Athletes’ GLP-1 drugs: study flags off-label use concerns

Athletes’ GLP-1 drugs are showing up in elite sport discussions

Athletes’ GLP-1 drugs are drawing new scrutiny after researchers surveyed sports medicine physicians about use in elite sport.

In the survey, 12% of physicians said they were aware of athletes using GLP-1 medications despite having no medical need. The researchers report awareness across many sports, including weight-sensitive sports (such as cycling), aesthetic sports (such as artistic swimming), physique-focused disciplines (such as bodybuilding), and endurance sports (including swimming).

• Study focus: physicians’ perceptions of GLP-1 drug use in sport
• Reported nonmedical use: physicians’ awareness, not athlete self-report
• Ethics angle: potential use to change weight rapidly for sport demands

What the evidence shows about athletes’ GLP-1 drugs (and what it doesn’t)

Athletes’ GLP-1 drugs were examined in a cross-sectional survey that captured opinions and observations from clinicians, not direct measures of athlete outcomes.

Researchers surveyed 114 sports medicine physicians from 38 countries, covering 93 different sports, about athletes’ use of GLP-1 drugs. Physicians most often said athletes might consider GLP-1 drugs to lose weight quickly to meet weight classifications and to manage weight after injury.

• Study type: cross-sectional survey (perceptions and awareness)
• Population surveyed: 114 sports medicine physicians from 38 countries
• Scope: 93 sports represented
• Key reported motive: fast weight loss for classification; weight management post-injury

Why athletes’ GLP-1 drugs raise performance and health questions

Athletes’ GLP-1 drugs may pose practical risks in sport because physicians raised concerns that appetite suppression could lower energy intake and trigger metabolic and hormonal health issues.

The study reports “moderate concern” among physicians about nonmedical use of GLP-1 drugs in sport, both for possible performance benefits and for athlete health and welfare. Lead author Dr. Daniel Read emphasized a “measured, evidence-based approach,” noting there is not enough evidence on performance, health, and long-term well-being to justify an immediate ban.

• Primary concern described: suppressed appetite may reduce energy intake
• Downstream concerns raised: metabolic and hormonal health issues
• Current evidence gap highlighted by authors: effects on performance, health, and long-term well-being

Ban debate: where sports medicine physicians stand on athletes’ GLP-1 drugs

Athletes’ GLP-1 drugs are already part of a policy conversation, with many clinicians unsure where rules should land.

In the survey, 44% of physicians believed GLP-1 drugs should eventually be prohibited in sport, while 38% were unsure. Among physicians supporting a ban, the most common reasons were concerns about athlete health and potential harm.

• 44%: believed GLP-1 drugs should eventually be prohibited in sport
• 38%: unsure about prohibition
• Top rationale among those favoring a ban: athlete health and potential harm

Practical context for metabolic health readers following athletes’ GLP-1 drugs

Athletes’ GLP-1 drugs matter beyond sport because they highlight how weight-loss medications can be used outside clear medical need and within high-pressure environments.

Dr. Read called for education of athletes, coaches, and support staff about potential risks, improved monitoring, and more research. He also said athletes with a genuine medical need should have clear and appropriate pathways to access these medications safely.

• The authors’ near-term priorities: education, monitoring, and research
• Equity point raised: maintain safe access pathways for athletes with genuine medical need
• Core uncertainty: how these drugs affect athletic performance and long-term well-being