The use of performance-enhancing substances amongst recreational gym users: investigating prevalence, knowledge, risk factors and attitudes toward doping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)-banned substances is not limited to elite sport settings, but permeates all levels of sports, including amongst recreational gym users. The prevalence of recreational gym users in Canada who use WADA-banned substances is unknown, and few interventions have been implemented to attempt to decrease this usage. The purpose of this study is to identify the prevalence of use of WADA-banned substances amongst recreational gym users exercising within the recreational facilities of a major Canadian university and determine if any risk factors identified in the research literature (including gender, body image, dietary supplements, age and sport type) contribute to the use of these substances by recreational gym users. This study also measures the participants’ attitudes toward WADA-banned substances and their knowledge about WADA-banned substances. Participants were 278 male and female recreational gym users who use the selected university’s recreational facilities. Each participant completed an online questionnaire containing questions about demographics, sport type, dietary supplement use, body dissatisfaction, and attitudes towards doping in sport (the Performance Enhancement Attitude Scale: PEAS, Petróczi, 2006). The data indicates that WADA-banned substances use is relatively high (13.7%) amongst recreational gym users. The results also indicate that males, participants who use nutritional supplements, participants who are not satisfied with their current body image, and participants who are in their mid-20s are more likely to take WADA-banned substances. Therefore, all risk factors including gender, body image, use of nutritional supplements, age and sport type indicate a positive relationship with doping behaviour. Participants’ knowledge of WADA-banned substances is low. The results of this study suggest administrators of recreational gyms need to be concerned about WADA-banned substance use by recreational gym users due to the potential side effects of some WADA-banned substances that some of gym members are using.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".