Comparison of Methods Used to Correct Self-Reported Protein Intake for Systematic Variation in Reported Energy Intake Using Quantitative Biomarkers of Dietary Intake

Amy L Korth; Surabhi Bhutani; Marian L Neuhouser; Shirley A Beresford; Linda Snetselaar; Lesley F Tinker; Dale A Schoeller

doi:10.1093/jn/nxaa007

Back

Comparison of Methods Used to Correct Self-Reported Protein Intake for Systematic Variation in Reported Energy Intake Using Quantitative Biomarkers of Dietary Intake

Journal article

Open access

Peer reviewed

Comparison of Methods Used to Correct Self-Reported Protein Intake for Systematic Variation in Reported Energy Intake Using Quantitative Biomarkers of Dietary Intake

Amy L Korth, Surabhi Bhutani, Marian L Neuhouser, Shirley A Beresford, Linda Snetselaar, Lesley F Tinker and Dale A Schoeller

The Journal of nutrition, Vol.150(5), pp.1330-1336

05/01/2020

DOI: 10.1093/jn/nxaa007

PMCID: PMC7198304

PMID: 32030414

Files and links (1)

url

https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/nxaa007View

Published (Version of record) Open Access

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background Multiple methods of correcting nutrient intake for misreported energy intake have been proposed but have not been extensively compared. The availability of the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) data set, which includes several objective recovery biomarkers, offers an opportunity to compare these corrections with respect to protein intake. Objective We compared 5 energy-correction methods for self-reported dietary protein against urinary nitrogen–derived protein intake. Methods As part of the WHI Nutritional Biomarkers Study (NBS) 544 participants (50- to 80-y-old women) completed a FFQ and biomarker assessments using doubly labeled water (DLW) for total energy expenditure (TEE) and 24-h urinary nitrogen. Correction methods evaluated were as follows: 1) DLW-TEE; 2) the Institute of Medicine's (IOM's) estimated energy requirement (EER) TEE prediction equation based on sex, height, weight, and age; 3) published NBS total energy TEE prediction (WHI-NBS-TEE) using age, BMI, race, and income; 4) reported protein versus reported energy linear regression–based residual method; and 5) a Goldberg cutoff to exclude subjects reporting energy intakes <1.35 times their basal metabolic rate. Efficacy was evaluated using correlations obtained by regressing corrected protein against biomarker protein (6.25 × urinary nitrogen/0.81). Results Unadjusted self-reported protein intake from the FFQ (mean = 66.7 g) correlated weakly (r = 0.31) with biomarker protein (mean = 74.9 g). DLW-TEE–corrected self-reported protein intake (mean = 90.7 g) had the strongest correlation with biomarker protein (r = 0.47). Other energy corrections yielded lower, but still significant correlations: EER, r = 0.44 (mean = 92.1 g); WHI-NBS-TEE, r = 0.37 (mean = 90.4 g); Goldberg cutoff, r = 0.36 (mean = 88.4 g); and residual method, r = 0.35 (mean = 66.7 g). Conclusions Our data indicate that proportional correction of reported protein intake using a measure of energy requirement from DLW-TEE or IOM-EER performed modestly better than other methods in this cohort. These energy adjustments, however, yielded corrected protein exceeding the biomarker protein, indicating that energy adjustment alone does not eliminate all self-reported protein reporting bias.

urinary nitrogen

underreporting

Women's Health Initiative

doubly labeled water

self-reported diet assessment

Details

Title: Subtitle: Comparison of Methods Used to Correct Self-Reported Protein Intake for Systematic Variation in Reported Energy Intake Using Quantitative Biomarkers of Dietary Intake
Creators: Amy L Korth - Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA
Surabhi Bhutani - Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA
Marian L Neuhouser - Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA
Shirley A Beresford - Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
Linda Snetselaar - Department of Epidemiology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Lesley F Tinker - Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA
Dale A Schoeller - Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA
Resource Type: Journal article
Publication Details: The Journal of nutrition, Vol.150(5), pp.1330-1336
DOI: 10.1093/jn/nxaa007
PMID: 32030414
PMCID: PMC7198304
NLM abbreviation: J Nutr
ISSN: 0022-3166
eISSN: 1541-6100
Publisher: Oxford University Press
Grant note: DOI: 10.13039/100000050, name: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; DOI: 10.13039/100000016, name: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, award: HHSN268201600018C, HHSN268201600001C, HHSN268201600002C, HHSN268201600003C, HHSN268201600004C; DOI: 10.13039/100000002, name: National Institutes of Health, award: RR020915; name: NIH Training Program, award: T32 DK 007665
Language: English
Date published: 05/01/2020
Academic Unit: Epidemiology; Fraternal Order of Eagles Diabetes Research Center; Internal Medicine
Record Identifier: 9984215146302771

Metrics

15 Record Views

9 Times Cited - Web of Science