背景:PortionSize提供有关饮食摄入量的实时反馈,包括MyPlate食物组的摄入量,但需要在实验室环境中对更大的样本进行进一步评估。MyFitnessAl(MFP)是一种常用的商业饮食评估应用程序,并且没有已知的研究在实验室环境中评估MFP。
目的:总体目标是测试PortionSize和MFP与称重食物(WB)相比准确测量摄入量的有效性,并比较应用程序之间的误差。第二个目标是测试可用性,满意,和应用程序之间的用户偏好。
方法:这项随机交叉研究于2021年2月至10月间完成。参与者(N=43)在实验室环境中使用这两个应用程序来估计摄入量。向参与者提供预先称重的电镀餐和电镀剩菜。两个单侧t检验评估了来自PortionSize和WB的模拟摄入量之间的等效性(±21%界限)。以及MFP和WB。主要结果是能量摄入,次要结局指标是份量(g),食物组,和其他营养素。相对绝对误差的差异,可用性,满意,使用依赖样本t检验评估应用程序之间的用户偏好。科恩d评估的效应大小。
结果:对于PortionSize,能量和份量被低估了13.3%和14.0%,分别,并不等同于WB。对于MFP,能源被高估了7.0%,相当于WB(p=0.04)。能量的相对绝对误差在应用之间没有差异。对于PortionSize,对于水果,科恩的d很小(<0.2),谷物,蛋白质食品,和特定的营养素。可用性没有差异,满意度的唯一差异是参与者发现使用MFP更容易找到消耗的食物(p=0.019),参与者更喜欢使用MFP(p=0.014)。
结论:PortionSize需要进一步更新,以提高能源估算和可用性,但证明了跟踪食物群和营养素摄入量的临床实用性。PortionSize在测量能量摄入方面没有超过MFP。
背景:NCT04700904。https://经典。
结果:gov/ct2/show/NCT04700904。
BACKGROUND: PortionSize offers real-time feedback on dietary intake, including intake of MyPlate food groups but requires further evaluation on a larger sample in a laboratory-based setting. MyFitnessPal (MFP) is a commonly used commercial dietary assessment application, and to our knowledge, no known studies have evaluated MFP in a laboratory setting.
OBJECTIVE: The overall objective was to test the validity of PortionSize and MFP to accurately measure intake compared with that of weighed food (WB) and to compare error between applications. A secondary objective was to test usability, satisfaction, and user preference between applications.
METHODS: This randomized crossover study was completed between February and October 2021. Participants (N = 43) used both applications to estimate intake in a laboratory setting. Participants were provided with a preweighed plated meal and plated leftovers. Two 1-sided t tests assessed equivalence (±21% bounds) between simulated intake from PortionSize and WB, and MFP and WB. The primary outcome was energy intake, and secondary outcome measures were portion size (in grams), food groups, and other nutrients. Differences in relative absolute error, usability, satisfaction, and user preference between applications were evaluated using dependent samples t tests. Cohen d assessed effect size.
RESULTS: For PortionSize, energy and portion size were underestimated by 13.3% and 14.0%, respectively, and were not equivalent to WB. For MFP, energy was overestimated by 7.0%, and equivalent to WB (P = 0.04). Relative absolute error for energy did not differ between applications. For PortionSize, Cohen d was small (<0.2) for fruits, grains, protein foods, and specific nutrients. No differences were seen with usability, and the only difference for satisfaction was that participants found it easier to use MFP to find foods consumed (P = 0.019), and participants preferred using MFP (P = 0.014).
CONCLUSIONS: PortionSize requires further updates to improve energy estimates and usability but demonstrates clinical utility for tracking food group and nutrient intake. PortionSize did not outperform MFP for measuring energy intake.
BACKGROUND: This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT04700904 (https://classic.
RESULTS: gov/ct2/show/NCT04700904).