To compare the performance of the commonly used 24 h recall (24hR) with the more distinct duplicate portion (DP) as reference method for validation of fatty acid intake estimated with an FFQ.

Intakes of SFA, MUFA, n-3 fatty acids and linoleic acid (LA) were estimated by chemical analysis of two DP and by on average five 24hR and two FFQ. Plasma n-3 fatty acids and LA were used to objectively compare ranking of individuals based on DP and 24hR. Multivariate measurement error models were used to estimate validity coefficients and attenuation factors for the FFQ with the DP and 24hR as reference methods.

Wageningen, the Netherlands.

Ninety-two men and 106 women (aged 20–70 years).

Validity coefficients for the fatty acid estimates by the FFQ tended to be lower when using the DP as reference method compared with the 24hR. Attenuation factors for the FFQ tended to be slightly higher based on the DP than those based on the 24hR as reference method. Furthermore, when using plasma fatty acids as reference, the DP showed comparable to slightly better ranking of participants according to their intake of n-3 fatty acids (0·33) and n-3:LA (0·34) than the 24hR (0·22 and 0·24, respectively).

The 24hR gives only slightly different results compared with the distinctive but less feasible DP, therefore use of the 24hR seems appropriate as the reference method for FFQ validation of fatty acid intake.

As misreporting, mostly under-reporting, of dietary intake is a generally known problem in nutritional research, we aimed to analyse the association between selected determinants and the extent of misreporting by the duplicate portion method (DP), 24 h recall (24hR) and FFQ by linear regression analysis using the biomarker values as unbiased estimates.

For each individual, two DP, two 24hR, two FFQ and two 24 h urinary biomarkers were collected within 1·5 years. Also, for sixty-nine individuals one or two doubly labelled water measurements were obtained. The associations of basic determinants (BMI, gender, age and level of education) with misreporting of energy, protein and K intake of the DP, 24hR and FFQ were evaluated using linear regression analysis. Additionally, associations between other determinants, such as physical activity and smoking habits, and misreporting were investigated.

The Netherlands.

One hundred and ninety-seven individuals aged 20–70 years.

Higher BMI was associated with under-reporting of dietary intake assessed by the different dietary assessment methods for energy, protein and K, except for K by DP. Men tended to under-report protein by the DP, FFQ and 24hR, and persons of older age under-reported K but only by the 24hR and FFQ. When adjusted for the basic determinants, the other determinants did not show a consistent association with misreporting of energy or nutrients and by the different dietary assessment methods.

As BMI was the only consistent determinant of misreporting, we conclude that BMI should always be taken into account when assessing and correcting dietary intake.