A cross-sectional survey of 114 sports medicine physicians from 38 countries found that 12% were aware of athletes using GLP-1 drugs without medical need and 44% supported prohibiting the drugs in sport. Physicians cited meeting weight limits and weight loss after injury as the main reasons for…
More than one in ten sports medicine physicians who responded to a new international survey report awareness of athletes using GLP-1 drugs without medical need, and 44% believe the drugs should be prohibited in sport. The findings, published in the journal Sports Medicine Auckland, N.Z. , come from a cross-sectional survey of 114 sports medicine physicians.
GLP-1 drugs, the class built on glucagon-like peptide-1, are typically prescribed for diabetes mellitus and weight loss. Their appearance in elite sport raises questions that those two indications do not answer. Athletes in weight-class and weight-sensitive disciplines have long relied on aggressive weight management, and a drug class that suppresses appetite while retaining glucose-dependent insulin control is an obvious candidate for non-prescription use. The survey suggests physicians are seeing that happen.
The study's purpose was to move the issue past anecdote. Reports of GLP-1 misuse in elite sport had circulated informally; this survey is the first to collect physician awareness, concern, and policy attitudes in a structured way. The result is a dataset that can be examined, criticized, and built on, which anecdote cannot.
The findings are a snapshot, not a verdict. They record what physicians perceive, not what athletes have confirmed, and the authors present them as a reference point for a debate that has so far lacked numbers.
The investigators used an observational, cross-sectional design: one questionnaire, administered once, to a defined professional group. A cross-sectional survey can describe the distribution of experiences and attitudes in its sample, but it cannot establish cause and effect, track change over time, or directly measure the prevalence of a behavior. The reported analysis is limited to descriptive statistics , with no inferential testing, so no confidence intervals or significance values qualify the headline figures.
The respondent pool was experienced, though self-selected. Participants had worked in sports medicine for an average of 16.6 years, and 63% were male. The 38 countries and 93 sports represented make this one of the broader professional samples in the sports medicine literature, but it is still a convenience sample: the 114 physicians who completed the survey are not a random draw from the global population of sports medicine doctors, and the results cannot be generalized to any single country or sport.
The survey measured six endpoints: awareness of athletes using GLP-1 drugs without medical need; perceived reasons athletes would consider using the drugs; perceived deterrents to use; concern about non-prescription use from a performance-enhancement perspective; concern from an athlete health and welfare perspective; and attitudes toward prohibition of GLP-1 drugs in sport.
That list separates observation from judgment. The awareness question asks what physicians have seen. The concern and prohibition questions ask what they make of it. Both are useful, but they are different kinds of evidence, and the study keeps them distinct.
Twelve percent of respondents reported awareness of athletes who had used GLP-1 drugs without medical need. On average, physicians were moderately concerned about non-prescription use from both a performance-enhancement perspective and an athlete health and welfare perspective. Moderate, not severe: the data describe a profession that sees a problem without concluding it is a crisis.
The perceived reasons for use clustered around weight management. Physicians most frequently reported that athletes would consider GLP-1 drugs to meet weight limits and to assist weight loss after injury. The first reason points to weight-category sports, where competition weight targets can drive repeated and rapid weight cuts. The second points to the injury context, where reduced training load makes weight gain likely exactly when an athlete is trying to return to competitive condition.
The most frequently reported deterrent was a lack of energy to train due to reduced appetite. That is a sharp finding. It confirms that clinicians regard the drug class as carrying a real performance cost, and it helps explain why concern is moderate rather than high. The appetite suppression that drives weight loss also threatens the high energy availability that elite training requires.
On the policy question, 44% of participants believed GLP-1 drugs should be prohibited in sport, and 38% reported being unsure about prohibition. The rest of the sample did not support prohibition. Among those who did, the main concern was harm to an athlete's health, a rationale consistent with the moderate concern scores: physicians appear more worried about their patients than about cheating.
GLP-1 is an incretin hormone secreted by intestinal L cells in response to nutrient intake. Its principal actions are glucose-dependent: it amplifies insulin secretion when blood glucose rises, suppresses glucagon secretion, slows gastric emptying, and acts on appetite centers in the hypothalamus and brainstem to reduce food intake and increase satiety. In the treatment of diabetes mellitus, this profile delivers glycemic control with a low intrinsic risk of hypoglycemia. In weight management, sustained use produces weight loss primarily through reduced caloric intake rather than through increased energy expenditure.
That mechanism explains both the attraction and the deterrent that physicians reported. A GLP-1 drug can produce weight loss without requiring the athlete to change behavior, which is appealing at the end of a weight cut or during injury-induced inactivity. But the same central appetite suppression lowers the drive to eat, and therefore lowers fuel availability for training. An athlete who cannot eat enough cannot train enough. The most frequently reported deterrent in the survey is the clinical translation of that pharmacology.
What remains unknown is how GLP-1 receptor agonists behave in trained skeletal muscle, bone, and the endocrine systems that athletes stress daily. The drugs have been studied in people with diabetes or obesity, not in lean, highly trained individuals with high energy turnover, and no evidence is currently available on the effects of GLP-1 drugs on athletes' health and performance. Extrapolation from metabolic disease populations to elite athletes is speculation, and the study makes no attempt to disguise that.
The open possibilities cut both ways. Weight loss in an already lean athlete could carry distinct risks, including loss of lean mass, impaired bone health, or relative energy deficiency in sport. Conversely, the glucose-dependent mechanism could give GLP-1 drugs a different risk profile than older weight-loss agents. Neither possibility can be tested with the data in hand.
The study recommends a four-part response: education first, structured therapeutic-use exemption pathways, enhanced monitoring, and accelerated sport-specific research. The ordering is deliberate. Before prohibition can be debated responsibly, clinicians need to know what they are seeing, and governing bodies need evidence rather than anecdote.
For sports medicine clinicians, the practical implication is to ask. On this survey's evidence, weight-category athletes and athletes returning from injury are the populations most likely to consider GLP-1 drugs. A routine prescribing history that includes direct inquiry about GLP-1 use, and about the source of any such medication, is a reasonable standard in those settings, particularly where appetite suppression could be mistaken for ordinary weight-cutting discipline.
For anti-doping authorities, the survey supplies a baseline for a rule-making question that is currently open. GLP-1 drugs are not prohibited in sport, and the split between 44% in favor of prohibition and 38% unsure shows how unsettled the question is. A structured therapeutic-use pathway would allow legitimate prescription use to proceed under medical supervision while giving authorities visibility into who is using the drugs and why. That visibility is only possible if use is monitored rather than pushed into unregulated channels.
For the peptide supply chain, the finding is a diversion pattern. GLP-1 receptor agonists are peptide-based therapeutic agents, and the misuse described in the survey, prescription drugs obtained without medical need, is the same vulnerability that other peptide therapeutics face: unregulated sources, counterfeit product, and dosing without clinical oversight. Enhanced monitoring in sport functions, in effect, as a supply-chain control, because it makes undocumented use harder to sustain.
The study's limitations are plainly stated. The concern about GLP-1 misuse in elite sport is founded on anecdotal evidence, of which this survey is a systematic collection but not a confirmation. The survey data were analyzed with descriptive statistics only, and no inferential analysis is reported, so the precision of the 12% and 44% estimates is unknown. The findings reflect physician perceptions, not confirmed athlete use or clinical outcomes, and no evidence is currently available on the effects of GLP-1 drugs on athletes' health and performance.
Four open questions follow directly. What are the effects of GLP-1 drugs on athletes' health and performance? Is prohibition justified in the absence of that evidence? How prevalent is non-medical GLP-1 use in elite sport, beyond what physicians happen to observe? And what longer-term side effects may follow GLP-1 drug use in athletes, who may use the drugs intermittently across a career?
Each question points toward a design that could answer it. Prevalence would require athlete-facing surveys or biological monitoring concentrated in weight-category sports. Effects on health and performance would require controlled studies in athletic populations, or at minimum prospective follow-up of athletes with documented prescription use. Long-term side effects would require registries that track athletes over years, capturing intermittent use and use that begins at a young age. None of these exist yet.
What the survey does establish is that the issue has moved beyond anecdote and that the field is not close to consensus. The 38% of physicians who are unsure are not a marginal undecided fringe; they are a substantial bloc reflecting the absence of data. In that sense, the most important result is not the 12% awareness figure or the 44% prohibition figure. It is the measured distance between concern and evidence, and the explicit recommendation that research close that gap before policy does.
Peptides referenced: Glucagon, GLP-1.
Related reading: GLP-1 therapies show cardiovascular benefit beyond glucose control, Retatrutide hits 25-30% weight loss as GLP-1 risks and benefits widen, Imperial Peptides UK sets MT-2 documentation standard for research supply, Handling Guide for Lyophilised MT-2: Identity, Storage, Traceability.