Cited by 530Nutrition, Health and Food BehaviorObesity, Physical Activity, DietRegulation of Appetite and Obesity

Undereating and underrecording of habitual food intake in obese men: selective underreporting of fat intake

Open access
Goris, Annelies HC, Westerterp-Plantenga, Margriet S, Westerterp, Klaas R·2000·The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

Abstract

Background Underreporting of food intake is common in obese subjects.Objective One aim of this study was to assess to what extent underreporting by obese men is explained by underrecording (failure to record in a food diary everything that is consumed) or undereating. Another aim of the study was to find out whether there was an indication for selective underreporting.Design Subjects were 30 obese men with a mean (+/-SD) body mass index (in kg/m(2)) of 34 +/- 4. Total food intake was measured over 1 wk. Energy expenditure (EE) was measured with the doubly labeled water method, and water loss was estimated with deuterium-labeled water. Energy balance was checked for by measuring body weight at the start and end of the food-recording week and 1 wk after the recording week.Results Mean energy intake and EE were 10.4 +/- 2.5 and 16.7 +/- 2. 4 MJ/d, respectively; underreporting was 37 +/- 16%. The mean body mass loss of 1.0 +/- 1.3 kg over the recording week was significantly different (P < 0.05) from the change in body mass over the nonrecording week, and indicated 26% undereating. Water intake (reported + metabolic water) and water loss were significantly different from each other and indicated 12% underrecording. The reported percentage of energy from fat was a function of the level of underreporting: percentage of energy from fat = 46 - 0.2 x percentage of underreporting (r(2) = 0.28, P = 0.003).Conclusions Total underreporting by the obese men was explained by underrecording and undereating. The obese men selectively underreported fat intake.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ajcn/71.1.130

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Several studies found that underreporting of energy intake, especially for snacks, was more common in obese persons.

    “Several studies (53)(54)(55) found that underreporting of EI, especially for snacks, was more common in obese persons.”

    From Beneficial metabolic effects of regular meal frequency on dietary thermogenesis, insulin sensitivity, and fasting lipid profiles in healthy obese women1–3 (2005) · cites this paper as [55]

    The Introduction says that underreporting increases with body mass index. But the Discussion says this study found no selective omission of snacks among obese men; its example of underreported between-meal snacks concerns nonobese women. The source therefore supports the obesity-related underreporting claim, but not the implication that snacks were especially underreported by obese persons. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Westerterp KR, Verboeket-van de Venne WPHG, Meijer GAL, Hoor ten F. Self-reported intake as a measure for energy intake. A valida- tion against doubly labelled water. Obes Eur 1991;91:17-22.
  2. Goris AHC, Westerterp KR. Underreporting of habitual food explained by undereating in motivated lean women. J Nutr 1999;129:878-82.
  3. Breedveld BC, Hulshof KFAM. Hoe goed voedt de gemiddelde Nederlander zich? (How healthy does the average Dutch person eat?) Nutrition 1998;1:11-5 (in Dutch).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Goris, A. H., Westerterp-Plantenga, M. S., & Westerterp, K. R.
Affiliations
Maastricht University (NL)
Corresponding author
Goris, Annelies HC
Venue
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2000-01
Volume
71
Issue
1
Pages
130-134
ISSN
0002-9165 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2171103387
Cited by
530
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 34 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 24
FWCI
25.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Endocrine and Autonomic Systems › Regulation of Appetite and Obesity
Keywords
underreporting of food intake, food diary, undereating, dietary fat intake, energy balance, energy expenditure, water intake, water loss, obesity, men, weight loss
MeSH terms
Adult, Energy Intake, Dietary Fats, Eating, Energy Metabolism, Humans, Male, Obesity, Regression Analysis, Diet Records, Body Mass Index

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review