REF-358 · Maughan et al., 2018 (IOC supplement consensus) · British Journal of Sports Medicine · Paper
IOC consensus statement: dietary supplements and the high-performance athlete
Key Findings — What the statement says (abstract)
Nutrition makes a small but potentially valuable contribution to elite performance; dietary supplements can make a minor contribution to that nutrition programme — yet supplement use is widespread at all levels of sport
Supplements address four different things: (1) managing micronutrient deficiencies, (2) convenient forms of energy and macronutrients, (3) direct performance benefits, (4) indirect benefits such as supporting intense training
Some supplements can benefit the athlete; others may harm health, performance, and/or livelihood and reputation if an anti-doping rule violation results
A complete nutritional assessment should precede any decision about supplements
Performance supplements are the largest group marketed, but only a few — caffeine, creatine, specific buffering agents and nitrate — have good evidence of benefit
Responses depend on the scenario of use and vary widely between individuals (genetics, the microbiome, habitual diet)
Performance supplements should be thoroughly trialled in training or simulated competition before use in competition
Inadvertent ingestion of prohibited substances is a known risk of some supplements; protecting the athlete's health and awareness of harm must be paramount, and expert professional advice is strongly advised before starting
Practical Application
The 2018 IOC consensus names only four performance supplements with good evidence — caffeine, creatine, buffering agents (bicarbonate, β-alanine) and nitrate — insists on a full nutritional assessment before any supplement decision, and warns that inadvertent doping from contaminated products is a known risk. Everything else marketed for performance sits outside the evidence.
Order of operations from the statement: assess the diet first → fix deficiencies and fuelling → only then consider a performance supplement → trial it in training, never first in competition
Individual response varies widely, so a group-level "works" is not a personal guarantee; test and observe
Not from this paper; the base's own practice: for any athlete who can be drug-tested, use only third-party-certified products (batch-tested programmes) — the statement names the contamination risk but not a certification scheme
Not from this paper: the A/B/C/D supplement grading many athletes know is the Australian Institute of Sport's framework, not this IOC statement; the base's per-supplement entries carry their own evidence: caffeine REF-350, β-alanine REF-351, creatine REF-352, nitrate REF-353, bicarbonate REF-354, vitamin D REF-355, ketones REF-356, omega-3 REF-357
Limitations
Consensus / guidance, not primary evidence
Written in 2018; the evidence for individual supplements has moved (e.g. nitrate — see REF-3493 via REF-353)
"Good evidence" at group level ≠ guaranteed individual response — the statement's own caveat
Interactions between supplements are not addressed in the abstract
How this entry was checked and changed
Content correction 2026-09-27
"Evidence Tiers A/B/C/D (IOC framework)" listing caffeine, creatine, nitrate, β-alanine and bicarbonate as Tier A and ketones, fish oil and vitamin D as Tier B -> the IOC abstract contains no tier system (that is the AIS framework) and names only caffeine, creatine, buffering agents and nitrate as having good evidence; ketones, fish oil and vitamin D are not mentioned. Rewritten.
"β-alanine (1-10 min efforts)", "sodium bicarbonate (1-10 min)" -> not in the abstract; removed.
Sport "team-sport, sprint" -> general. Added the statement's four purposes of supplements, the nutritional-assessment-first rule and the trial-in-training rule.