GLOSSARY

Nutrition Surveillance Systematic collection and interpretation of nutrition information at a population or program level to guide public-health action.

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.

Nutrition follow-up compares intended goals with actual intake, symptoms, function, relevant measurements and the person's experience. Specify the time frame and what would justify adjustment, continuation or referral. A treatment response can be beneficial, absent or adverse, and adherence alone does not prove effectiveness. Retain enough documentation to understand what changed. For an athlete, consider health and training quality alongside body mass or laboratory results so that apparent progress in one measure does not hide deterioration elsewhere.

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.

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 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.