Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Flow chart of study participation.

PFD, precoded food diary; WR, weighed record.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Table 1.

Description of the presented food groups.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Characteristics (mean and SD) of the participants.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Daily mean (SD) intakes of macro- and micronutrients as assessed by the pre-coded food diary (PFD) and weighed record (WR) (n = 114).

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Percentage of participants classified into the same, same or adjacent, or opposite quartile with the pre-coded food diary (PFD) and the weighed record (WR) (n = 114).

More »

Table 4 Expand

Fig 2.

Bland Altman plot showing the difference in energy or nutrient intake measured with the PDF and WR plotted against the mean intake from the two methods.

The solid line indicates the mean difference between the methods while the dashed lines indicate ±1.96 SDs. kJ, kilo joule; E%, percentage of energy intake; PFD, precoded food diary; WR, weighed record.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Table 5.

Daily mean (SD) intakes of the main food groups as assessed by the pre-coded food diary (PFD) and weighed record (WR) (n = 114).

More »

Table 5 Expand

Fig 3.

Mean day-to-day energy intake from the pre-coded food diary (PFD) in acceptable reporters (ARs) and underreporters (URs).

Three participants classified as overreporters are not included. ***p<0.001 **p<0.01 (linear regression adjusted for gender).

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Mean energy intake at different time periods in the pre-coded food diary (PFD) in acceptable reporters (ARs) and underreporters (URs).

Three participants classified as overreporters are not included. ***p<0.001 **p<0.01*p <0.05 (linear regression adjusted for gender).

More »

Fig 4 Expand