Known limitations of these apps include limited nutrient data, particularly for micronutrients, and inaccurate nutrient compositions. However, this form of dietary assessment has yet to be validated and wholly accepted by health care providers to confidently recommend its use. The apps may also enable greater self-monitoring by individuals with chronic diseases such as obesity, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes, contributing to nutrition care. Benefits that arise from this method are the ease of use, convenience, and logging of food in real time, and the wide availability of these apps via downloading from app stores. These apps provide information about the user’s overall energy intake and expenditure. The advancement of technology has led to the development of novel electronic dietary assessment methods, for example, in the form of nutrition-related apps, which are commonly used on mobile phones. Bland-Altman analysis revealed potential proportional bias for vitamin A. Samsung Health had the greatest variation of correlation, with energy at r=.79. Noom Coach was limited to energy output, but it had a high correlation with Dietplan6 ( r=.91). Correlation coefficients ranged from r=–.12 for iron (Samsung Health vs Dietplan6) to r=.91 for protein (FatSecret vs Dietplan6).

We observed no other significant differences between Dietplan6 and the apps.

Samsung Health and MyFitnessPal significantly underestimated calcium, iron, and vitamin C compared with Dietplan6, although there was no significant difference for vitamin A.

Lose It! also gave significantly lower estimates for other reported outputs (carbohydrate, fat, fiber, and sodium) than did Dietplan6. Estimates of protein and sodium intake were significantly lower using Lose It! and FatSecret than using Dietplan6. The difference in estimation of energy and saturated fat intake between Dietplan6 and the diet apps was not significant.

Under armour food tracker