ArticleCurrent problems in cardiology
The Validity of US Nutritional Surveillance: USDA's Loss-Adjusted Food Availability Data Series 1971-2010.
Article in Current problems in cardiology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- United States Dietary Trends Since 1800: Lack of Association Between Saturated Fatty Acid Consumption and Non-communicable Diseases.Frontiers in nutrition · 2021Pooled it
- Review
- Correction: United States dietary trends since 1800: lack of association between saturated fatty acid consumption and non-communicable diseases.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
- Analysis of factors influencing college students' food waste behavior and evaluation of labor education intervention.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Misrepresentation of the Pennington Biomedical Research Center Weight Loss Predictor.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2018Article
- Simulating long-term human weight-loss dynamics in response to calorie restriction.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2018Article
- The NHANES dietary data are physiologically implausible and inadmissible as scientific evidence.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the validity of the 1971-2010 United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) loss-adjusted food availability (LAFA) per capita caloric consumption estimates. Estimated total daily energy expenditure (TEE) was calculated for nationally representative samples of US adults, 20-74 years, using the Institute of Medicine's predictive equations with "low-active" (TEE L-ACT) and "sedentary" (TEE SED) physical activity values. TEE estimates were subtracted from LAFA estimates to create disparity values (kcal/d). A validated mathematical model was applied to calculate expected weight change in reference individuals resulting from the disparity. From 1971-2010, the disparity between LAFA and TEE L-ACT varied by 394kcal/d-(P < 0.001), from -205kcal/d (95% CI: -214, -196) to +189kcal/d (95% CI: 168, 209). The disparity between LAFA and TEE SED varied by 412kcal/d (P < 0.001), from -84kcal/d (95% CI: -93, -76) to +328kcal/d (95% CI: 309, 348). Our model suggests that if LAFA estimates were actually consumed, reference individuals would have lost ~1-4kg/y from 1971-1980 (an accumulated loss of ~12 to ~36kg), and gained ~3-7kg/y from 1988-2010 (an accumulated gain of ~42 to ~98kg). These estimates differed from the actual measured increments of 10kg and 9kg in reference men and women, respectively, over the 39-year period. The USDA LAFA data provided inconsistent, divergent estimates of per capita caloric consumption over its 39-year history. The large, variable misestimation suggests that the USDA LAFA per capita caloric intake estimates lack validity and should not be used to inform public policy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.