Dietary Supplement Usage, Motivation, and Education in Young Canadian Athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate dietary supplement use in young Canadian athletes, their motivation for consuming supplements, and their sources of information. METHODS: A questionnaire tested for content validity and reliability was administered to 567 athletes between the ages of 11 and 25 years from the Canadian athletic community in face-to-face meetings. Demographics and sport variables were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Fisher's exact tests were used to examine dietary supplementation patterns and sources of information regarding dietary supplement use between categories of gender, age, sport type, and competition level. RESULTS: Ninety-eight percent of athletes were taking at least one dietary supplement. Males were more likely to consume protein powder, energy drinks, recovery drinks, branched chain amino acids, beta-alanine, and glutamine (p < .01); supplements typically associated with increased muscle mass. Athletes 11-17 years old focused on vitamin and mineral supplements; whereas, athletes 18-25 years old focused on purported ergogenic supplements. Strength training athletes were more likely to consume creatine, glutamine, and protein powders (p < .02). Reasons for supplement use included to stay healthy, increase energy, immune system, recovery, and overall performance. Primary sources of information were family and friends, coaches, and athletic trainers; with 48% of athletes having met with a dietitian. Preferred means of education included individual consultations, presentations, and the internet. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of young athletes are using dietary supplements with the belief they will improve performance and health; however, may not always have reliable information. Educational programs using individual consultations and electronic media are recommended for this demographic.
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 | 0.000 | 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".