↓ Skip to main content

Limited agreement exists between rationale and practice in athletes' supplement use for maintenance of health: a retrospective study

Overview of attention for article published in Nutrition Journal, October 2007
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
86 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Limited agreement exists between rationale and practice in athletes' supplement use for maintenance of health: a retrospective study
Published in
Nutrition Journal, October 2007
DOI 10.1186/1475-2891-6-34
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrea Petróczi, Declan P Naughton, Jason Mazanov, Allison Holloway, Jerry Bingham

Abstract

The widespread use of nutritional supplements among athletes is poorly understood. The prevalence of supplement intake and users' knowledge have been researched independently leading to useful, but disconnected, information on supplement use. The 'UK Sport 2005 Drug Free Survey' data (n = 874) were re-analysed using association [chi2] and 'strength of association' tests [phi], to discover observed incongruencies between self-reported supplement use and the underlying motives. Results are given for test pairs between 'motive for use' [doctor's advice, avoiding sickness, overcoming injuries and enhancement of diet] and each supplement used and these were categorized as strong (phi > .7), intermediate (7 < phi > .3) and weak (phi < .3). The use of selected supplements varied widely as follows: multivitamin (72.7%), vitamin C (70.4%), echinacea (30.8%), iron (29.8%), magnesium (11.0%) and ginseng (8.3%). Associations with motive were found in 8 of the 10 test pairs which were expected from literature precedents, however only weak associations exist. Of these, four were associated with avoidance of sickness [iron (chi2 = 11.94, p < .001; phi = .15, p = .001), multivitamin (chi2 = 6.43, p < .001; phi = .11, p = .011), vitamin C (chi2 = 54.67, p < .001; phi = .32, p < .001) and echinacea (chi2 = 40.34, p < .001; phi = .28, p < .001)]. The remaining 4 associations were: no time to prepare meals with ginseng (chi2 = 7.64, p = .006; phi = .12, p = .006) and multivitamin (chi2 = 9.103, p = .003; phi = .13, p = .003); overcoming injuries with magnesium (chi2 = 6.99, p = .008; phi = .11, p = .008); doctors' advice and iron (chi2 = 35.00, p < .001; phi = .25, p = .001). These results suggest a lack of understanding regarding supplements and health maintenance, except for vitamin C and echinacea. Furthermore, supplement use is apparently independent of physicians/dieticians' advice, except for iron. This may suggest a widespread circumvention of expert advice in the growing area of supplement use and therefore should be addressed to underscore potential health risks.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 2%
Netherlands 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 82 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 22%
Researcher 10 12%
Student > Bachelor 10 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Other 18 21%
Unknown 14 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 21%
Sports and Recreations 17 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 5%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 19 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 April 2016.
All research outputs
#18,450,346
of 22,860,626 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition Journal
#1,270
of 1,430 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,018
of 76,603 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition Journal
#14
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,860,626 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,430 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.3. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 76,603 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.