Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Paper
  • Published:

Dietary restraint and the mis-reporting of anthropometric measures by middle-aged adults

International Journal of Obesity volume 28, pages 426–433 (2004)Cite this article

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether levels of dietary restraint are associated with mis-reporting measures of adiposity by middle-aged adults.

DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of middle-aged men and women, the parents of a group of young adults followed up since birth.

METHODS: In all, 631 couples were mailed questionnaires and asked to record their height, weight and waist circumference. A paper tape measure with instructions for use was attached. Couples also completed the dietary restraint section of the Dutch Eating Behaviour Questionnaire, and provided information on employment and lifestyle habits. A subsample of participants was then invited to attend a clinic where detailed anthropometric measures were taken.

RESULTS: In all, 435 women (69%) and 332 men (55%) completed the questionnaire; of those invited, 182 (85%) women and 102 (61%) men attended a clinic session. Regression analyses showed that the dietary restraint score was associated with the mis-reporting of BMI by women (P<0.01), but not men (test for interaction with gender, P=0.11). In women, the difference between the measured and reported BMI increased by 0.36 kg/m2 (0.11–0.61) per unit increase in restraint score. This association was independent of age, smoking, social class, slimming, exercise frequency or television viewing time, but was attenuated in models controlling for measured BMI. The dietary restraint score was not associated with mis-reporting of waist circumference in men or women.

CONCLUSIONS: Dietary restraint score may be a useful tool for identifying individuals more likely to mis-report anthropometric measurements, although associations may vary by gender.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Nieto-Garcia FJ, Bush TL, Keyl PM . Body mass definitions of obesity: sensitivity and specificity using self-reported weight and height. Epidemiology 1990; 1: 146–152.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Ziebland S, Thorogood M, Fuller A, Muir J . Desire for the body normal: body image and discrepancies between self reported and measured height and weight in a British population. J Epidemiol Commun Health 1996; 50: 105–106.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Bostrom G, Diderichsen F . Socioeconomic differentials in misclassification of height, weight and body mass index based on questionnaire data. Int J Epidemiol 1997; 26: 860–866.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Munoz KA, Ballard-Barbash R, Graubard B, Swanson CA, Schairer C, Kahle LL . Recall of body weight and body size estimation in women enrolled in the breast cancer detection and demonstration project (BCDDP). Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1996; 20: 854–859.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Casey VA, Dwyer JT, Berkey CS, Coleman KA, Gardner J, Valadian I . Long-term memory of body weight and past weight satisfaction: a longitudinal follow-up study. Am J Clin Nutr 1991; 53: 1493–1498.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Gunnell DJ, Berney L, Holland P, Maynard M, Blane D, Frankel S, Davey Smith G . How accurately are height, weight and leg length reported by the elderly, and how closely are they related to measurements recorded in childhood? Int J Epidemiol 2000; 29: 456–464.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Bingham SA, Cassidy A, Cole TJ, Welch A, Runswick SA, Black A, Thurnham D, Bates C, Khaw KT, Key TJA, Day NE . Validation of weighed records and other methods of dietary assessment using the 24 h urine nitrogen technique and other biological markers. Br J Nutr 1995; 73: 531–550.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Han TS, Lean MEJ . Self reported waist circumference compared with the ‘waist watcher’ tape measure to identify individuals at increased health risk through intra-abdominal fat accumulation. Br J Nutr 1998; 80: 81–88.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. World Health Organisation. Physical status: the use and interpretation of anthropometry. Geneva: WHO; 1995. Report No.: 854. (WHO Technical Report Series).

  10. van Strien T, Frijters JER, Bergers GPA, Defares PB . The Dutch Eating Behaviour Questionnaire (DEBQ) for assessment of restrained, emotional, and external eating behaviour. Int J Eat Disorders 1986; 5 (2): 295–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Wardle J . Eating style: a validation study of the Dutch Eating Behaviour Questionnaire in normal subjects and women with eating disorders. J Psychosom Res 1987; 31 (2): 161–169.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Laessle RG, Tuschl RJ, Kotthaus BC, Pirke KM . A comparison of the validity of three scales for the assessment of dietary restraint. J Abnorm Psychol 1989; 98 (4): 504–507.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. Standard occupational classification. London: HMSO; 1995.

  14. Bland JM, Altman DG . Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinic measurement. Lancet 1986; i: 307–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bland JM, Altman DG . Comparing methods of measurement: why plotting difference against standard method is misleading. Lancet 1995; 346: 1085–1087.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Smith GT, Hohlstein LA, Atlas JG . Accuracy of self-reported weight: covariation with binger or restrainer status and eating disorder symptomatology. Addict Behav 1992; 17: 1–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Mela DJ, Rogers PJ . Food, eating and obesity: the psychological basis of appetite and weight control. London: Chapman-Hall; 1998.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  18. Rimm EB, Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA, Chute CG, Litin LB, Willett WC . Validity of self-reported waist and hip circumferences in men and women. Epidemiology 1990; 1: 466–473.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Han TS, Morrison CE, Lean MEJ . Age and health indications assessed by silhouette photographs. Eur J Clin Nutr 1999; 53: 606–611.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Hall TR, Young TB . A validation study of body fat distribution as determined by self-measurement of waist and hip circumference. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1989; 13: 801–807.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Weaver TW, Kushi LH, McGovern PG, Potter JD, Rich SS, King RA, Whitbeck J, Greenstein J, Sellers TA . Validation study of self-reported measures of fat distribution. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1996; 20: 644–650.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Newell SA, Girgis A, Sanson-Fisher RW, Savolainen NJ . The accuracy of self-reported health behaviours and risk factors relating to cancer and cardiovascular disease in the general population. Am J Prev Med 1999; 17 (3): 211–229.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Roberts RJ . Can self-reported data accurately describe the prevalence of overweight. Public Health 1995; 109: 275–284.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Khan HS . Re: ‘Is abdominal fat distribution a major explanation for the sex difference in the incidence of myocardial infarction? The study of men Born in 1913 and the study of women, Goteborg, Sweden’. Am J Epidemiol 1993; 137 (3): 261–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Clark M, Ogden J . The impact of pregnancy on eating behaviour and aspects of weight concern. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1999; 23: 18–24.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Dewberry C, Ussher JM . Restraint and perception of body weight among British adults. J Soc Psychol 1994; 134 (5): 609–619.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to participants in the Barry Caerphilly cohort for their substantial contribution to this study. The follow-up of parents in the Barry Caerphilly Cohort was funded by South and West NHS Research and Development. Adrienne Cullum was funded by a Medical Research Council studentship. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of South and West NHS Research and Development or the MRC. There was no conflict of interests.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Health, Wellington House, 133-155 Waterloo Road, London, UK

    A Cullum

  2. Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, Whiteladies Road, Bristol, UK

    A McCarthy, D Gunnell, G Davey Smith, J A C Sterne & Y Ben-Shlomo

Authors
  1. A Cullum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A McCarthy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. D Gunnell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. G Davey Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J A C Sterne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Y Ben-Shlomo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A Cullum.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cullum, A., McCarthy, A., Gunnell, D. et al. Dietary restraint and the mis-reporting of anthropometric measures by middle-aged adults. Int J Obes 28, 426–433 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijo.0802559

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijo.0802559

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links