GLOSSARY

Alternate Healthy Eating Index (AHEI) A named diet-quality index using selected components associated with health evidence, interpreted according to its version and scoring rules.

Assess adequacy using usual intake, an appropriate requirement distribution and the purpose of the assessment. A single day below a recommended allowance does not diagnose deficiency. Population estimates and decisions about an individual require different reasoning; some methods also rely on assumptions that do not hold for every nutrient. Intake ratios summarize a comparison, not absorption or clinical status. An apparently favorable average across nutrients can hide a serious shortfall in one, so retain the individual nutrient findings and relevant clinical context.

A dietary pattern can improve health through several interacting food choices rather than a single named ingredient. Mediterranean, DASH and other regional patterns share some features but are not identical prescriptions. Specify the foods and substitutions actually used, and adapt them to culture and training. A pattern's association with a long-term outcome does not mean every branded version produces that outcome or that it automatically supplies the energy required by a competitive athlete.

For example, an athlete can score well for dietary variety while eating too little total food. Interpret a quality score according to its components and intended use. It can summarize a pattern, but it should not replace assessment of energy supply, nutrient-specific risks or practical fueling around training.

Food-label reference values support product comparison within the applicable labeling system. A percentage refers to a stated amount of food and a reference value; it is not a measurement of the eater's personal requirement. Check serving size, servings consumed and whether the panel is per serving or per mass. Label rules and permitted claims differ between jurisdictions. An athlete may need more carbohydrate or energy than the generic reference, while a large micronutrient percentage does not automatically improve performance or justify additional supplements.

Accuracy concerns closeness to an appropriate reference, while precision concerns repeatability; consistent measurements can still be systematically wrong. Validity asks whether a method supports its intended interpretation, and reliability asks how consistently it performs. Reporting error can reflect memory, burden, food omission or social pressure. An implausible estimate should prompt review rather than an accusation. Calibration may reduce specific errors under defined assumptions, but it does not turn every self-report into an exact measurement of an athlete's habitual intake.

Choose a dietary assessment method according to the question, population and resources. A recent intake record can explore meal timing around training; a frequency questionnaire can describe longer-term patterns. Neither automatically establishes exact habitual intake. Combine food details with training, access, symptoms, medication and relevant measurements. Explain uncertainties and what the method cannot answer. Good assessment produces a decision that can be reviewed, rather than an impressive nutrient report whose apparent precision exceeds the quality of the information collected.

A guideline translates evidence into recommendations for a defined population and setting; a consensus statement records an agreed expert interpretation. Neither format removes the need to inspect evidence quality, conflicts of interest, publication date and applicability. A strong-sounding position is not automatically supported by strong trials. Distinguish established practice from a research hypothesis, and revise advice when better evidence emerges. For athletes, explain which part is broadly supported and which is an individualized practical choice rather than presenting every option as mandatory.