GLOSSARY

Evidence-Based Supplement is selected using relevant scientific evidence and athlete context, including the product, protocol and intended measurable outcome.

A credible supplement claim needs relevant controlled evidence, an appropriate comparison and a meaningful outcome. Randomization, placebo control and blinding reduce different sources of bias but do not guarantee a useful result. Sample size, uncertainty, training status, sex, diet and protocol affect interpretation. A pooled estimate is not a promise to every individual. Mechanistic plausibility, a changed biomarker, exercise capacity and actual competition performance are distinct levels of information that should not be treated as interchangeable.

Apparent individual responses combine biological variation, measurement error, expectations and changes in training or diet. A person classified as a nonresponder after one noisy test may not have a stable absence of benefit. Use repeated, relevant observations under comparable conditions and consider starting nutrient status or habitual intake. Genetic mechanisms can be informative without making a commercial genetic test a validated prescription. Individualization should improve a practical decision, not turn uncertain differences into permanent athlete labels.

A nutritional strategy should be evaluated by the quality and relevance of evidence, the athlete's response and the feasibility of implementation. Molecular signaling, a substrate-oxidation change, a laboratory capacity test and race performance are different outcomes. Association does not establish cause, and a response in one small study need not generalize to all athletes. Define the intended benefit before changing the plan, then evaluate training quality, recovery and performance under comparable circumstances rather than judging success by novelty.