An Assessment of the Validity of the Remote Food Photography Method (Termed Snap-N-Send) in Experienced and Inexperienced Sport Nutritionists
Reuben G. Stables, Andreas Kasper, S. Andy Sparks, James P. Morton, Graeme L. Close
Abstract
The remote food photography method, often referred to as "Snap-N-Send" by sport nutritionists, has been reported as a valid method to assess energy intake in athletic populations. However, preliminary studies were not conducted in true free-living conditions, and dietary assessment was performed by one researcher only. The authors, therefore, assessed the validity of Snap-N-Send to assess the energy and macronutrient composition in experienced (EXP, n = 23) and inexperienced (INEXP, n = 25) sport nutritionists. The participants analyzed 2 days of dietary photographs, comprising eight meals. Day 1 consisted of "simple" meals based around easily distinguishable foods (i.e., chicken breast and rice), and Day 2 consisted of "complex" meals, containing "hidden" ingredients (i.e., chicken curry). The estimates of dietary intake were analyzed for validity using one-sample t tests and typical error of estimates (TEE). The INEXP and EXP nutritionists underestimated energy intake for the simple day (mean difference [MD] = -1.5 MJ, TEE = 10.1%; -1.2 MJ, TEE = 9.3%, respectively) and the complex day (MD = -1.2 MJ, TEE = 17.8%; MD = -0.6 MJ, 14.3%, respectively). Carbohydrate intake was underestimated by INEXP (MD = -65.5 g/day, TEE = 10.8% and MD = -28.7 g/day, TEE = 24.4%) and EXP (MD = -53.4 g/day, TEE = 10.1% and -19.9 g/day, TEE = 17.5%) for both the simple and complex days, respectively. Interpractitioner reliability was generally "poor" for energy and macronutrients. The data demonstrate that the remote food photography method/Snap-N-Send underestimates energy intake in simple and complex meals, and these errors are evident in the EXP and INEXP sport nutritionists.