Severe underreporting of energy intake in normal weight subjects: use of an appropriate standard and relation to restrained eating.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the influence of different standards and restrained eating on underreporting in healthy, non-obese, weight-stable young subjects. DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: Eighty-three young adults (20-38 years, 55 women, 28 men) were assessed under weight-stable conditions with a 7-day dietary record and the three-factor eating questionnaire by Stunkard and Messick. Resting energy expenditure (REE; indirect calorimetry) plus data derived from physical activity records (PA) (Standard 1) or REE times an activity factor (AF) (Standard 2) was used as standard for total energy expenditure (TEE). For comparison, doubly labelled water (DLW) was used to measure TEE in a subgroup of subjects. RESULTS: There was an association between self-reported energy intake and Standard 2 but not with Standard 1. When compared with DLW both calculated standards were inaccurate, but Standard 2 avoided high levels of overreporting. Using Standard 2 to identify 'severe' underreporting (SU; as defined by a deviation of energy intake (EI) and TEE of >20%), SU was seen in 37% of all subjects. It was more frequently found in women than in men (49% of women, 14.3% of men, ). Underreporting subjects had a reduced EI but there were no significant differences in nutritional status (body weight and height, body mass index, fat mass and fat-free mass), energy expenditure and the proportion of energy from macronutrients between normal and underreporting subjects. However, high restraint was associated with a higher degree of underreporting in the total group, whereas disinhibition had an influence only in men. CONCLUSIONS: A high prevalence of SU is seen in non-obese subjects. Characteristics of eating behaviour (restraint and disinhibition) were associated with underreporting but seemed to have a different influence in men and women.

Prevention of obesity--more than an intention. Concept and first results of the Kiel Obesity Prevention Study (KOPS).

OBJECTIVE: Obesity prevention is necessary to address the steady rise in the prevalence of obesity. Although all experts agree that obesity prevention has high priority there is almost no research in this area. The effectiveness of different intervention strategies is not well documented. There is also no structured framework for obesity prevention. DESIGN: Based on (i) our current and limited knowledge and (ii) the idea that prevention of childhood obesity is an effective treatment of adult obesity, the Kiel Obesity Prevention Study (KOPS) was started in 1996. Concept, intervention strategies and first results of KOPS are reported in this paper. KOPS is an ongoing 8 y follow-up study. We first enrolled a large scale cohort of 5 to 7-y-old children, providing sufficient baseline data. KOPS allows further analyses of the role of individual risk factors as well as of long-term effectiveness of different intervention strategies. RESULTS: From 1996 to 1999 a representative group of 2440 5 to 7-y-old children was recruited (ie 30.2% of the total population of 5 to 7-y-old children examined by the school physicians) and a full data set was obtained from 1640 children. Of the children, 340 (20.7%) were considered as overweight and obese, 1108 children (67.6%) were normal weight, and underweight was found in 192 children (11.7%). Of the normal-weight children, 31% or 346 (21.1% of the total population) were considered to have a risk of becoming obese. Cross-sectional data provided evidence that (i) there is an inverse social gradient in childhood overweight as well as health-related behaviours and (ii) parental fatness had a strong influence on childhood overweight. We observed considerable changes in health-related behaviours within 1 y after combined "school-" and "family-based" interventions. Interventions aimed to improve health-related behaviours had significant effects on the age-dependent increases in median triceps skinfolds of the whole group (from 10.9 to 11.3 mm in "intervention schools" vs from 10.7 to 13.0 mm in "control schools", P<0.01) as well as in percentage fat mass of overweight children (increase by 3.6 vs 0.4% per year without and with intervention, respectively; P<0.05). CONCLUSION: First results of KOPS are promising. Besides health promotion, a better school education and social support seem to be promising strategies for future interventions.

Prevention of obesity--is it possible?

Obesity prevention is necessary to address the steady rise in the prevalence of obesity. Although all experts agree that obesity prevention has high priority there is almost no research in this area. There is also no structured framework for obesity prevention. The effectiveness of different intervention strategies is not well documented. Regarding universal prevention little rigorous evaluation has been carried out in larger populations. Obesity prevention has been integrated into community-wide programmes preventing coronary heart disease. Although effective with respect to reduction in cardiovascular risk factors these programmes did not affect mean body mass index (BMI) of the target populations. Selective prevention directed at high risk individuals (e.g. at children with obese parents) exhibited various degrees of effectiveness. However, at present, definitive statements cannot be made because of the limited number of studies as well as limits in study design. Finally, targeted prevention produced promising results in obese children when compared to no treatment. However, there are only very few longterm follow-up data. There is no clear idea about comprehensive interventions studying combinations of different strategies. It is tempting to speculate that predictors of treatment outcome (e.g. psychological and sociodemographic factors) may also serve as barriers to preventive strategies, but this has not yet been investigated. Taken together, obesity prevention should become a high priority research goal. First results of obesity prevention programmes are promising. As well as health promotion and counselling, better school education and social support appear to be promising strategies for future interventions.