GLOSSARY

Energy Intake Plausibility How compatible a reported energy intake is with relevant physiological and assessment assumptions.

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.

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.

Usual intake describes a longer-term average rather than the intake of one isolated day. Day-to-day variation includes real differences between training, rest and competition days as well as measurement noise. Repeated observations should cover relevant conditions and be collected with a suitable method. Averaging a few unusual days can still give a misleading estimate. For the athlete, preserve useful information about distribution and timing: an acceptable weekly energy average can coexist with repeated underfueling around demanding sessions.

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 nutrition care record should explain the assessment, interpretation, agreed plan, responsible professionals and follow-up criteria. Separate reported information from measured findings and clinical judgments. Record relevant units, dates, methods and changes so that another practitioner can understand the decision. Seek consent for sharing sensitive information and limit access appropriately. A referral should communicate the specific concern and urgency rather than only a broad label. In sport, documentation should support continuity of care while protecting health information from inappropriate use in coaching or selection.