Two studies are reported; a pilot study to demonstrate feasibility followed by a larger validity study. Study 1's objective was to test the effect of two ecological momentary assessment (EMA) approaches that varied in intensity on the validity/accuracy of estimating energy intake (EI) with the Remote Food Photography Method (RFPM) over 6 days in free‐living conditions. When using the RFPM, Smartphones are used to capture images of food selection and plate waste and to send the images to a server for food intake estimation. Consistent with EMA, prompts are sent to the Smartphones reminding participants to capture food images. During Study 1, EI estimated with the RFPM and the gold standard, doubly labeled water (DLW), were compared. Participants were assigned to receive Standard EMA Prompts (n = 24) or Customized Prompts (n = 16) (the latter received more reminders delivered at personalized meal times). The RFPM differed significantly from DLW at estimating EI when Standard (mean ± s.d. = −895 ± 770 kcal/day, P < 0.0001), but not Customized Prompts (−270 ± 748 kcal/day, P = 0.22) were used. Error (EI from the RFPM minus that from DLW) was significantly smaller with Customized vs. Standard Prompts. The objectives of Study 2 included testing the RFPM's ability to accurately estimate EI in free‐living adults (N = 50) over 6 days, and energy and nutrient intake in laboratory‐based meals. The RFPM did not differ significantly from DLW at estimating free‐living EI (−152 ± 694 kcal/day, P = 0.16). During laboratory‐based meals, estimating energy and macronutrient intake with the RFPM did not differ significantly compared to directly weighed intake.

Use of e-cigarettes has been increasing exponentially, with the primary motivation reported as smoking cessation. To understand why smokers choose e-cigarettes as an alternative to cigarettes, as well as to US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)--approved nicotine replacement therapies (NRT), we compared outcome expectancies (beliefs about the results of drug use) for the three nicotine delivery systems among vapers, i.e., e-cigarette users, who were former smokers. Vapers (N = 1,434) completed an online survey assessing 14 expectancy domains as well as perceived cost and convenience. We focused on comparisons between e-cigarettes and cigarettes to determine the attraction of e-cigarettes as a smoking alternative and between e-cigarettes and NRT to determine perceived advantages of e-cigarettes over FDA-approved pharmacotherapy. Participants believed that e-cigarettes, in comparison to conventional cigarettes, had fewer health risks; caused less craving, withdrawal, addiction, and negative physical feelings; tasted better; and were more satisfying. In contrast, conventional cigarettes were perceived as better than e-cigarettes for reducing negative affect, controlling weight, providing stimulation, and reducing stress. E-cigarettes, compared to NRT, were perceived to be less risky, cost less, cause fewer negative physical feelings, taste better, provide more satisfaction, and be better at reducing craving, negative affect, and stress. Moderator analyses indicated history with ad libitum forms of NRT was associated with less positive NRT expectancies. The degree to which expectancies for e-cigarettes differed from expectancies for either tobacco cigarettes or NRT offers insight into the motivation of e-cigarette users and provides guidance for public health and clinical interventions to encourage smoking-related behavior change.