Methodology for the assessment of added/free sugar intake in epidemiological studies.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: High-sugar intake has been linked to increased risk of diseases but an accurate assessment of added/free sugar intake has always been a challenge in research. This review summarizes the methodologies for assessing added/free sugar intake reported in recent literature. RECENT FINDINGS: Four different methods for added/free sugar-intake assessment are discussed, including the carbon isotope ratio (δC) method, Food Patterns Equivalent Database, disaggregation method and the 10-step systematic method. These methods have different strengths and limitations in terms of requirement for background knowledge, flexibility to sugar definition, level of subjectivity, accuracy and needs for recalculation/modification when used in different countries or food products. SUMMARY: Although advances have been made in the methodologies for assessing added/free sugar intake, accurate assessment continues to be difficult. Of the methods reviewed, the 10-step systematic method could be a simpler method to provide relatively accurate estimation of added/free sugar intake. Further improvements or combining with other methods may allow more accurate and flexible estimation. Development of a completely objective biomarker for added/free sugar intake is unlikely to be achievable, therefore future research may need to focus on developing correction equations for use with biomarkers such as δC to improve their specificity to added/free sugar intake.

Electronic Dietary Intake Assessment (e-DIA): relative validity of a mobile phone application to measure intake of food groups.

Automation of dietary assessment can reduce limitations of established methodologies, by alleviating participant and researcher burden. Designed as a research tool, the electronic Dietary Intake Assessment (e-DIA) is a food record in mobile phone application format. The present study aimed to examine the relative validity of the e-DIA with the 24-h recall method to estimate intake of food groups. A sample of eighty university students aged 19-24 years recorded 5 d of e-DIA and 3 d of recall within this 5-d period. The three matching days of dietary data were used for analysis. Food intake data were disaggregated and apportioned to one of eight food groups. Median intakes of food groups were similar between the methods, and strong correlations were found (mean: 0·79, range: 0·69-0·88). Cross-classification by tertiles produced a high level of exact agreement (mean: 71 %, range: 65-75 %), and weighted κ values were moderate to good (range: 0·54-0·71). Although mean differences (e-DIA-recall) were small (range: -13 to 23 g), limits of agreement (LOA) were relatively large (e.g. for vegetables, mean difference: -4 g, LOA: -159 to 151 g). The Bland-Altman plots showed robust agreement, with minimum bias. This analysis supports the use of e-DIA as an alternative to the repeated 24-h recall method for ranking individuals' food group intake.

Do we provide meaningful guidance for healthful eating? An investigation into consumers' interpretation of frequency consumption terms.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate consumers' understanding of terms commonly used to provide guidance about frequency and quantity of food consumption. METHODS: A survey of 405 shoppers explored how frequently consumers thought food labeled with the terms "eat often," "eat moderately," "eat occasionally," "a sometimes food," and "an extra food" should be eaten. In a separate phase, 30 grocery buyers responded to open-ended questions about their interpretation of these terms. RESULTS: Responses indicated significant differences in meaning between the terms. However, the specific interpretation of each term varied considerably across respondents. The qualitative research found the terms to be highly subjective, and there was a high degree of uncertainty about the meaning of the term "an extra food" in particular. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Food frequency and descriptive terms currently used do not provide meaningful or consistent nutritional guidance. There is a need for simple, unambiguous terminology.