Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prevalence of supplement use amongst Olympic Athletes has not been previously reported. This is the first survey to review and document the use of all supplements by Canadian Olympic athletes immediately prior to competition in the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta. Canadian athletes were asked to list all prescribed and over-the-counter medications, vitamins, and dietary supplements. Two hundred and fifty-seven athletes {83.4%} completed the questionnaire. These athletes represented 21 different Olympic sports and 52% were women. Sixty-two percent took vitamin supplements, 31% used mineral supplements, 39% used dietary supplements (nutritional, herbal and homeopathic) and 60.7% used some type of over-the-counter medication. The highest prevalence of dietary supplement use occurred in swimming {74%}, rowing {72%}, athletics {60%}, and women's basketball {50%}. The use of vitamins and minerals was also high in these groups, suggesting that those taking dietary supplements are likely to also use vitamin and mineral supplements. Twenty-five percent took one vitamin supplement, 19.8% took one mineral supplement, and 21.4% took one dietary supplement. Nineteen took two vitamin supplements, 7.8% took two mineral supplements, and 10.1% took two dietary supplements. Ten percent took three vitamin supplements, 2.7% took three mineral supplements, and 3.9% took three dietary supplements. Eight percent took four or more vitamin supplements, 0.8% took four or more mineral supplements, and 3.5% took four or more dietary supplements. Supplement use is common amongst Canadian Olympic athletes in spite of evidence that athletes do not have any vitamin or mineral deficiencies and that nutritional supplements fail to exhibit any ergogenic effect. Widespread supplement use combined with absence of evidence for supplement efficacy underscores the need for appropriate focused educational initiatives in this area.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".