difference was determined by subtracting the ratio of energy intake (EI) estimated by DR to TEE from that estimated by FFQ to TEE. c To compare the accuracy of the energy intake, statistical analysis was conducted using paired t-test to compare the ratio of EI estimated by DR to TEE with that estimated by FFQ to TEE. Bold values are statistically significant (p < 0.05) and indicate DR and FFQ are not equivalently accurate as compared to TEE.
Table
Table 3. Correlation coefficients of total energy expenditure measured by doubly labeled water and energy intake assessed with dietary record and a food frequency questionnaire.
Table 3. Correlation coefficients of total energy expenditure measured by doubly labeled water and energy intake assessed with dietary record and a food frequency questionnaire.
Energy Intakep Value b
7-Day DR47-Item FFQ a
Total (n = 109)
Pearson’s correlation coefficient0.45**0.37**0.46
Spearman correlation coefficient0.46**0.39**0.46
Sex stratified model
Women (n = 50)
Pearson’s correlation coefficient0.09 0.19 0.57
Spearman’s correlation coefficient0.08 0.12 0.81
Men (n = 59)
Pearson’s correlation coefficient0.35**0.30*0.78
Spearman’s correlation coefficient0.34**0.33*0.95
Age stratified model
<75 years (n = 70)
Pearson’s correlation coefficient0.50**0.32**0.17
Spearman’s correlation coefficient0.51**0.36**0.17
≥75 years (n = 39)
Pearson’s correlation coefficient0.36*0.54**0.22
Spearman’s correlation coefficient0.40*0.51**0.45
Abbreviations: DR: dietary record, FFQ: food frequency questionnaire. a Assessed using the 47-item FFQ previously developed and validated by Tokudome et al. b Comparison of correlation coefficients between DR and the 47-item FFQ (Tokudome et al. [4,5]) (calculation according to Meng et al. [40]). Bold values are statistically significant (p < 0.05). If the results presented no significant difference, these relationships were considered to be of equivalent precision in terms of energy intake estimated by DR and FFQ. * Correlation coefficients between two methods: p < 0.05 (compared with TEE). ** Correlation coefficients between two methods: p < 0.01 (compared with TEE).
Table
Table 4. Stepwise multiple regression analysis with the total energy expenditure measured by doubly labeled water as a dependent variable.
Table 4. Stepwise multiple regression analysis with the total energy expenditure measured by doubly labeled water as a dependent variable.
47-Item FFQ (R2 = 0.36) a
RCSEβp ValueCollinearity VIF
Intercept1384.92276.290<0.001
Age (reference, ≥75 years)−166.9869.350.1920.0181.03
Sex (reference, women)−354.7269.020.423<0.0011.10
BMI25.5510.470.1920.0161.00
Energy intake b0.240.070.2780.0011.12
Abbreviations: BMI: body mass index; FFQ: food frequency questionnaire; RC: regression coefficient; SE: standard error; VIF: variance inflation factor. a Assessed using the 47-item FFQ previously developed and validated by Tokudome et al. [4,5]. b Estimated by the corresponding FFQ.
Table
Table 5. Review of previous and current studies on the developed calibration equation for energy intake from a self-reported dietary assessment and doubly labeled water.
Table 5. Review of previous and current studies on the developed calibration equation for energy intake from a self-reported dietary assessment and doubly labeled water.
First Author, Year [Reference No.] (Study)No. of Participants (Sex, % Men)Mean Age, Years (SD)Mean BMI, kg/m2 (SD)FFQs24 HRs or DRsDLWEI/TEE RatioCalibration Equation in FFQs
Type of FFQ (No. of Food Items)Mean Intake, kcal/dayType of Method (No. of Assessments)Mean Intake, kcal/dayTEE, kcal/dayFFQ/DLWDR or 24HR/DLWR2Adjusted Factors a
Neuhouser, 2008 [8] (NBS)544 (0)70.9 (6.3)28.2 (5.5)WHI (122-item)1443 bAMPM with NDSR c (2-day)N/A2056 b0.70 bN/A0.31Energy intake (FFQ), BMI, age, race/ethnicity, annual income, physical activity, diet change intervention
Prentice, 2011 [9] (NPAAS)450 (0)70.5 (6.0)28.5 (6.4)WHI (122-item)1455DR (4-day)161720230.720.800.42Energy intake (FFQ), BMI, age, race/ethnicity
Current study (Kyoto–Kameoka study)109 (54.1)72.9 (5.4)22.9 (3.2)Tokudome et al d (47-item)1774 dDR (7-day)197221750.82 d0.910.36 dEnergy intake (FFQ), BMI, age, sex
Abbreviations: AMPM: Automated Multiple-Pass Method validation study; BMI: body mass index; DLW: doubly labeled water; FFQ: food frequency questionnaire; N/A: not available; NBS: Nutrition Biomarker Study; NPAAS: Nutrition and Physical Activity Assessment Study; NDSR: Nutrition Data System for Research; SD: standard deviation; TEE: total energy expenditure; WHI: Women’s Health Initiative; 24 HR: 24-hour dietary recall. a The factors needed for the calibration equation for energy intake estimated by FFQs. b The value was calculated by weighted mean for intervention and comparison groups. c Software from the University of Minnesota Nutrition Coordinating Center (Minneapolis, Minnesota). d The FFQ from Tokudome et al. has been validated [4,5].
Table
Table 6. Comparison of the ratio of energy intake to total energy expenditure according to body mass index groups.
Table 6. Comparison of the ratio of energy intake to total energy expenditure according to body mass index groups.
EI/TEE aBMI (kg/m2)p for Trend bCorrelation Coefficient
< 18.5 (n = 10)18.5 to 24.9 (n = 72) ≥ 25.0 (n = 27)Pearson’sSpearman’s
Dietary record
Uncalibrated c1.02(0.96 to 1.13)0.92(0.78 to 1.02)0.92(0.79 to 1.06)0.30−0.19*−0.18
47-item FFQ d
Uncalibrated c0.84(0.81 to 0.98)0.85(0.75 to 0.96)0.80 (0.60 to 0.95)0.12−0.12 −0.17
Calibrated e1.07(0.95 to 1.12)0.99(0.91 to 1.08)1.03(0.89 to 1.11)0.66−0.01 −0.01
Abbreviations: FFQ: food frequency questionnaire; TEE: total energy expenditure. The values are shown as median (interquartile range) or correlation coefficient. a Energy intake was assessed by 7-day DR and 47-item FFQ. TEE was measured by the DLW method. The EI/TEE was calculated using the estimated energy intake from each dietary assessment divided by TEE. b Statistical analysis was performed using a Jonckheere-Terpstra trend test. c Crude EI value estimated from each dietary assessment. d Assessed using the 47-item FFQ previously developed and validated by Tokudome et al. [4,5]. e Calibrated value by our developed equation (Table 4). * Correlation coefficients between BMI (as a continuous value) and EI/TEE (p < 0.05).

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Watanabe, D.; Nanri, H.; Sagayama, H.; Yoshida, T.; Itoi, A.; Yamaguchi, M.; Yokoyama, K.; Watanabe, Y.; Goto, C.; Ebine, N.; et al. Estimation of Energy Intake by a Food Frequency Questionnaire: Calibration and Validation with the Doubly Labeled Water Method in Japanese Older People. Nutrients 2019, 11, 1546. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11071546

AMA Style

Watanabe D, Nanri H, Sagayama H, Yoshida T, Itoi A, Yamaguchi M, Yokoyama K, Watanabe Y, Goto C, Ebine N, et al. Estimation of Energy Intake by a Food Frequency Questionnaire: Calibration and Validation with the Doubly Labeled Water Method in Japanese Older People. Nutrients. 2019; 11(7):1546. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11071546

Chicago/Turabian Style

Watanabe, Daiki, Hinako Nanri, Hiroyuki Sagayama, Tsukasa Yoshida, Aya Itoi, Miwa Yamaguchi, Keiichi Yokoyama, Yuya Watanabe, Chiho Goto, Naoyuki Ebine, and et al. 2019. "Estimation of Energy Intake by a Food Frequency Questionnaire: Calibration and Validation with the Doubly Labeled Water Method in Japanese Older People" Nutrients 11, no. 7: 1546. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11071546

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop