Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21058748›Full record

ReviewSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2010

Dietary supplements and team-sport performance.

David Bishop

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

50 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 168 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Acute caffeine supplementation in combat sports: a systematic review.Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition · 2018
    Pooled it
  9. Effects of caffeine intake on muscle strength and power: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition · 2018
    Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 2 countries.

David BishopInstitute of Sport, Exercise and Active Living (ISEAL) and School of Sport and Exercise Science, Victoria University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. David.Bishop@vu.edu.au
Victoria University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A well designed diet is the foundation upon which optimal training and performance can be developed. However, as long as competitive sports have existed, athletes have attempted to improve their performance by ingesting a variety of substances. This practice has given rise to a multi-billion-dollar industry that aggressively markets its products as performance enhancing, often without objective, scientific evidence to support such claims. While a number of excellent reviews have evaluated the performance-enhancing effects of most dietary supplements, less attention has been paid to the performance-enhancing claims of dietary supplements in the context of team-sport performance. Dietary supplements that enhance some types of athletic performance may not necessarily enhance team-sport performance (and vice versa). Thus, the first aim of this review is to critically evaluate the ergogenic value of the most common dietary supplements used by team-sport athletes. The term dietary supplements will be used in this review and is defined as any product taken by the mouth, in addition to common foods, that has been proposed to have a performance-enhancing effect; this review will only discuss substances that are not currently banned by the World Anti-Doping Agency. Evidence is emerging to support the performance-enhancing claims of some, but not all, dietary supplements that have been proposed to improve team-sport-related performance. For example, there is good evidence that caffeine can improve single-sprint performance, while caffeine, creatine and sodium bicarbonate ingestion have all been demonstrated to improve multiple-sprint performance. The evidence is not so strong for the performance-enhancing benefits of β-alanine or colostrum. Current evidence does not support the ingestion of ribose, branched-chain amino acids or β-hydroxy-β-methylbutyrate, especially in well trained athletes. More research on the performance-enhancing effects of the dietary supplements highlighted in this review needs to be conducted using team-sport athletes and using team-sport-relevant testing (e.g. single- and multiple-sprint performance). It should also be considered that there is no guarantee that dietary supplements that improve isolated performance (i.e. single-sprint or jump performance) will remain effective in the context of a team-sport match. Thus, more research is also required to investigate the effects of dietary supplements on simulated or actual team-sport performance. A second aim of this review was to investigate any health issues associated with the ingestion of the more commonly promoted dietary supplements. While most of the supplements described in the review appear safe when using the recommended dose, the effects of higher doses (as often taken by athletes) on indices of health remain unknown, and further research is warranted. Finally, anecdotal reports suggest that team-sport athletes often ingest more than one dietary supplement and very little is known about the potential adverse effects of ingesting multiple supplements. Supplements that have been demonstrated to be safe and efficacious when ingested on their own may have adverse effects when combined with other supplements. More research is required to investigate the effects of ingesting multiple supplements (both on performance and health).

Indexed as

Athletic PerformanceDietary SupplementsFemaleHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID21058748
OpenAlexW1964869661

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.