IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v20y2023i13p6244-d1182069.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Athletes Perceived Level of Risk Associated with Botanical Food Supplement Use and Their Sources of Information

Author

Listed:
  • Bridin McDaid

    (School of Biological Sciences, Institute for Global Food Security, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast BT9 5DL, UK)

  • Floris C. Wardenaar

    (College of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ 85004, USA)

  • Jayne V. Woodside

    (Centre for Public Health, Institute for Global Food Security, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast BT9 7BL, UK)

  • Charlotte E. Neville

    (Centre for Public Health, Institute for Global Food Security, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast BT9 7BL, UK)

  • David Tobin

    (Sport Ireland Institute, National Sport Campus, Abbottstown, D15 Y52H Dublin, Ireland)

  • Sharon Madigan

    (Sport Ireland Institute, National Sport Campus, Abbottstown, D15 Y52H Dublin, Ireland
    Department of Physical Education & Sport Sciences, Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, University of Limerick, V94 T9PX Limerick, Ireland
    Health Research Institute, University of Limerick, V94 T9PX Limerick, Ireland)

  • Anne P. Nugent

    (School of Biological Sciences, Institute for Global Food Security, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast BT9 5DL, UK
    Institute of Food and Health, School of Agriculture and Food Science, University College Dublin, D04 V1W8 Dublin, Ireland)

Abstract

Athletes should carefully consider the use of botanical food supplements (BFSs) given the current lack of substantiation for botanical nutrition and health claims under EU and UK food laws. In addition, athletes may be at an increased risk of doping violations and other adverse outcomes potentially associated with BFS use; however, little is known about athletes’ intake, knowledge, or perceptions in relation to BFS use. An online cross-sectional survey of n = 217 elite and amateur athletes living on the island of Ireland was conducted using Qualtrics XM to assess intake, knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions. General food supplements (FSs) were reported by approximately 60% of the study cohort, and 16% of the supplements reported were categorized as BFS. The most frequently consumed BFSs were turmeric/curcumin (14%), Ashwagandha (10%), and Beetroot extract (8%). A higher proportion of amateur athletes would source information about BFSs from less credible sources, such as fellow athletes, or from internet sources or their coach, compared to elite athletes. Those who sourced information about botanicals from fellow athletes ( p = 0.03) or the internet ( p = 0.02) reported a lower perceived level of risks associated with BFS use. This study therefore suggests that amateur athletes may be more likely to source information from less credible sources compared to elite athletes who may have more access to nutrition professionals and their knowledge/advice. This may have potential adverse implications for amateur athletes, e.g., Gaelic games players, who are included within the doping testing pool but who may not have access to evidence-based nutrition advice.

Suggested Citation

  • Bridin McDaid & Floris C. Wardenaar & Jayne V. Woodside & Charlotte E. Neville & David Tobin & Sharon Madigan & Anne P. Nugent, 2023. "Athletes Perceived Level of Risk Associated with Botanical Food Supplement Use and Their Sources of Information," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(13), pages 1-11, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:13:p:6244-:d:1182069
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/13/6244/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/13/6244/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Floris C. Wardenaar & Daan Hoogervorst, 2022. "How Sports Health Professionals Perceive and Prescribe Nutritional Supplements to Olympic and Non-Olympic Athletes," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-14, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:13:p:6244-:d:1182069. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.