Researchers wanted to know if a short 14-question food survey could accurately measure what people eat compared to keeping detailed food records. They tested this during a study where people tried different types of fasting. The short survey worked well for most foods, though it wasn’t as accurate for snacking habits. This matters because surveys are much easier and cheaper than asking people to write down everything they eat, which could help doctors and researchers study nutrition more easily in the future.

The Quick Take

  • What they studied: Can a quick 14-question food survey give the same results as having people write down everything they eat for a week?
  • Who participated: 15 healthy adults (8 men and 7 women) with an average age of 29 years who participated in a fasting study
  • Key finding: The short survey matched the detailed food records well for most foods (especially meat, with 89% agreement), but wasn’t as accurate for tracking snacking habits and whole grain eating
  • What it means for you: Quick food surveys could be a practical tool for doctors and researchers to understand eating patterns, though they may need improvement for tracking snacks and whole grains

The Research Details

This was a validation study, which means researchers tested whether a new tool works as well as an established method. Participants completed two types of dietary assessment: a short 14-question food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) and detailed 7-day food records where they wrote down everything they ate. The study took place during a larger fasting trial where some people practiced religious fasting (19 days of daytime-only fasting) and others tried time-restricted eating (eating only during an 8-hour window). Researchers compared the answers from the quick survey to the detailed food records to see how well they matched.

The food records were analyzed using professional dietary software called PRODI, which calculates exact amounts of calories, proteins, fats, and carbohydrates. The survey was completed once before the study started and twice during the fasting period. Researchers used statistical methods to measure how closely the two approaches agreed with each other.

Food frequency questionnaires are much faster and cheaper than detailed food records, making them practical for large studies and clinical settings. However, before using a new or modified survey, researchers need to prove it actually works. This validation study ensures that if doctors or researchers use this short survey, they can trust the results. Understanding which foods the survey tracks well (and which it doesn’t) helps improve future versions.

This was a small study with only 15 participants, which limits how much we can generalize the findings to larger populations. The study was well-designed with clear methods and used established statistical techniques. The researchers were transparent about which survey questions worked well and which didn’t. However, the small sample size means the results should be confirmed in larger groups before widespread use.

What the Results Show

The short food survey showed good overall agreement with detailed food records for most food groups. Meat consumption had the strongest match between the two methods (89% correlation), meaning the survey was very accurate for tracking meat eating. Most other foods like vegetables, fruits, and dairy products also showed reasonable agreement.

However, three areas had problems: questions about snacking tendency, how often people snacked, and how often people ate whole grains didn’t match well between the survey and food records. This suggests people may have difficulty remembering or accurately reporting their snacking habits and whole grain consumption on a quick survey.

When researchers looked at calorie and nutrient changes during the fasting period, the detailed food records showed clear decreases in calories, fat, and carbohydrates during the religious fasting period. The survey couldn’t reliably measure these changes, partly because it wasn’t designed to calculate exact nutrient amounts.

The study found that the short survey was particularly good at tracking meal frequency and overnight fasting time. These findings suggest the survey could be useful for studies specifically looking at eating patterns and meal timing. The researchers also noted that the survey’s performance varied depending on what question was being asked, indicating that some dietary questions are easier for people to answer accurately than others.

This research adds to existing knowledge that short food surveys can be practical alternatives to detailed food records for many purposes. Previous studies have shown similar patterns—quick surveys work well for some foods but struggle with others. This study specifically validates the approach in people practicing intermittent fasting, which hadn’t been thoroughly tested before. The findings align with other research showing that snacking is particularly difficult to track accurately in any dietary assessment method.

The biggest limitation is the very small sample size of only 15 people, which means results may not apply to larger or more diverse populations. The study only included relatively healthy adults around age 29, so findings may differ for older people, children, or people with health conditions. The study was conducted during a specific fasting protocol, so the survey’s accuracy might differ during normal eating patterns. Additionally, the survey was only tested in this specific context and may need adjustment for other populations or research questions.

The Bottom Line

The short 14-question survey appears to be a reasonable tool for tracking overall eating patterns and meal frequency in research and clinical settings (moderate confidence). It should NOT be relied upon for accurate snacking data or whole grain consumption tracking without improvements (low confidence). For studies needing exact calorie and nutrient calculations, detailed food records remain necessary (high confidence).

This research is most relevant for researchers and doctors designing nutrition studies or clinical programs. It’s useful for anyone considering using quick food surveys instead of time-consuming food records. People participating in fasting studies or intermittent fasting programs may benefit from understanding which dietary assessment methods are most accurate. However, this study is too small to change recommendations for the general public yet.

If using this survey in a research or clinical setting, you could expect reliable results for most food groups within the timeframe of the study (weeks to months). However, improvements to the survey questions about snacking would likely take several months to develop and test.

Want to Apply This Research?

  • Track meal frequency and eating window times (when you eat your first and last meal) daily, as the survey was most accurate for these metrics. Record this in a simple format: breakfast time, lunch time, dinner time, and total fasting hours overnight.
  • Use the app to log your main meals (breakfast, lunch, dinner) rather than trying to track every snack, since the survey showed snacking is harder to measure accurately. Focus on meal timing if practicing time-restricted eating, as this was one of the most reliable measurements.
  • Weekly review of meal frequency patterns and eating windows rather than daily calorie counting. If the app includes snack tracking, use it as a general awareness tool but don’t rely on it for precise snack counts. Consider adding weekly food record entries (detailed logging) for 1-2 days per week to supplement the quick survey approach for more accurate nutritional data.

This research validates a dietary assessment tool in a small group of healthy adults during a specific fasting study. The findings should not be used to diagnose, treat, or manage any medical condition. Before making significant changes to your eating patterns or starting any fasting regimen, consult with a healthcare provider or registered dietitian. The short food survey described in this study is a research tool and is not a substitute for professional nutritional counseling. Individual results may vary based on age, health status, and other factors not studied here.