A new review urges athletes and professionals to focus on the risk-benefit profile of supplements, highlighting contamination concerns and the importance of personalised, traceable use to avoid doping violations and health risks.
Athletes are often asked the wrong question about supplements. As MySportScience argues in a recent review published in Translational Sports Medicine, the better test is not simply whether a product works, but whether any expected benefit outweighs the risk for a specific athlete, using a specific product, at a specific time. That shift matters because supplement use is common in sport, with research cited by the review putting prevalence anywhere from roughly 40% to 70%, depending on the population studied and the way the survey was conducted.
The central risk is anti-doping strict liability. Under the World Anti-Doping Code, athletes are responsible for any prohibited substance found in their sample, whether or not they intended to take it. The World DanceSport Federation’s anti-doping rules spell out that responsibility plainly, and contaminated supplements can lead to disqualification, suspension, financial loss and reputational damage. Coaches, doctors and dietitians can also become part of the problem if they recommend or supply a risky product.
That is why contamination cannot be treated as an abstract concern. The review notes that laboratory surveys have repeatedly found undeclared anabolic agents, stimulants, SARMs and other active compounds in some supplement products, although headline figures can be misleading because studies often focus on higher-risk categories. The danger is not evenly spread across the market. A single-ingredient, certified creatine product is not comparable with an uncertified multi-ingredient pre-workout or a so-called testosterone booster. Reviews of athlete behaviour support that distinction: a 2019 study of elite Spanish athletes found supplement use was common, while research in collegiate athletes identified a smaller but important group using higher-risk products.
Third-party certification helps, but it is not a guarantee. Programmes such as Informed Sport, NSF Certified for Sport, the Cologne List, BSCG and NZVT lower the chance of contamination by testing selected products or batches against prohibited substances. Even so, certification can change, labels can be misused and not every batch is always covered. The practical advice is to verify the batch number in the certifier’s own database or app before use, rather than relying on a logo on the tub. The review also stresses that product risk rises when supplements are marketed for rapid weight loss, muscle gain, pre-workout stimulation or hormonal enhancement.
The broader lesson is that supplementation should be treated as a deliberate, documented intervention rather than a casual habit. Some products have a place: creatine and caffeine have the strongest performance evidence in the right settings, while beta-alanine, nitrate and sodium bicarbonate can help in more specific contexts. Iron and vitamin D are appropriate when deficiency is present, not as routine add-ons. But the review’s warning is clear: evidence of benefit does not equal a need to use a supplement, and even a reasonable product can become a serious problem if the wrong version is chosen. In sport, the decision has to be individual, cautious and traceable.
Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only and is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical judgment, advice, diagnosis, or treatment.
