GLOSSARY

Expert Consensus A documented expert agreement used to interpret evidence and guide practice, with strength depending on its process and evidence base.

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.

A nutritional strategy should be evaluated by the quality and relevance of evidence, the athlete's response and the feasibility of implementation. Molecular signaling, a substrate-oxidation change, a laboratory capacity test and race performance are different outcomes. Association does not establish cause, and a response in one small study need not generalize to all athletes. Define the intended benefit before changing the plan, then evaluate training quality, recovery and performance under comparable circumstances rather than judging success by novelty.

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.