The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Validity of Dietary Assessment in Athletes: A Systematic Review
Preprint — published as 10.3390/nu9121313 · Paper page
Abstract
Dietary assessment methods recognized as appropriate for the general population are usually applied in a similar manner to athletes, despite knowledge that sport-specific factors can complicate assessment and impact accuracy in unique ways. As dietary assessment methods are used extensively within the field of sports nutrition, there is concern the validity of methodologies have not undergone more rigorous evaluation in this unique population sub-group. The purpose was to systematically review studies comparing two or more methods of dietary assessment, including dietary intake measured against biomarkers or reference measures of energy expenditure, in athletes. Six electronic databases were searched for English-language, full-text articles published from January 1980 until June 2016. The search strategy combined the following keywords: diet, nutrition assessment, athlete and validity; where the following outcomes are reported but not limited to: energy intake, macro and/or micronutrient intake, food intake, nutritional adequacy, diet quality, or nutritional status. Meta-analysis was performed on studies with sufficient methodological similarity, with between-group standardized mean differences (or effect size) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) calculated. Of the 1624 studies identified, 18 were eligible for inclusion. Studies comparing self-reported energy intake (EI) to energy expenditure assessed via doubly labelled water were grouped for comparison (n=11) and demonstrated mean EI was under-estimated by 19 % (- 2793 ± 1134 kJ/d). Meta-analysis revealed a large pooled effect size of - 1.006 (95% CI: -1.3 to -0.7; p<0.001). The remaining studies (n=7) compared a new dietary tool or instrument to a reference method(s) (e.g. food record, 24-h dietary recall, biomarker) as part of a validation study. This systematic review revealed there are limited robust studies evaluating dietary assessment methods in athletes. Existing literature demonstrates substantial variability between methods, with under and misreporting of intake frequently observed. There is a clear need for careful validation of dietary assessment methods, including emerging technical innovations, among athlete populations.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“In this regard, biases due to under or misreporting of, mainly, unhealthy foods are commonly found when dietary records are performed [40,41].”
From Nutritional Status and Implementation of a Nutritional Education Program in Young Female Artistic Gymnasts (2021) · cites this paper as [41]
In the citing paper
“when dietary records were performed in populations such as that used in the present study, under and miss-reporting biases could be produced [40,41]”
From Nutritional Status and Implementation of a Nutritional Education Program in Young Female Artistic Gymnasts (2021) · cites this paper as [41]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
Cited by 52
Metadata
- Authors
- Capling, L., Beck, K. L., Gifford, J. A., Slater, G., Flood, V. M., & O'Connor, H.
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2017-10-12
- Cited by
- 52
- Type
- Preprint
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Validity of Dietary Assessment in Athletes: A Systematic Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.20944/preprints201710.0081.v1
- The paper
- Capling, L., Beck, K. L., Gifford, J. A., Slater, G., Flood, V. M., & O'Connor, H. (2017). Validity of Dietary Assessment in Athletes: A Systematic Review. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints201710.0081.v1
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.