Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Photo-Assisted Dietary Method Improves Estimates of Dietary Intake Among People with Sleeve Gastrectomy

  • Original Contributions
  • Published:
Obesity Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Bariatric operations are effective obesity treatments because of the significant reductions in food intake after surgery, but weight regain remains a problem in a small group of patients after surgery. Estimating food intake is difficult due to dieting status, weight, gender, and challenges with estimating portion size. We aimed to evaluate the use of digital food photography in comparison to conventional methods among patients after sleeve gastrectomy.

Methods

Participants used a mobile device (mHealth) to photo-document their dietary intake of all food and beverages consumed before and after eating. They also completed a 24 h food recall interview with a dietician.

Results

Data from 383 eating occasions were analyzed. Food intake using 24 h recall was reported as 972.5 ± 77 kcal and estimates from photographs were 802.9 ± 63.4 kcal, with a difference of 169.6 ± 451.4 kcal (95% confidence interval (CI) of 41.4 to 297.9 kcal, p = 0.005). There was no difference for protein intake, but carbohydrate intake reported during the 24 h recall was 541.2 ± 298 kcal and estimates from photographs were 395.2 ± 219.6 kcal, with a difference of 145.8 ± 256.3 kcal (95% CI of 73.2 to 218.8 kcal, p = 0.0001).

Conclusion

After sleeve gastrectomy, patients reported eating more total calories and calories from carbohydrates compared to estimations using photographs. The implication for patients are that tools such as mHealth might be useful to optimize food intake and calories after sleeve gastrectomy, especially for those patients that may struggle with weight regain after surgery.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. WHO, W.h.O. Obesity and overweight. 2017 [cited 2018 April 29]; Available from: http://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight.

  2. OECD. Obesity Update 2017. 2017;1-14. Available from: https://www.oecd.org/els/healthsystems/Obesity-Update-2017.pdf. Accessed 29 April 2018.

  3. Colquitt JL et al. Surgery for weight loss in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(8):1–244.

  4. Picot J, Jones J, Colquitt JL, et al. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bariatric (weight loss) surgery for obesity: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2009;13(41):1–190.

  5. Macdiarmid J, Blundell J. Assessing dietary intake: who, what and why of under-reporting. Nutr Res Rev. 2007;11(2):231–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Carels RA, Konrad K, Harper J. Individual differences in food perceptions and calorie estimation: an examination of dieting status, weight, and gender. Appetite. 2007;49(2):450–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lichtman SW, Pisarska K, Berman ER, et al. Discrepancy between self-reported and actual caloric intake and exercise in obese subjects. N Engl J Med. 1992;327(27):1893–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wansink B, Chandon P. Meal size, not body size, explains errors in estimating the calorie content of meals. Ann Intern Med. 2006;145(5):326–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Martin CK, Anton SD, York-Crowe E, et al. Empirical evaluation of the ability to learn a calorie counting system and estimate portion size and food intake. Br J Nutr. 2007;98(2):439–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. McCambridge J, Witton J, Elbourne DR. Systematic review of the Hawthorne effect: new concepts are needed to study research participation effects. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(3):267–77.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Dahl Lassen A et al. Evaluation of a digital method to assess evening meal intake in a free-living adult population. Food Nutr Res. 2010;54:1–9. https://doi.org/10.3402/fnr.v54i0.5311.

  12. Martin CK et al. A novel method to remotely measure food intake of free-living individuals in real time: the remote food photography method. Br J Nutr. 2008;101(3):446–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Wang D-H et al. Validity and reliability of a dietary assessment method: the application of a digital camera with a mobile phone card attachment. J Nutr Sci Vitaminol. 2002;48(6):498–504.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Welch JL, Siek KA, Connelly KH, et al. Merging health literacy with computer technology: self-managing diet and fluid intake among adult hemodialysis patients. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;79(2):192–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Matheson DM, Hanson KA, McDonald TE, et al. Validity of children’s food portion estimates: a comparison of 2 measurement aids. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2002;156(9):867–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Koop A, Mösges R. The use of handheld computers in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 2002;23(5):469–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lieffers JRL, Hanning RM. Dietary assessment and self-monitoring: with nutrition applications for mobile devices. Can J Diet Pract Res. 2012;73(3):e253–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ptomey LT, Willis EA, Goetz JR, et al. Digital photography improves estimates of dietary intake in adolescents with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Disabil Health J. 2015;8(1):146–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Conway JM, Ingwersen LA, Vinyard BT, et al. Effectiveness of the US Department of Agriculture 5-step multiple-pass method in assessing food intake in obese and nonobese women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2003;77(5):1171–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. USDA. USDA food composition database. 2018 [cited 2018; available from: https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/search/list.

  21. Beasley J, Riley WT, Jean-Mary J. Accuracy of a PDA-based dietary assessment program. Nutrition. 2005;21(6):672–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Heitmann BL, Lissner L. Dietary underreporting by obese individuals—is it specific or non-specific. BMJ. 1995;311:986–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Subar AF et al. Using intake biomarkers to evaluate the extent of dietary misreporting in a large sample of adults: The OPEN study. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;158:1–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Gemming L, Jiang Y, Swinburn B, et al. Under-reporting remains a key limitation of self-reported dietary intake: an analysis of the 2008/09 New Zealand adult nutrition survey. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2014;68(2):259–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Johnson RK, Goran M, Poehlman ET. Correlates of over- and underreporting of energy intake in healthy older men and women. Am J Clin Nutr. 1994;59:1286–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Pannemans DL, Westerterp K. Estimation of energy intake to feed subjects at energy balance as verified with doubly labelled water: a study in the elderly. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1993;47:490–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Schoeller DA. How accurate is self-reported dietary energy intake? Nutr Rev. 1990;48:373–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Schoeller DA, Bandini L, Dietz WH. Inaccuracies in self-reported intake identified by comparison with the doubly labeled water method. Can J Physiol Pharmacol. 1990;68:941–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Westerterp KR, V.-v.d. V.W., Meijer GAL, Hoor ten F., Self-reported intake as a measure for energy intake. A validation against doubly labelled water. Obes Eur 1991; 91:17–22.

  30. Freedman, L., et al., Pooled results from 5 validation studies of dietary self-report instruments using recovery biomarkers for energy and protein intake. Vol. 180. 2014.

  31. Wehling H, Lusher J. People with a body mass index ≥ 30 under-report their dietary intake: a systematic review. J Health Psychol. 2017:1359105317714318.

  32. Blake AJ, Guthrie HA, Smiciklas-Wright H. Accuracy of food portion estimation by overweight and normal-weight subjects. J Am Diet Assoc. 1989;89:962–4.

  33. Dixon AFR, Dixon JB, O’Brien PE. Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding induces prolonged satiety: a randomized blind crossover study. J Clin Endocrinol Metabol. 2005;90(2):813–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Coughlin K et al. Preoperative and postoperative assessment of nutrient intakes in patients who have undergone gastric bypass surgery. Arch Surg. 1983;118(7):813–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Rosenbaum M et al. Leptin reverses weight loss–induced changes in regional neural activity responses to visual food stimuli. J Clin Invest. 2008;118(7):2583–91.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Stice E, Burger K, Yokum S. Caloric deprivation increases responsivity of attention and reward brain regions to intake, anticipated intake, and images of palatable foods. NeuroImage. 2013;67:322–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Miras AD, Jackson RN, Jackson SN, et al. Gastric bypass surgery for obesity decreases the reward value of a sweet-fat stimulus as assessed in a progressive ratio task. Am J Clin Nutr. 2012;96(3):467–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Ochner CN, Kwok PY, Conceicao ME, et al. Selective reduction in neural responses to high calorie foods following gastric bypass surgery. Ann Surg. 2011;253(3):502–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Bruce AS et al. A comparison of functional brain changes associated with surgical versus behavioral weight loss. Obesity (Silver Spring, Md). 2014;22(2):337–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Williamson DA, et al. Digital photography: a new method for estimating food intake in cafeteria settings. Eat Weight Disord. 2004;9:24–8.

  41. Williamson DA, Allen HR, Martin PD, et al. Comparison of digital photography to weighed and visual estimation of portion sizes. J Am Diet Assoc. 2003;103(9):1139–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all the participants for giving up their time to participate in this study. The authors gratefully acknowledge the clinical service unit at Dasman Diabetes Institute and the Ministory of Health Kuwait.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dasman Diabetes Institute, Faculty of Medicine, Kuwait University, P. O. Box 24923, 13110, Kuwait City, Kuwait

    Ebaa Al-Ozairi, Jumana Al Kandari & Etab Taghadom

  2. Faculty of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Kuwait University, Jabriya, Kuwait

    Ebaa Al-Ozairi

  3. Faculty of Public Health, Department of Public Health Practice, Kuwait University, Jabriya, Kuwait

    Manar M. AlAwadhi

  4. Ministry of Health Kuwait, Kuwait City, Kuwait

    Jumana Al Kandari & Etab Taghadom

  5. Royal College of Surgeon, Dublin, Ireland

    Mohammad Abdullah

  6. Diabetes Complications Research Centre, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

    Carel W. Le Roux

Authors
  1. Ebaa Al-Ozairi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Manar M. AlAwadhi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jumana Al Kandari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Etab Taghadom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mohammad Abdullah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Carel W. Le Roux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ebaa Al-Ozairi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Professor Carel Le Roux received grants from Johnson and Johnson and AnaBio. Also speaker fees from Eli Lilly, Johnson and Johnson, Sanofi Aventis, Astra Zeneca, Janssen, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, p Boehringer-Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. He is on the advisory board of NovoNordisk and GI dynamics. Professor le Roux has nothing to disclose related to this manuscript. All the other authors declare no conflict of interest

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Al-Ozairi, E., AlAwadhi, M.M., Al Kandari, J. et al. Photo-Assisted Dietary Method Improves Estimates of Dietary Intake Among People with Sleeve Gastrectomy. OBES SURG 29, 1602–1606 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-019-03736-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-019-03736-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation