UC Davis

BACKGROUND: Currently, no simplified approach to estimating food costs exists for a large, nationally representative sample. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to compare 2 approaches for estimating individual daily diet costs in a population of low-income women in California. DESIGN: Cost estimates based on time-intensive method 1 (three 24-h recalls and associated food prices on receipts) were compared with estimates made by using less intensive method 2 [a food-frequency questionnaire (FFQ) and store prices]. Low-income participants (n = 121) of USDA nutrition programs were recruited. Mean daily diet costs, both unadjusted and adjusted for energy, were compared by using Pearson correlation coefficients and the Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement between methods. RESULTS: Energy and nutrient intakes derived by the 2 methods were comparable; where differences occurred, the FFQ (method 2) provided higher nutrient values than did the 24-h recall (method 1). The crude daily diet cost was $6.32 by the 24-h recall method and $5.93 by the FFQ method (P = 0.221). The energy-adjusted diet cost was $6.65 by the 24-h recall method and $5.98 by the FFQ method (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although the agreement between methods was weaker than expected, both approaches may be useful. Additional research is needed to further refine a large national survey approach (method 2) to estimate daily dietary costs with the use of this minimal time-intensive method for the participant and moderate time-intensive method for the researcher.