Report – Write a scientific report examining the potential impact of errors introduced in the nutritional coding of dietary recalls in a defined population group.
Tabulate a brief critique (positive and negative aspects) of their diet assuming the individual was a
(i) 49 year old male ‘weight watcher;’
(ii)75 year old Muslim female;
(iii) female vegan teenager; or a
(iv) 25 year old professional footballer.

2000 words
Harvard refernces style
Nutritics report and SPPS data results attached

Step 1: Module material has been designed to develop skills. you will be introduced to ‘how and why’ we use dietary assessment in the breadth of nutritional science. Using this learning (and additional reading as necessary), complete Task 1:

TASK 1: Compare and contrast the capacity of a single, multiple-pass 24 hour recall for assessment of intake in the context of (i) nutritional epidemiology (i.e., use of epidemiological approaches to determine relations between dietary factors and the occurrence of specific diseases in a population) and (ii) dietetics (i.e., the practical application of diet in the prophylaxis and treatment of disease in an individual).
• Introduction: Half a side of A4 rationalising the importance of a clear research question using reference to evidence from published material (10% marks).

Step 2: We introduce you to Nutritics Nutritional Analysis software, where you can review the effects of food production, storage, processing and preparation on nutrient composition for example. Use this software to complete task 2. Please find attached 24-hour recall report for a person named Kate Croft

TASK 2: A single multiple-pass 24 hour recall collected by the module leader as part of data collection for the INTERMAP study (Dennis et al., 2013) has been made available to you. You are required to – in the student engagement week (WK5) – analyse this recall and estimate the contents of: Energy (MJ); Fat (g); Protein (g); CHO (g); Saturated fat (g); Sugar (g); Fibre (g); Sodium (mg) and Vitamin D (µg) levels. NB., By 10am, 3rd November 2016, you are required to upload your analytic results onto the module Share Drive (variance in your calculation results is expected!). A final dataset – for use in assessment 2 – will be created at this time. (attached) If you do not upload your intake estimates by this date/ time, 5% of the marks available for coursework 2 will be deducted.

Step 3: In timetabled sessions, you will develop skills using SPSS and Nutritics (e.g., WKs 2, 6-11). Use these sessions to (TASK 3) create some visual examples (figures/tables) outlining where variance exists when coding dietary intake data. (document attached) You are encouraged to look at several different aspects, for example consider (a) variance in how different nutrition – students code the same record of dietary intake for a variety of nutrients (macro/ micronutrients) and (b) effects of using absolute (weight) and proportional (percentage of energy) estimates in comparisons.

Step 4: Dietary assessment methods are used to consider the impact of dietary intakes on health outcomes/ performance goals. We typically use Dietary Reference Values (DRV) and Food Based Dietary Guidelines (FBDG) to guide such evaluations. TASK 4 requires you to consider the individual from whom this 24 hour recall was collected.

• Methods: A brief summary of the methods used to (i) collect; (ii) manipulate/ process; (iii) quality control check and (iv) statistically analyse the pooled class data to answer your question (25% marks).

Tabulate a brief critique (positive and negative aspects) of their diet assuming the individual was a (i) 49 year old male ‘weight watcher;’ (ii) 75 year old Muslim female; (iii) female vegan teenager; or a (iv) 25 year old professional footballer.

Step 5: Concise writing

• Results: Clear and logical presentation of results created from processes described in the methods section. Results should be understandable in the text alone, with additional clarity/ depth of detail added when information in tables/ figures (all of which should be understandable without reference to the text) are considered. A minimum of 2 and maximum of 5 tables/ figures should be included in this section (30% marks).

• Discussion: Evidence-based section showing how the research question (established in introduction) was answered using the methods and results included. A concise ‘answer’ to the research question is included, and evidence from published literature is used to contextualise the importance of your results (25% marks).

• References/ Formatting: Clear, concise and scientifically substantiated statements. Report referenced correctly using the Harvard System. Figures/ tables labelled appropriately (5% marks).