FAT-GRAM COUNTING AND FOOD-RECORD RATING ARE EQUALLY EFFECTIVE FOR EVALUATING FOOD RECORDS IN REDUCED-FAT DIETS

Objective To compare rates of adherence to low-fat diets using food-re cord rating and Eat-gram counting, to evaluate dietary adherence using the fat-gram counting method, and to assess correlations between food -record rating and fat-gram counting. Design A diet monitoring and obs ervation study was conducted to compare the effectiveness of food-reco rd rating and fat-gram counting to evaluate dietary adherence. Subject s were randomly assigned to the food-record rating group of the fat-gr am counting group. Each participant was asked to complete four 3-day f ood records. Food records were evaluated by food-record rating for one group and by fat-gram counting for the other. Each record was then sc ored using the alternate system. For a subset, manually calculated fat -gram values were compared for accuracy with Values from the Nutrient Data Systems database. Statistical analyses performed Mantel-Haenszel chi(2), regression, and K analyses were used to evaluate adherence rat es and within-subject agreement between fat-gram counting and food-rec ord rating. Subjects/setting Seventy-eight participants were recruited from a lipid-lowering research trial conducted in Houston, Tex. Resul ts Strong correlations were found between fat-gram values calculated m anually and those calculated using the Nutrient Data Systems. No signi ficant differences in adherence rates were found between the food-reco rd rating and fat-gram counting groups. Conclusions Fat-gram counting is at least as effective as food-record rating in monitoring dietary f at content. Dietitians can use it as an alternative dietary fat-monito ring procedure for clinical practice and research.