GLOSSARY

Energy Intake Overreporting means reported energy intake is higher than actual intake over the relevant period. Portion or composition errors and unrepresentative recording can contribute, so the source of disagreement should be investigated.

Food records and recalls can omit items, misjudge portions or alter eating behavior. Underreporting and overreporting describe differences between reported and actual intake, not proof of deliberate dishonesty. A low reported value may reflect a genuinely short-term deficit as well as measurement error. Review methods, recording days and weight stability before interpretation. Energy expenditure can help validate intake under appropriate assumptions, but expenditure during a changing-energy-store period is not identical to actual intake.

Goldberg-style screening compares reported energy intake with basal metabolic rate while accounting for expected activity, variation and the duration or design of observation. It is not a single universal diagnostic cutoff. Applying a population assumption to a highly active athlete may misclassify a plausible report, and passing a cutoff does not validate every food item. Use the method to identify reports needing closer scrutiny, with its assumptions stated, rather than treating it as proof of true intake or an eating disorder.

Over a defined interval, a difference between metabolizable energy intake and energy expenditure changes stored body energy. This principle does not imply that daily scale weight directly reveals energy balance. Water, glycogen and gut contents also contribute to body mass. Intake and expenditure influence each other through behavior and physiology, so projecting the same daily deficit indefinitely creates unrealistic predictions. Interpret the energy equation together with its timescale and the composition of the tissues changing.

For example, a food record showing surprisingly low intake may omit drinks, oils or snacks, or may represent an unusually low-intake day. Clarify the recording method and period without assuming intentional deception. Compare with expenditure and body-energy-store changes only under appropriate assumptions, then improve the record before drawing a firm conclusion.

Total expenditure includes energy needed at rest, the thermic effect of food and physical activity. Planned exercise is only part of activity expenditure. Work, walking and spontaneous movement can also matter. When an estimate already includes a component, adding it again double counts energy. Establish whether an exercise value is gross or net of resting expenditure, and use the same convention when comparing days or combining wearable estimates with a daily energy model.

Energy requirements depend on body size and composition, activity, life stage and physiological circumstances. A maintenance estimate is a starting point for a defined situation rather than a permanent personal calorie ceiling. Training load, recovery, appetite and changes in body mass help evaluate its usefulness. Growth, illness or a change in training schedule may require reassessment. Adequate energy also needs appropriate carbohydrate, protein, fat and micronutrient provision; matching a calorie total alone does not guarantee a balanced sports diet.

Validity concerns whether a method estimates the intended quantity accurately, while reliability concerns consistency on repetition. A method can repeat well while remaining biased. Technical error and prediction error also describe different sources of uncertainty. Small changes should be interpreted relative to relevant measurement error, with the same protocol used over time. Agreement at group level does not guarantee close agreement for every individual athlete, and switching instruments can create an apparent change that is methodological rather than biological.