Suchergebnisse

The present study set out to explore the option of developing food portion size for nutritional labelling purposes using two European Union (EU) dietary surveys. The surveys were selected as they differed in (a) methodologies (food diary versus food frequency questionnaire), (b) populations (Irish National Adult Nutrition Survey (NANS) versus a seven-country survey based on the pan EU study Food4Me), (c) food quantification (multiple options versus solely photographic album) and (d) duration (4 consecutive days versus recent month). Using data from these studies, portion size was determined for 15 test foods, where portion size was defined as the median intake of a target food when consumed. The median values of the portion sizes derived from both the NANS and Food4Me surveys were correlated (r = 0.823; p < 0.00) and the mean of the two survey data sets were compared to US values from the Recognized as Customarily Consumed (RACC) database. There was very strong agreement across all food categories between the averaged EU and the US portion size (r = 0.947; p < 0.00). It is concluded that notwithstanding the variety of approaches used for dietary survey data in the EU, the present data supports using a standardized approach to food portion size quantification for food labelling in the EU.

Introduction Physical inactivity has been estimated to be responsible for more than 5.3 million deaths worldwide [1]. Moreover, among European men and women, approximately 7.3% of all deaths in 2008 might be attributable to inactivity compared with 3.7% to obesity [2] and there is strong evidence to suggest that even small increases in physical activity (PA) would lower the risk for many non-communicable diseases [1–3]. Yet, levels of PA across populations remain low [4]. To tackle this public health issue, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American College of Sports Medicine produced standardized PA guidelines 20 years ago [5]. Since then, the World Health Organization (WHO), the European Union, and most countries around the world, have included PA guidelines in their health policies. Guidelines for Americans and Europeans have been updated to include recommendations for adolescents and for older adults [6–9]. For adults aged 18–64 years old, the WHO recommends a minimum of 150 min of moderate intensity PA per week, 75 min of vigorous intensity PA or an equivalent amount of moderate and vigorous PA (MVPA) [9]. In 2008, 34.8% of adults 15 years or older were insufficiently active in Europe [4]. Regular surveillance is needed to update these prevalence estimates and to evaluate the effectiveness of PA policies and promotion programs in European countries. In this context, the objective assessment of PA is a key issue. Prevalence of physical inactivity has been mainly derived from self-reported measures such as the Baecke questionnaire [10] or the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) [11]. These questionnaires have been, and still are, widely used due to their simple administration and low cost [12]. However, PA is frequently misreported, which leads to considerable measurement error [13–15]. Accelerometers offer a potential solution because they measure PA objectively. Given that they are small and easy to wear, store data up to several weeks and are acceptable in terms of reliability, these devices are now used increasingly in large studies to assess PA in children, adolescents and adults [16]. Although some European countries have reported adherence to PA guidelines using accelerometers in large cohorts [17–19], comparisons between European countries measured according to the same standardized protocols and concurrently are lacking. Between 2012 and 2014, PA was assessed objectively by accelerometry in the participants of the Food4Me Proof-of-Principle (PoP) study. The Food4Me Study was a web-based randomized controlled trial on personalized nutrition, across seven European countries: Germany, Greece, Ireland, The Netherlands, Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom. The aim of the current paper is to describe and compare PA in adults from these countries, and evaluate adherence to PA guidelines, using baseline data from the Food4Me PoP study.