Dialogue and sports supplementation: reflections from the social sciences: a systematic review

This systematic review investigates sports supplementation research from a social science perspective, focusing on the period from 2014 to 2024. Given the absence of a standard definition and shared taxonomy, the article explores the intricate interrelations among nutritional, psychological, commercial, cultural, historical, and sociological dimensions that constitute this field.

A systematic review methodology was employed in accordance with the PRISMA protocol. Initially, 440 articles were screened, leading to a final selection of 56 relevant papers distributed across five central themes.

The analysis revealed complex interrelations among various dimensions, including nutritional, psychological, commercial, cultural, historical, and sociological factors. The five identified themes are as follows: Attitudes towards Supplements and Doping (N = 18): This theme explores psychosocial influences on substance use. Gateway to Doping (N = 9): It highlights the progression from initial supplement use to the adoption of prohibited substances. Networks and Key Actors (N = 8): This aspect maps the social and professional interactions that influence athletes' decisions regarding supplementation. The Grey Area of Supplementation (N = 12): It addresses underrepresented populations and scientific uncertainties surrounding supplementation. Conceptual Ambiguity (N = 9): This theme confronts the ongoing lack of universal definitions and classifications in the field.

The findings support a dual taxonomy for classifying supplements into functional foods, individual nutrients, ergogenic supplements, and multi-ingredient products. Furthermore, they establish a hierarchy of scientific evidence, positioning randomised controlled trials as the "gold standard." This research underscores how contemporary diets integrate cultural traditions, scientific advancements, and technological developments, while emphasising critical dualities: health vs. energy metabolism, risk vs. benefit, and safety vs. effectiveness.