['Adjustment for body weight and physical activity has been suggested as an alternative to adjusting for reported energy intake in nutritional epidemiology. We examined which of these approaches would yield stronger correlations between nutrients and their biomarkers.', 'A cross-sectional study in which dietary fatty acids, carotenoids and retinol were adjusted for reported energy intake and, separately, for weight and physical activity using the residual method. Correlations between adjusted nutrients and their biomarkers were examined.', 'USA.', 'Cases and controls from a nested case-control study of erythrocyte fatty acids and CHD (n 442) and of plasma carotenoids and retinol and breast cancer (n 1254).', 'Correlations between intakes and plasma levels of trans-fatty acids were 0·30 (energy-adjusted) and 0·16 (weight- and activity-adjusted); for erythrocyte levels, the corresponding correlations were 0·37 and 0·25. Energy-adjusted intakes of linoleic acid and α-linolenic acid were more strongly correlated with their respective biomarkers than weight- and activity-adjusted intakes, but the differences were not significant except for linoleic acid (erythrocyte). Weight- and activity-adjusted DHA intake was slightly more strongly correlated with its plasma biomarker than energy-adjusted intake (0·37 v. 0·34). Neither method made a difference for DHA (erythrocyte), carotenoids and retinol.'] Is energy adjustment of nutrient intakes preferable to adjustment using body weight and physical activity in epidemiological analyses?