Nice piece in Science about our recent paper in Nature Food on dietary misreporting.
https://www.science.org/content/article/people-are-bad-reporting-what-they-eat-s-problem-dietary-research

Comments

How would you say that this new formula to estimate TEE using just weight in kg would fair compared to the one using FFM if you just estimate FFM using a common BIA-scale for ~50-100 dollars?
reply
The new formula is only slightly less precise than the one using FFM when the same ranges are included. That's with FFM by deuterium dilution. Since BIA is worse than deut dilution I'd guess it will be worse. But note new equation uses much more than weight.
reply
I can't help but wonder to what extent (un)intentional misreporting is to blame and to what extent errors in nutritional databases are to blame. The information on nutrition facts labels is definitely and demonstrably not trustworthy, but I have doubts about more reputable databases as well.
reply
I think its a combination of the two
reply
You are, of course, far better placed to investigate that than I will ever be, and I wholeheartedly agree.
Maybe I am nitpicking, but I would love to see bomb calorimeter values everywhere because I think that *maximum* values would be far more helpful in a society that is getting fatter.
reply
The issue with bomb values is they include stuff that burns but cant be digested. The Atwater factor system gets around that converting digestible food composition into energy.
reply
There is no way to disagree with that, of course, but I am speculating (hoping?) that it also does not eliminate stuff that *does* contribute because in my n=1 I see very slow weight loss, despite my attempts to standardise everything (from a consumer standpoint) to an extreme degree.
reply
Yes, that was one of the criticisms levelled at the NHANES reports that intermittent fasting caused cardiac issues.
reply
Nutritional epidemiology is probably the weakest form of science I have come across. Its reliance on self-reporting questionnaires makes it wide open to bias, abuse and downright fraud. That's why vested interests have funded it so often for so long.
reply
Not only that. The questionnaires themselves are often quite questionable. Whole-wheat bread is Nova 4 and white rice Nova 1. Really? Honestly? How reliable are the results of completed questionnaires that are nonsensical to begin with?
reply

Posting Rules

  • Be respectful to others
  • No spam or self-promotion
  • Stay on topic
  • Follow Bluesky's terms of service