Dietary Supplementation Practices in Canadian High-Performance Athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dietary supplementation is a common practice in athletes with a desire to enhance performance, training, exercise recovery, and health. Supplementation habits of elite athletes in western Canada have been documented, but research is lacking on supplement use by athletes across Canada. The purpose of this descriptive study was to evaluate the dietary supplementation practices and perspectives of high-performance Canadian athletes affiliated with each of the country's eight Canadian Sport Centres. Dietitians administered a validated survey to 440 athletes (63% women, 37% men; M=19.99±5.20 yr) representing 34 sports who predominantly trained≥16 hr/wk, most competing in "power" based sports. Within the previous 6 months, 87% declared having taken≥3 dietary supplements, with sports drinks, multivitamin and mineral preparations, carbohydrate sports bars, protein powder, and meal-replacement products the most prevalent supplements reported. Primary sources of information on supplementation, supplementation justification, and preferred means of supplementation education were identified. Fifty-nine percent reported awareness of current World Anti-Doping Agency legislation, and 83% subjectively believed they were in compliance with such anti-doping regulations. It was concluded that supplementation rates are not declining in Canada, current advisors on supplementation for this athletic population are not credible, and sports medicine physicians and dietitians need to consider proactive strategies to improve their influence on supplementation practices in these elite athletes.
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".