3 resultados para Systematic and Random Effects
em Research Open Access Repository of the University of East London.
Resumo:
Rationale Electronic cigarettes are becoming increasingly popular among smokers worldwide. Commonly reported reasons for use include the following: to quit smoking, to avoid relapse, to reduce urge to smoke, or as a perceived lower-risk alternative to smoking. Few studies, however, have explored whether electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) deliver measurable levels of nicotine to the blood. Objective This study aims to explore in experienced users the effect of using an 18-mg/ml nicotine first-generation e-cigarette on blood nicotine, tobacco withdrawal symptoms, and urge to smoke. Methods Fourteen regular e-cigarette users (three females), who are abstinent from smoking and e-cigarette use for 12 h, each completed a 2.5 h testing session. Blood was sampled, and questionnaires were completed (tobacco-related withdrawal symptoms, urge to smoke, positive and negative subjective effects) at four stages: baseline, 10 puffs, 60 min of ad lib use and a 60-min rest period. Results Complete sets of blood were obtained from seven participants. Plasma nicotine concentration rose significantly from a mean of 0.74 ng/ml at baseline to 6.77 ng/ml 10 min after 10 puffs, reaching a mean maximum of 13.91 ng/ml by the end of the ad lib puffing period. Tobacco-related withdrawal symptoms and urge to smoke were significantly reduced; direct positive effects were strongly endorsed, and there was very low reporting of adverse effects. Conclusions These findings demonstrate reliable blood nicotine delivery after the acute use of this brand/model of e-cigarette in a sample of regular users. Future studies might usefully quantify nicotine delivery in relation to inhalation technique and the relationship with successful smoking cessation/harm reduction.
Resumo:
This investigation aimed to explore the effects of inert sugar-free drinks described as either ‘performance enhancing’ (placebo) or ‘fatigue inducing’ (nocebo) on peak minute power (PMP;W) during incremental arm crank ergometry (ACE). Twelve healthy, non-specifically trained individuals volunteered to take part. A single-blind randomised controlled trial with repeated measures was used to assess for differences in PMP;W, oxygen uptake, heart rate (HR), minute ventilation, respiratory exchange ratio (RER) and subjective reports of local ratings of perceived exertion (LRPE) and central ratings of perceived exertion (CRPE), between three separate, but identical ACE tests. Participants were required to drink either 500 ml of a ‘sports performance’ drink (placebo), a ‘fatigue-inducing’ drink (nocebo) or water prior to exercise. The placebo caused a significant increase in PMP;W, and a significant decrease in LRPE compared to the nocebo (p=0.01; p=0.001) and water trials (p=0.01). No significant differences in PMP;W between the nocebo and water were found. However, the nocebo drink did cause a significant increase in LRPE (p=0.01). These results suggest that the time has come to broaden our understanding of the placebo and nocebo effects and their potential to impact sports performance.
Resumo:
This investigation aimed to explore the effects of inert sugar-free drinks described as either ‘performance enhancing’ (placebo) or ‘fatigue inducing’ (nocebo) on peak minute power (PMP;W) during incremental arm crank ergometry (ACE). Twelve healthy, non-specifically trained individuals volunteered to take part. A single-blind randomised controlled trial with repeated measures was used to assess for differences in PMP;W, oxygen uptake, heart rate (HR), minute ventilation, respiratory exchange ratio (RER) and subjective reports of local ratings of perceived exertion (LRPE) and central ratings of perceived exertion (CRPE), between three separate, but identical ACE tests. Participants were required to drink either 500 ml of a ‘sports performance’ drink (placebo), a ‘fatigue-inducing’ drink (nocebo) or water prior to exercise. The placebo caused a significant increase in PMP;W, and a significant decrease in LRPE compared to the nocebo (p=0.01; p=0.001) and water trials (p=0.01). No significant differences in PMP;W between the nocebo and water were found. However, the nocebo drink did cause a significant increase in LRPE (p=0.01). These results suggest that the time has come to broaden our understanding of the placebo and nocebo effects and their potential to impact sports performance.