Comparison of estimated energy intake from 2×24-hour recalls and a seven-day food record with objective measurements of energy expenditure in children

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the present study was to evaluate energy intake (EI) estimated from two non-consecutive 24-hour recalls (24-HDRs) and a pre-coded seven-day food record (7-dFR) against objective measurements of energy expenditure (EE) in children. DESIGN: A total of 67 7–8 year-olds and 64 12–13 year-olds completed the 2×24-HDRs, the 7-dFR, and wore ActiReg(®) (PreMed AS, Oslo, Norway), a combined position and motion recording instrument, during the same seven days as the 7-dFR was filled in. RESULTS: In the 7–8 year-olds, EI from the 2×24-HDRs (EI(2×24-HDR)) was overestimated with 3% compared to EE (not significantly different), while EI from the 7-dFR (EI(7-dFR)) was underestimated with 7% compared to EE (P=0.001). In the 12–13 year-olds, the corresponding figures was underestimation by 10% with the 2×24-HDRs (P<0.001) and by 20% with the 7-dFR (P<0.001). For both age groups combined, the 95% limits of agreement were −4·38 and 3.52 MJ/d for the 2×24-HDRs, and −5.90 and 2.94 MJ/d for the 7-dFR. Pearson correlation coefficients between EI and EE were 0.51 for EI(2×24-HDR) and 0.29 for EI(7-dFR), respectively. The proportion classified in the same or adjacent quartiles was 76% for EI(2×24-HDR) and 73% for EI(7-dFR) in the 7–8 year-olds, and 83% for EI(2×24-HDR) and 70% for EI(7-dFR) in the 12–13 year-olds. CONCLUSION: Misreporting of EI seemed modest with both the 2×24-HDRs and the 7-dFR in the 7–8 year-olds when compared to EE measured with ActiReg(®). Under-reporting appeared to be more evident in the 12–13 year-olds, especially with the 7-dFR. Compared to measurements of EE, the 2×24-HDRs seemed to perform slightly better than the 7-dFR in terms of ranking of individuals according to EI.