GLOSSARY

Misreporting A mismatch between reported and actual intake that can involve either underreporting or overreporting.

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.