Comparing a 7-Day Food Diary and Repeated 24-Hour Dietary Recall for Estimating Usual and Operational Definitions of...

Background: Accurate dietary assessment is essential for estimating habitual and acute exposures. This study compared a 7-day food diary (7dFD) and repeated 24-h dietary recall (2×24hDR) for habitual and acute intake. Habitual fish and n-3 PUFA estimates were evaluated against whole-blood EPA and DHA, and acute intake of fish, rye bread, and coffee was explored using operational indicators. Methods: In a within-subject comparative design, 120 Danish adults aged 18-60 years completed both methods. Fish and n-3 fatty acid intakes were compared with whole-blood EPA and DHA. Usual fish intake from 2×24hDR was estimated using the Multiple Source Method (MSM) with Food Propensity Questionnaire (FPQ) data. Acute intake was assessed using single-day, consumption-day, single-meal, maximum-day, and meal-weighted estimates. Results: EPA, DHA, total fish, and fatty fish intakes estimated from the 7dFD and MSM-adjusted 2×24hDR correlated with biomarkers r = 0.23-0.46. Supplement inclusion improved EPA and DHA correlations (r = 0.26-0.59). The unadjusted 2×24hDR identified fewer fish consumers than the 7dFD (63% vs. 88%), whereas FPQ-based modelling identified 97%. Acute intake estimates varied by method and definition: the 2×24hDR produced higher short-term and upper- percentile estimates, while the 7dFD produced more stable distributions. Limitations include modest sample size, upper-percentile uncertainty, and non-equivalent supplement assessment. Conclusions: In this adult convenience sample, the 7dFD provided more stable habitual intake estimates, whereas the 2×24hDR produced higher short-term and upper-percentile estimates under the applied operational acute-intake definitions. These findings are context-dependent and should not be taken as evidence that either method is generally superior.