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.

Comparing four methods to estimate usual intake distributions

European Journal of Clinical Nutrition volume 65, pages S92–S101 (2011)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Background/Objectives:

The aim of this paper was to compare methods to estimate usual intake distributions of nutrients and foods. As ‘true’ usual intake distributions are not known in practice, the comparison was carried out through a simulation study, as well as empirically, by application to data from the European Food Consumption Validation (EFCOVAL) Study in which two 24-h dietary recalls (24-HDRs) and food frequency data were collected. The methods being compared were the Iowa State University Method (ISU), National Cancer Institute Method (NCI), Multiple Source Method (MSM) and Statistical Program for Age-adjusted Dietary Assessment (SPADE).

Subjects/Methods:

Simulation data were constructed with varying numbers of subjects (n), different values for the Box–Cox transformation parameter (λBC) and different values for the ratio of the within- and between-person variance (rvar). All data were analyzed with the four different methods and the estimated usual mean intake and selected percentiles were obtained. Moreover, the 2-day within-person mean was estimated as an additional ‘method’. These five methods were compared in terms of the mean bias, which was calculated as the mean of the differences between the estimated value and the known true value. The application of data from the EFCOVAL Project included calculations of nutrients (that is, protein, potassium, protein density) and foods (that is, vegetables, fruit and fish).

Results:

Overall, the mean bias of the ISU, NCI, MSM and SPADE Methods was small. However, for all methods, the mean bias and the variation of the bias increased with smaller sample size, higher variance ratios and with more pronounced departures from normality. Serious mean bias (especially in the 95th percentile) was seen using the NCI Method when rvar=9, λBC=0 and n=1000. The ISU Method and MSM showed a somewhat higher s.d. of the bias compared with NCI and SPADE Methods, indicating a larger method uncertainty. Furthermore, whereas the ISU, NCI and SPADE Methods produced unimodal density functions by definition, MSM produced distributions with ‘peaks’, when sample size was small, because of the fact that the population's usual intake distribution was based on estimated individual usual intakes. The application to the EFCOVAL data showed that all estimates of the percentiles and mean were within 5% of each other for the three nutrients analyzed. For vegetables, fruit and fish, the differences were larger than that for nutrients, but overall the sample mean was estimated reasonably.

Conclusions:

The four methods that were compared seem to provide good estimates of the usual intake distribution of nutrients. Nevertheless, care needs to be taken when a nutrient has a high within-person variation or has a highly skewed distribution, and when the sample size is small. As the methods offer different features, practical reasons may exist to prefer one method over the other.

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

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it

$39.95

Learn more

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

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3

References

  • Biro G, Hulshof KF, Ovesen L, Amorim Cruz JA (2002). Selection of methodology to assess food intake. Eur J Clin Nutr 56 (Suppl 2), S25–S32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brussaard JH, Lowik MR, Steingrimsdottir L, Moller A, Kearney J, De Henauw S et al. (2002). A European food consumption survey method--conclusions and recommendations. Eur J Clin Nutr 56 (Suppl 2), S89–S94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buck RJ, Hammerstrom KA, Ryan PB (1995). Estimating long-term exposures from short-term measurements. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 5, 359–373.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Crispim SP, de Vries JH, Geelen A, Souverein OW, Hulshof PJ, Lafay L et al. (2011). Two non-consecutive 24 h recalls using EPIC-Soft software are sufficiently valid for comparing protein and potassium intake between five European centers—results from the European Food Consumption Validation (EFCOVAL) study. Br J Nutr 105, 447–458.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dekkers ALM, Verkaik J, Van Rossum CTM, Slob W, Ocké MC .SPADE: Statistical Program To Assess Dietary Exposure—User's Manual. National Institute for Public Health and Environment: Bilthoven (in preparation).

  • Dodd KW, Guenther PM, Freedman LS, Subar AF, Kipnis V, Midthune D et al. (2006). Statistical methods for estimating usual intake of nutrients and foods: a review of the theory. J Am Diet Assoc 106, 1640–1650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freedman LS, Guenther PM, Dodd KW, Krebs-Smith SM, Midthune D (2010). The population distribution of ratios of usual intakes of dietary components that are consumed every day can be estimated from repeated 24-h recalls. J Nutr 140, 111–116.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Haubrock J, Nöthlings U, Volatier JL, Dekkers A, Ocké M, Harttig U et al. (2011). Estimating usual food intake distributions by using the Multiple Source Method in the EPIC-Potsdam Calibration Study. J Nutr 141, 914–920.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann K, Boeing H, Dufour A, Volatier JL, Telman J, Virtanen M et al. (2002). Estimating the distribution of usual dietary intake by short-term measurements. Eur J Clin Nutr 56 (Suppl 2), S53–S62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kipnis V, Midthune D, Buckman DW, Dodd KW, Guenther PM, Krebs-Smith SM et al. (2009). Modeling data with excess zeros and measurement error: application to evaluating relationships between episodically consumed foods and health outcomes. Biometrics 65, 1003–1010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kroes R, Muller D, Lambe J, Lowik MR, van Klaveren J, Kleiner J et al. (2002). Assessment of intake from the diet. Food Chem Toxicol 40, 327–385.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mackerras D, Rutishauser I (2005). 24-h national dietary survey data: how do we interpret them most effectively? Public Health Nutr 8, 657–665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAvay G, Rodin J (1988). Interindividual and intraindividual variation in repeated measures of 24-h dietary recall in the elderly. Appetite 11, 97–110.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council SiCfDE (1986). Nutrient Adequacy: Assessment Using Food Consumption Surveys. National Academy Press: Washington, DC.

  • Nusser SM, Carriquiry AL, Dodd KW, Fuller WA (1996a). A semi-parametric transformation approach to estimating usual daily intake distributions. J Am Stat Assoc 91, 1440–1449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nusser SM, Fuller WA, Guenther P (1996b). Estimating usual dietary intake distributions: adjusting for measurement error and nonnormality in 24-h food intake data. In: Lyberg L, Biemer P, Collins M, De Leeuw E, Dippo C, Schwartz N et al. (eds). Survey Measurement and Process Quality. Wiley: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slimani N, Deharveng G, Charrondiere RU, van Kappel AL, Ocke MC, Welch A et al. (1999). Structure of the standardized computerized 24-h diet recall interview used as reference method in the 22 centers participating in the EPIC project. European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 58, 251–266.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Slob W (1993). Modeling long-term exposure of the whole population to chemicals in food. Risk Anal 13, 525–530.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Slob W (2006). Probabilistic dietary exposure assessment taking into account variability in both amount and frequency of consumption. Food Chem Toxicol 44, 933–951.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Subar AF, Dodd KW, Guenther PM, Kipnis V, Midthune D, McDowell M et al. (2006). The food propensity questionnaire: concept, development, and validation for use as a covariate in a model to estimate usual food intake. J Am Diet Assoc 106, 1556–1563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tooze JA, Kipnis V, Buckman DW, Carroll RJ, Freedman LS, Guenther PM et al. (2010). A mixed-effects model approach for estimating the distribution of usual intake of nutrients: the NCI method. Stat Med 29, 2857–2868.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tooze JA, Midthune D, Dodd KW, Freedman LS, Krebs-Smith SM, Subar AF et al. (2006). A new statistical method for estimating the usual intake of episodically consumed foods with application to their distribution. J Am Diet Assoc 106, 1575–1587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waijers PM, Dekkers AL, Boer JM, Boshuizen HC, van Rossum CT (2006). the potential of AGE MODE, an age-dependent model, to estimate usual intakes and prevalences of inadequate intakes in a population. J Nutr 136, 2916–2920.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace LA, Duan N, Ziegenfus R (1994). Can long-term exposure distributions be predicted from short-term measurements? Risk Anal 14, 75–85.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Willett WC (1998). Nutritional Epidemiology, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press: New York.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The content of the paper reflects only our views and the Community is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained therein. OS designed the study, performed the statistical analysis and drafted the paper. ALD participated in the design and analysis of the study and helped to draft the paper. AG, JHdV, MCO, JH and PvtV participated in the design of the study. We were involved in the interpretation of the results and the review of the manuscript. The EFCOVAL Study takes place with the financial support of the European Community Sixth RTD Framework Program (contract FOOD-CT-2006-022895).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Human Nutrition, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    O W Souverein, A Geelen, J H de Vries & P van 't Veer

  2. National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands

    A L Dekkers & M C Ocké

  3. Department of Epidemiology, German Institute of Human Nutrition, Potsdam-Rehbruecke, Germany

    J Haubrock, U Harttig & H Boeing

Authors
  1. O W Souverein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A L Dekkers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A Geelen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J Haubrock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J H de Vries
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. M C Ocké
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. U Harttig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. H Boeing
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. P van 't Veer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

on behalf of the EFCOVAL Consortium

Corresponding author

Correspondence to O W Souverein.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Souverein, O., Dekkers, A., Geelen, A. et al. Comparing four methods to estimate usual intake distributions. Eur J Clin Nutr 65 (Suppl 1), S92–S101 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/ejcn.2011.93

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ejcn.2011.93

Keywords

  • diet surveys
  • statistical models
  • humans

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links