Dietary supplements and medications in elite sport – polypharmacy or real need?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to describe qualitatively and quantitatively dietary supplements (DS) and medication use in elite athletes. Athletes (n=912; age 23.9 ± 6 years; 72% male) reported medications and DSs taken within 3 days before doping control. We analyzed data collected from 2006 to 2008, identified and classified substances. Total of 74.6% athletes reported use of at least one substance, 61.2% took DS (3.17 per user) and 40.6% took medications. Among users, 21.2% reported the use of six and more different products, and one took 17 different products at the same time. Majority of medication users took non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) (24.7%), and 22.2% used more than one NSAID. We found no gender differences in DS use (P=0.83). Individual sport athletes used more DS (P<0.01). Our study showed widespread use of DS and drugs by elite athletes. Consumption of DS with no evident performance or health benefits, demonstrated the need for specific educational programs focused on DS use. Amount, quantity and combination of the reported products raised concern about the risk of potential side effects.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".