Search

Abstract Background Despite the growing body of literature and putative links between the use of ergogenic nutritional supplements, doping and illicit drugs, it remains unclear whether, in athletes' minds, doping aligns with illicit behaviour or with functional use of chemical or natural preparations. To date, no attempt has been made to quantitatively explore athletes' mental representation of doping in relation to illegality and functionality. Methods A convenience sample of student athletes from a large South-Eastern Australian university responded to an on-line survey. Competitive athletes (n = 46) were grouped based on self-reported use as follows: i) none used (30%), ii) supplement only (22%), iii) illicit only (26%) and iv) both supplements and illicit drug use (22%). Whereas no athlete reported doping, data provided on projected supplement-, doping- and drug use by the four user groups allowed evaluation of doping-related cognition in the context of self-reported supplement- and illicit drug taking behaviour; and comparison between these substances. Results A significantly higher prevalence estimation was found for illicit drug use and a trend towards a biased social projection emerged for supplement use. Doping estimates by user groups showed mixed results, suggesting that doping had more in common with the ergogenic nutritional supplement domain than the illicit drug domain. Conclusions Assessing the behavioural domain to which doping belongs to in athletes' mind would greatly advance doping behaviour research toward prevention and intervention. Further investigation refining the peculiarity of the mental representation of doping with a larger study sample, controlling for knowledge of doping and other factors, is warranted.

Abstract Background The 'False Consensus Effect' (FCE), by which people perceive their own actions as relatively common behaviour, might be exploited to gauge whether a person engages in controversial behaviour, such as performance enhancing drug (PED) use. Hypothesis It is assumed that people's own behaviour, owing to the FCE, affects their estimation of the prevalence of that behaviour. It is further hypothesised that a person's estimate of PED population use is a reliable indicator of the doping behaviour of that person, in lieu of self-reports. Testing the hypothesis Over- or underestimation is calculated from investigating known groups (i.e. users vs. non-users), using a short questionnaire, and a known prevalence rate from official reports or sample evidence. It is proposed that sample evidence from self-reported behaviour should be verified using objective biochemical analyses. In order to find proofs of concept for the existence of false consensus, a pilot study was conducted. Data were collected among competitive UK student-athletes (n = 124) using a web-based anonymous questionnaire. User (n = 9) vs. non-user (n = 76) groups were established using self-reported information on doping use and intention to use PEDs in hypothetical situations. Observed differences in the mean estimation of doping made by the user group exceeded the estimation made by the non-user group (35.11% vs. 15.34% for general doping and 34.25% vs. 26.30% in hypothetical situations, respectively), thus providing preliminary evidence in support of the FCE concept in relation to doping. Implications of the hypothesis The presence of the FCE in estimating doping prevalence or behaviour in others suggests that the FCE based approach may be an avenue for developing an indirect self-report mechanism for PED use behaviour. The method may be successfully adapted to the estimation of prevalence of behaviours where direct self-reports are assumed to be distorted by socially desirable responding. Thus this method can enhance available information on socially undesirable, health compromising behaviour (i.e. PED use) for policy makers and healthcare professionals. The importance of the method lies in its usefulness in epidemiological studies, not in individual assessments.

Abstract Background Athletes are expected to consider multiple factors when making informed decision about nutritional supplement use. Besides rules, regulations and potential health hazards, the efficacy of different nutritional supplements in performance enhancement is a key issue. The aim of this paper was to find evidence for informed decision making by investigating the relationship between specific performance-related reasons for supplement use and the reported use of nutritional supplements. Methods The 'UK Sport 2005 Drug Free Survey' data (n = 874) were re-analysed using association [χ2] and 'strength of association' tests [ϕ] to show the proportion of informed choices and to unveil incongruencies between self-reported supplement use and the underlying motives. Results Participants (n = 520) reported supplement use in the pattern of: vitamin C (70.4%), creatine (36.1%), whey protein (30.6%), iron (29.8%), caffeine (23.8%), and ginseng (8.3%) for the following reasons: strength maintenance (38.1%), doctors' advice (24.2%), enhancing endurance (20.0%), ability to train longer (13.3%), and provided by the governing body (3.8%). Of thirty possible associations between the above supplements and reasons, 11 were predictable from literature precedents and only 8 were evidenced and these were not strong (ϕ < .7). The best associations were for the ability to train longer with creatine (reported by 73.9%, χ2 = 49.14, p < .001; ϕ = .307, p < .001), and maintaining strength with creatine (reported by 62.6%, χ2 = 97.08, p < .001; ϕ = .432, p < .001) and whey protein (reported by 56.1%, χ2 = 97.82, p < .001; ϕ = .434, p < .001). Conclusion This study provided a platform for assessing congruence between athletes' reasons for supplement use and their actual use. These results suggest that a lack of understanding exists in supplement use. There is an urgent need to provide accurate information which will help athletes make informed choices about the use of supplements.

Abstract Background 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. Methods The 'UK Sport 2005 Drug Free Survey' data (n = 874) were re-analysed using association [χ2] and 'strength of association' tests [φ], 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 (φ > .7), intermediate (7 < φ > .3) and weak (φ < .3). Results 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 (χ2 = 11.94, p < .001; φ = .15, p = .001), multivitamin (χ2 = 6.43, p < .001; φ = .11, p = .011), vitamin C (χ2 = 54.67, p < .001; φ = .32, p < .001) and echinacea (χ2 = 40.34, p < .001; φ = .28, p < .001)]. The remaining 4 associations were: no time to prepare meals with ginseng (χ2 = 7.64, p = .006; φ = .12, p = .006) and multivitamin (χ2 = 9.103, p = .003; φ = .13, p = .003); overcoming injuries with magnesium (χ2 = 6.99, p = .008; φ = .11, p = .008); doctors' advice and iron (χ2 = 35.00, p < .001; φ = .25, p = .001). Conclusion 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.