GLOSSARY

Precision Sports Nutrition Sports nutrition using relevant individual information and validated methods, without assuming that more biological data always produce better advice.

Personalization combines established nutrition principles with the person's training, health, food access, preferences and measured response. Genetics can influence nutrient metabolism, but a commercial gene report rarely determines a complete optimal diet or proves a performance benefit from a specific supplement. Distinguish a reproducible clinical finding from exploratory associations. Nutrigenetics examines variation between people, while nutrigenomics examines interactions between nutrition and genomic function. Use relevant validated information with informed consent and privacy, and avoid replacing ordinary assessment with an attractive but unproven personalized score.

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.

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.

Nutrient status reflects intake, absorption, distribution, stores, losses and physiological demand. A normal blood concentration may not exclude depleted stores, while an abnormal result can have non-nutritional causes. Calcium in blood, for example, does not directly measure dietary calcium adequacy or skeletal reserves. Different nutrients require different assessment strategies. Select tests for a defined clinical question and interpret them with symptoms, diet, relevant disease and sampling conditions instead of ordering a broad panel and assuming every number is a performance target.

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 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.