Stratton, Matthew T

Nutritional supplement use is common among athletes aiming to enhance performance, recovery, and health. However, variable regulatory frameworks and limited safety oversight create risks for inadvertent doping violations. This article provides a global overview of supplement use, relevant authorities, legislation, and safety measures, with a focus on third-party testing (TPT) as a risk-mitigation strategy. Data from six global regions—Africa, Asia, Australia/New Zealand, Europe, Latin America, and North America—were synthesized from peer-reviewed studies, governmental sources, and regional expert contributions. Reported supplement use ranged from 7% to 100% among athletes (variability within regions), with protein powders, vitamins/minerals, creatine, caffeine, and sports drinks being most prevalent. High-risk products (potential anti-doping rule violations), including certain herbal blends, preworkouts, and weight-management supplements, were reported across all regions. While some countries have robust regulatory systems, most lack harmonized or enforceable safety frameworks. TPT programs, which independently verify products for prohibited substances, remain concentrated in the global northwest (Europe, North America, and Australia/New Zealand); awareness and use of TPT certification vary widely, and even in regions with established systems, athlete adherence is inconsistent. Barriers to low-risk supplement use are limited TPT availability, cost, differences in labeling (including language), and cultural factors. Firsthand experiences and perceptions highlight widespread misconceptions about supplement safety and certification. The authors recommend expanded athlete and team-around-the-athlete education, improved global access to TPT low-risk supplements, and policy initiatives to harmonize safety standards. This work emphasizes the need for coordinated international efforts to protect athlete health and integrity while allowing access to evidence-based supplementation.

Abstract Objective . Bioimpedance devices are commonly used to assess health parameters and track changes in body composition. However, the cross-sectional agreement between different devices has not been conclusively established. Thus, the objective of this investigation was to examine the agreement between raw bioelectrical variables (resistance, reactance, and phase angle at the 50 kHz frequency) obtained from three bioimpedance analyzers. Approach . Healthy male ( n = 76, mean ± SD; 33.8 ± 14.5 years; 83.9 ± 15.1 kg; 179.4 ± 6.9 cm) and female ( n = 103, mean ± SD; 33.4 ± 15.9 years; 65.6 ± 12.1 kg; 164.9 ± 6.4 cm) participants completed assessments using three bioimpedance devices: supine bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS), supine single-frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (SFBIA), and standing multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (MFBIA). Differences in raw bioelectrical variables between the devices were quantified via one-way analysis of variance for the total sample and for each sex. Equivalence testing was used to determine equivalence between methods. Main results . Significant differences in all bioelectrical variables were observed between the three devices when examining the total sample and males only. The devices appeared to exhibit slightly better agreement when analyzing female participants only. Equivalence testing using the total sample as well as males and females separately revealed that resistance and phase angle were equivalent between the supine devices (BIS, SFBIA), but not with the standing analyzer (MFBIA). Significance . The present study demonstrated disagreement between different bioimpedance analyzers for quantifying raw bioelectrical variables, with the poorest agreement between devices that employed different body positions during testing. These results suggest that researchers and clinicians should employ device-specific reference values to classify participants based on raw bioelectrical variables, such as phase angle. If reference values are needed but are unavailable for a particular bioimpedance analyzer, the set of reference values produced using the most similar analyzer and reference population should be selected.