This Position Paper from the Academy of Nutrition Sciences is the third in a series which describe the nature of the scientific evidence and frameworks that underpin nutrition recommendations for health. This paper focuses on evidence which guides the application of dietary recommendations for individuals. In some situations, modified nutrient intake becomes essential to prevent deficiency, optimise development and health, or manage symptoms and disease progression. Disease and its treatment can also affect taste, appetite and ability to access and prepare foods, with associated financial impacts. Therefore, the practice of nutrition and dietetics must integrate and apply the sciences of food, nutrition, biology, physiology, behaviour, management, communication and society to achieve and maintain human health. Thus, there is huge complexity in delivering evidence-based nutrition interventions to individuals. This paper examines available frameworks for appraising the quality and certainty of nutrition research evidence, the development nutrition practice guidelines to support evidence implementation in practice and the influence of other sources of nutrition information and misinformation. The paper also considers major challenges in applying research evidence to an individual and suggests consensus recommendations to begin to address these challenges in the future. Our recommendations target three groups; those who deliver nutrition interventions to individuals, those funding, commissioning or undertaking research aimed at delivering evidence-based nutrition practice, and those disseminating nutritional information to individuals.

In chronic spinal cord injury (SCI), individuals experience dietary inadequacies complicated by an understudied research area. Our objectives were to assess (1) the agreement between methods of estimating energy requirement (EER) and estimated energy intake (EEI) and (2) whether dietary protein intake met SCI-specific protein guidelines. Persons with chronic SCI (n = 43) completed 3-day food records to assess EEI and dietary protein intake. EER was determined with the Long and Institute of Medicine (IOM) methods and the SCI-specific Farkas method. Protein requirements were calculated as 0·8–1·0 g/kg of body weight (BW)/d. Reporting accuracy and bias were calculated and correlated to body composition. Compared with IOM and Long methods (P < 0·05), the SCI-specific method did not overestimate the EEI (P = 0·200). Reporting accuracy and bias were best for SCI-specific (98·9 %, −1·12 %) compared with Long (94·8 %, −5·24 %) and IOM (64·1 %, −35·4 %) methods. BW (r = –0·403), BMI (r = –0·323) and total fat mass (r = –0·346) correlated with the IOM reporting bias (all, P < 0·05). BW correlated with the SCI-specific and Long reporting bias (r = –0·313, P = 0·041). Seven (16 %) participants met BW-specific protein guidelines. The regression of dietary protein intake on BW demonstrated no association between the variables (β = 0·067, P = 0·730). In contrast, for every 1 kg increase in BW, the delta between total and required protein intake decreased by 0·833 g (P = 0·0001). The SCI-specific method for EER had the best agreement with the EEI. Protein intake decreased with increasing BW, contrary to protein requirements for chronic SCI.