A content analysis of marketing on the packages of dietary supplements for weight loss and muscle building

A Behaviourally Informed Approach to Reducing the Risk of Inadvertent Anti-doping Rule Violations from Supplement Use

For many reasons, athletes' use of supplements is highly prevalent across sports and competitive levels, despite the risk of these products containing a substance on the World Anti-Doping Agency Prohibited List. Contravening anti-doping rules through supplement use could have serious consequences for competitive athletes (e.g., ineligibility from major competitions, loss of medals and funding) due to the principle of strict liability. Indiscriminate supplement use also poses a risk to athlete health. To reduce the possibility of ingesting a supplement containing prohibited substances, independent quality assurance and certification programs have been established (e.g., Informed Sport). However, these programs do not completely eliminate risk, leading to some anti-doping organisations promoting a 'just say no' to supplements stance. Yet, this approach can be problematic as a small number of supplements may be necessary for athletes to consume, in certain situations. Recognising that athletes will continue to use these heavily marketed products, this narrative review describes a theoretically underpinned and systematic approach to preventing inadvertent doping by considering the barriers to and enablers of athlete adherence to risk minimisation supplement use guidelines (RMSUG). By outlining a conceptual shift towards a behaviourally informed approach, this review serves to stimulate the development of multifaceted interventions to prevent inadvertent doping through supplement use. Recognising that risk-minimised supplement use involves a myriad of behaviours, the problem of inadvertent doping through supplement use is framed, and research appraised, through the lens of the Behaviour Change Wheel.

Associations between weight discrimination and the use of potentially harmful dietary supplements during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States

The dietary supplements industry disproportionately markets potentially harmful products promising weight loss, cleansing/detoxing, and boosted energy and immunity to women. The COVID-19 pandemic heightened consumer concerns around health and body weight, which may have increased women's risks of using supplements, particularly if they had a higher weight and experienced weight discrimination. This study aimed to estimate inequities in prevalence and change in use of weight-loss, cleanse/detox, immunity, and energy supplements in the first year of the pandemic and to assess the extent to which the relationship between weight and supplement use differs across discrimination experiences. We drew upon longitudinal data from cisgender women in the U.S. COVID-19 Pandemic Substudy of the Nurses' Health Study II and 3 and Growing Up Today Study cohorts, collected over 5 waves from April/May 2020 to April 2021 (N = 51,814). Modified Poisson generalized estimating equation models, adjusted for age, cohort, race/ethnicity, wave, and Census region, estimated the relative excess risk due to interaction (RERI) between weight status and weight discrimination on prevalence of supplement use. Weight status categories were derived from body mass index (BMI), and weight discrimination was assessed using the attributions item of the Everyday Discrimination Scale. Baseline prevalence of supplement use was 2.7% for weight-loss, 3.3% for cleanse/detox, 4.2% for energy, and 22.6% for immune. Respondents with BMIs of 25-29.9 kg/m2 and 30-34.9 kg/m2 who experienced weight discrimination had RERI values of 0.89 (95% CI 0.14, 1.65) and 1.00 (95% CI 0.25, 1.75) for weight-loss and 0.57 (95% CI 0.13, 1.02) and 0.60 (95% CI 0.19, 1.01) for energy supplements, respectively, indicating this group had excess risk of use compared to lower BMI respondents who experienced no weight discrimination. The findings demonstrate the disproportionate impact of weight discrimination on use of potentially harmful supplements among cisgender women with higher weights during the pandemic.

Financial precarity, food insecurity, and psychological distress prospectively linked with use of potentially dangerous dietary supplements during the pandemic in the US

Introduction

Supplements sold with claims to promote weight loss, cleansing/detoxing, increased energy, or boosted immunity can be dangerous, and consumers experiencing extreme stressors may be especially vulnerable to deceptive claims. The purpose of our study was to investigate associations of financial strain and psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic with use of supplements sold for weight loss, cleanse/detox, energy, or immunity.

Methods

We used repeated-measures data gathered over five survey waves from April/May 2020-April 2021 from the COVID-19 Substudy (N = 54,951), within three prospective US national cohorts (Nurses' Health Study 2, Nurses' Health Study 3, and Growing Up Today Study), to investigate longitudinal associations between financial strain and psychological distress and risk of use of potentially dangerous types of supplements. Surveys assessed use of supplements prior to and during the first year of the pandemic, as well as financial precarity, food insecurity, depressive and anxiety symptoms, perceived stress, and daily hassles. We fit sociodemographic-adjusted modified Poisson GEE models to estimate risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for associations between baseline or lagged time-varying predictors and prevalent or incident (i.e., new-onset) use of each supplement type.

Results

At baseline in April/May 2020, soon after pandemic onset, current use of supplement types was: weight loss 2.7%; cleanse/detox 3.2%; energy 4.4%; immune 22.6%. By the end of the study period, cumulative incidence was: weight loss 3.5%; cleanse/detox 3.7%; energy 4.5%; immune 21.3%. In prevalent-use analyses, financial precarity, food insecurity, and psychological distress were associated with up to 2.4 times the risk of use of these types of supplements across the study period. Similarly, in incident-use analyses, financial precarity and psychological distress were associated with up to 2.1 times the risk of initiating use; whereas, high food insecurity was associated with nearly 1.8 times higher risk of onset of weight-loss supplements use but was not associated with onset of use of other types of supplements.

Discussion

We found consistent evidence that during the first year of the pandemic, participants experiencing elevated financial strain and psychological distress were at heightened risk of initiating use of potentially dangerous types of supplements. Our findings raise concerns about deceptive claims about the safety and product effectiveness by manufacturers of these supplements to profit from vulnerable consumers during the pandemic.

Analysis of the efficacy, safety, and cost of alternative forms of creatine available for purchase on Amazon.com: are label claims supported by science?

Creatine monohydrate (CM) is an established and effective dietary supplement, but it is not the only form of creatine. We analyzed forms of creatine for sale on Amazon.com" title = "http://Amazon.com">Amazon.com and evaluated if the advertised claims are supported by the available scientific evidence. We also analyzed the cost per gram of the forms of creatine. A total of 175 creatine supplements were included and we reported the total creatine content per serving, form(s) of creatine in products, product claims, and prevalence of products third party certified. The identified products contained 16 forms of creatine other than CM. The prevalence of products containing functional ingredients with CM or forms of creatine was 29.7%, and the prevalence of products containing blends of different forms of creatine was 21.7%. Only 8% of products were third party certified. The products using only CM (n = 91) had a mean price per gram of $0.12 ± 0.08, whereas products using only other forms of creatine (n = 32) had a mean price per gram of $0.26 ± 0.17. Approximately 88% of alternative creatine products in this study are classified as having limited to no evidence to support bioavailability, efficacy, and safety.