Strengths and limitations
The strength of the present study is the large study sample of validating EI against TEEThere are several limitations to this study. First, we used a TEEAnother possible limitation in this study is the short-time interval (approximately 6 d) between the two dietary assessments. This could influence the dietary assessment in several ways; by a decline in the quality of dietary reporting due to the study load resulting in poorer dietary assessment with the last method or altered eating habits because of the continued awareness of own dietary habits or to avoid the hassle of reporting. It could also result in better reporting with the last method because of the training practice, for example, remembering all the details asked about in the 24 h DR, and therefore being more attentive to the last method, if this was the 7 d FD. It was not practical to prolong the study period because it was considered important that the DLW covered as much of the dietary and PA assessment period as possible, and this was considered the best way. However, to account for the carry-over effect between dietary assessment methods and make this equal for both methods, we applied a cross-over design. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in EI depending on the administration order of the assessment methods.Finally, the high proportion of volunteer participants with longer education (45 % 