Search

Background: To improve weight management in pregnant women, there is a need to deliver specific, data-based recommendations on energy intake., Objective: This cross-sectional study evaluated the accuracy of an electronic reporting method to measure daily energy intake in pregnant women compared with total daily energy expenditure (TDEE)., Methods: Twenty-three obese [mean ± SEM body mass index (kg/m2): 36.9 ± 1.3] pregnant women (aged 28.3 ±1.1 y) used a smartphone application to capture images of their food selection and plate waste in free-living conditions for ≥6 d in early (13-16 wk) and late (35-37 wk) pregnancy. Energy intake was evaluated by the smartphone application SmartIntake and compared with simultaneous assessment of TDEE obtained by doubly labeled water. Accuracy was defined as reported energy intake compared with TDEE (percentage of TDEE). Ecological momentary assessment prompts were used to enhance data reporting. Two-one-sided t tests for the 2 methods were used to assess equivalency, which was considered significant when accuracy was >80%., Results: Energy intake reported by the SmartIntake application was 63.4% ± 2.3% of TDEE measured by doubly labeled water (P = 1.00). Energy intake reported as snacks accounted for 17% ± 2% of reported energy intake. Participants who used their own phones compared with participants who used borrowed phones captured more images (P = 0.04) and had higher accuracy (73% ± 3% compared with 60% ± 3% of TDEE; P = 0.01). Reported energy intake as snacks was significantly associated with the accuracy of SmartIntake (P = 0.03). To improve data quality, excluding erroneous days of likely underreporting (<60% TDEE) improved the accuracy of SmartIntake, yet this was not equivalent to TDEE (-22% ± 1% of TDEE; P = 1.00)., Conclusions: Energy intake in obese, pregnant women obtained with the use of an electronic reporting method (SmartIntake) does not accurately estimate energy intake compared with doubly labeled water. However, accuracy improves by applying criteria to eliminate erroneous data. Further evaluation of electronic reporting in this population is needed to improve compliance, specifically for reporting frequent intake of small meals. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01954342.

Background: Infant formula is a major source of nutrition for infants, with more than half of all infants in the United States consuming infant formula exclusively or in combination with breast milk. The energy in infant powdered formula is derived from the powder and not the water, making it necessary to develop methods that can accurately estimate the amount of powder used before reconstitution., Objective: Our aim was to assess the use of the Remote Food Photography Method to accurately estimate the weight of infant powdered formula before reconstitution among the standard serving sizes., Methods: For each serving size (1 scoop, 2 scoops, 3 scoops, and 4 scoops), a set of seven test bottles and photographs were prepared as follow: recommended gram weight of powdered formula of the respective serving size by the manufacturer; three bottles and photographs containing 15%, 10%, and 5% less powdered formula than recommended; and three bottles and photographs containing 5%, 10%, and 15% more powdered formula than recommended (n=28). Ratio estimates of the test photographs as compared to standard photographs were obtained using standard Remote Food Photography Method analysis procedures. The ratio estimates and the US Department of Agriculture data tables were used to generate food and nutrient information to provide the Remote Food Photography Method estimates., Statistical Analyses Performed: Equivalence testing using the two one-sided t tests approach was used to determine equivalence between the actual gram weights and the Remote Food Photography Method estimated weights for all samples, within each serving size, and within underprepared and overprepared bottles., Results: For all bottles, the gram weights estimated by the Remote Food Photography Method were within 5% equivalence bounds with a slight underestimation of 0.05 g (90% CI -0.49 to 0.40; P<0.001) and mean percent error ranging between 0.32% and 1.58% among the four serving sizes., Conclusions: The maximum observed mean error was an overestimation of 1.58% of powdered formula by the Remote Food Photography Method under controlled laboratory conditions, indicating that the Remote Food Photography Method accurately estimated infant powdered formula., (Copyright © 2016 Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Accurate methods of assessing food intake in infants are needed to assess the relationship between infant feeding practices and risk of childhood obesity. Current methods are either subjective or have limited ability for use beyond clinical research settings. Objective: To assess the accuracy of the RFPM to evaluate simulated milk intake including energy, macronutrient, and micronutrient intake compared to direct weighing within a controlled study. Methods: Individuals were recruited to prepare three 2 fl oz, 4 fl oz, 6 fl oz, and 8 fl oz servings of infant formula and to capture photographs at different stages of preparation (dry powdered formula, prepared formula, and liquid waste) using the SmartIntake® application. Gram weights of the bottles were obtained by the RFPM and direct weighing. Using the United States Department of Agriculture National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, energy, macronutrient, and micronutrient values were generated from gram weights. Results: Intake of formula prepared from powder measured by the RFPM was equivalent to weighed intake within 7.5% equivalence bounds among all servings and each serving size. The mean difference between methods varied among servings sizes with the RFPM underestimating intake by 1.6 ± 0.4 kcals in 2 fl oz servings, 4.8 ± 0.6 kcals in 4 fl oz servings, and 6.2 ± 1.0 kcals in 6 fl oz servings, and overestimating intake by 0.1 ± 1.2 kcals in 8 fl oz servings. Bland-Altman analysis showed that the RFPM overestimated intake at lower levels food intake and underestimated intake at higher levels. Considering photographs of only the prepared formula bottle and the bottle with formula waste to simulate ready-to-feed formula and human breast milk, intake estimated by the RFPM was equivalent to the directly weighed intake within 7.5% for all servings. Conclusions: The RFPM has higher accuracy than subjective methods and similar accuracy as compared to the objective methods in estimating simulated intake of milk and formula with lower burden to caregivers. The RFPM is a viable method for measuring intake in exclusively milk fed infants by caregivers in a controlled environment with potential for widespread use in research and clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]