No Differences Between Beetroot Juice and Placebo on Competitive 5-km Running Performance: A Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

The authors examine the effect of an acute dose of beetroot juice on endurance running performance in "real-world" competitive settings. In total, 70 recreational runners (mean ± SD: age = 33.3 ± 12.3 years, training history = 11.9 ± 8.1 years, and hours per week training = 5.9 ± 3.5) completed a quasi-randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 5-km competitive time trials. Participants performed four trials separated by 1 week in the order of prebaseline, two experimental, and one postbaseline. Experimental trials consisted of the administration of 70-ml nitrate-rich beetroot juice (containing ∼4.1 mmol of nitrate, Beet It Sport®) or nitrate-depleted placebo (containing ∼0.04 mmol of nitrate, Beet It Sport®) 2.5 hr prior to time trials. Time to complete 5 km was recorded for each trial. No differences were shown between pre- and postbaseline (p = .128, coefficient variation = 2.66%). The average of these two trials is therefore used as baseline. Compared with baseline, participants ran faster with beetroot juice (mean differences = 22.2 ± 5.0 s, p < .001, d = 0.08) and placebo (22.9 ± 4.5 s, p < .001, d = 0.09). No differences in times were shown between beetroot juice and placebo (0.8 ± 5.7 s, p < .875, d = 0.00). These results indicate that an acute dose of beetroot juice does not improve competitive 5-km time-trial performance in recreational runners compared with placebo.

The Placebo and Nocebo effect on sports performance: A systematic review.

The aim of this review was to determine the magnitude of the placebo and nocebo effect on sport performance. Articles published before March 2019 were located using Medline, Web of Science, PubMed, EBSCO, Science Direct, and Scopus. Studies that examined placebo and nocebo effects of an objective dependent variable on sports performance, which included a control or baseline condition, were included in the analysis. Studies were classified into two categories of ergogenic aids: (1) nutritional and (2) mechanical. Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated from 32 studies involving 1513 participants. Small to moderate placebo effects were found for both placebo (d = 0.36) and nocebo (d = 0.37) effects and when separated by nutritional (d = 0.35) and mechanical (d = 0.47) ergogenic aids. The pooled effect size revealed a small to moderate effect size across all studies (d = 0.38). Results suggest that placebo and nocebo effects can exert a small to moderate effect on sports performance.

Athletes Intending to Use Sports Supplements Are More Likely to Respond to a Placebo.

PURPOSE: We investigated associations between athletes' use of sport supplements and their responsiveness to placebo and nocebo interventions. METHODS: Participants (n = 627) reported their intention to use, and actual use of, sport supplements. They then completed a 5 × 20 m repeat sprint protocol in the baseline condition, before being randomized to one of three treatments. Participants in the positive-belief treatment were administered an inert capsule described as a potent supplement which would improve sprint performance. Participants in the negative-belief treatment were administered an inert capsule described as a potent supplement which would negatively affect sprint performance. Participants in the control treatment received neither instruction nor capsule. Twenty minutes after baseline trials, all participants completed the same repeat sprint protocol in the experimental condition. RESULTS: Compared with controls, no mean differences in performance were observed between baseline and experimental conditions for the positive-belief treatment (-0.07% ± 0.27%, d = 0.02), but mean differences were observed for the negative-belief treatment (-0.92% ± 0.31%, d = 0.32), suggesting a moderate nocebo effect. In the positive-belief treatment, however, a relationship between intention to use supplements and performance was observed. Performance worsened by -1.10% ± 0.30% compared with baseline for participants not intending to use supplements, worsened by -0.64% ± 0.43% among those undecided about supplement use, but improved by 0.19% ± 0.24% among those participants intending to use supplements. CONCLUSIONS: Information about a harmful supplement worsened repeat sprint performance (a mean nocebo effect), whereas information about a beneficial supplement did not improve performance (no mean placebo effect was observed). However, participants' intention to use sport supplements influenced the direction and magnitude of subsequent placebo responses, with participants intending to use supplements more likely to respond to the positive intervention.

Positive and negative placebo effects resulting from the deceptive administration of an ergogenic aid.

The article describes a study examining placebo effects associated with the administration of a hypothetical ergogenic aid in sport. Forty-two team-sport athletes were randomly assigned to 2 groups. All subjects completed 3 x 30-m baseline sprint trials after which they were administered what was described to them as an ergogenic aid but was in fact 200 mg of cornstarch in a gelatin capsule. Group 1 was provided with positive information about the likely effects on performance of the substance, whereas Group 2 was provided with negative information about the same substance. The sprint protocol was repeated 20 min later. Although for Group 1 mean speed did not differ significantly between baseline and experimental trials, a significant linear trend of greater speed with successive experimental trials suggested that positive belief exerted a positive effect on performance (P < 0.01). Group 2 ran 1.57% slower than at baseline (P < 0.01, 95% confidence intervals 0.32-2.82%), suggesting that negative belief exerted a negative effect on performance. Collectively, data suggest that subjects' belief in the efficacy or otherwise of a placebo treatment might significantly influence findings in experimental research.