Evaluación de la ingesta alimentaria: una reflexión que nos acerque al futuro

Matthias B Schulze and colleagues discuss current knowledge on the associations between dietary patterns and cancer, coronary heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes, focusing on areas of uncertainty and future research directions

Importance Methodological limitations compromise the validity of U.S. nutritional surveillance data and the empirical foundation for formulating dietary guidelines and public health policies. Objectives Evaluate the validity of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) caloric intake data throughout its history, and examine trends in the validity of caloric intake estimates as the NHANES dietary measurement protocols evolved. Design Validity of data from 28,993 men and 34,369 women, aged 20 to 74 years from NHANES I (1971–1974) through NHANES 2009–2010 was assessed by: calculating physiologically credible energy intake values as the ratio of reported energy intake (rEI) to estimated basal metabolic rate (BMR), and subtracting estimated total energy expenditure (TEE) from NHANES rEI to create ‘disparity values’. Main Outcome Measures 1) Physiologically credible values expressed as the ratio rEI/BMR and 2) disparity values (rEI–TEE). Results The historical rEI/BMR values for men and women were 1.31 and 1.19, (95% CI: 1.30–1.32 and 1.18–1.20), respectively. The historical disparity values for men and women were −281 and −365 kilocalorie-per-day, (95% CI: −299, −264 and −378, −351), respectively. These results are indicative of significant under-reporting. The greatest mean disparity values were −716 kcal/day and −856 kcal/day for obese (i.e., ≥30 kg/m2) men and women, respectively. Conclusions Across the 39-year history of the NHANES, EI data on the majority of respondents (67.3% of women and 58.7% of men) were not physiologically plausible. Improvements in measurement protocols after NHANES II led to small decreases in underreporting, artifactual increases in rEI, but only trivial increases in validity in subsequent surveys. The confluence of these results and other methodological limitations suggest that the ability to estimate population trends in caloric intake and generate empirically supported public policy relevant to diet-health relationships from U.S. nutritional surveillance is extremely limited.

Two studies are reported; a pilot study to demonstrate feasibility followed by a larger validity study. Study 1's objective was to test the effect of two ecological momentary assessment (EMA) approaches that varied in intensity on the validity/accuracy of estimating energy intake (EI) with the Remote Food Photography Method (RFPM) over 6 days in free-living conditions. When using the RFPM, Smartphones are used to capture images of food selection and plate waste and to send the images to a server for food intake estimation. Consistent with EMA, prompts are sent to the Smartphones reminding participants to capture food images. During Study 1, EI estimated with the RFPM and the gold standard, doubly labeled water (DLW), were compared. Participants were assigned to receive Standard EMA Prompts (n = 24) or Customized Prompts (n = 16) (the latter received more reminders delivered at personalized meal times). The RFPM differed significantly from DLW at estimating EI when Standard (mean ± s.d. = -895 ± 770 kcal/day, P < 0.0001), but not Customized Prompts (-270 ± 748 kcal/day, P = 0.22) were used. Error (EI from the RFPM minus that from DLW) was significantly smaller with Customized vs. Standard Prompts. The objectives of Study 2 included testing the RFPM's ability to accurately estimate EI in free-living adults (N = 50) over 6 days, and energy and nutrient intake in laboratory-based meals. The RFPM did not differ significantly from DLW at estimating free-living EI (-152 ± 694 kcal/day, P = 0.16). During laboratory-based meals, estimating energy and macronutrient intake with the RFPM did not differ significantly compared to directly weighed intake.