The placebo and nocebo effects on peak minute power during incremental arm crank ergometry

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.

Alcohol gel ingestion amongst homeless Eastern and Central Europeans in London: assessing the effects on cognitive functioning and psychological health

Background: Intentional consumption of alcohol based hand gels has been reported especially amongst non-UK national, alcohol dependent, homeless individuals in London. Whilst alcohol misuse is known to be associated with impaired cognitive functioning and mental health problems, the effects of additional ingestion of alcohol gel are unknown. Objectives: To explore cognitive and psychological functioning in users who intentionally ingest alcohol gel compared with ethyl-alcohol only misusers and controls. Methods: Male, Central and Eastern European alcohol only misusers, (n=14; mean age 39 years), alcohol gel users (n=14; mean age 43 years) and controls (n=12; mean age 31 years) were recruited from a London Homeless Service during 2013/14. Alcohol misusers, alcohol gel users and controls were compared on the Forwards and Backwards Digit Span Test; Block Design test; Retrospective and Prospective Memory Questionnaire (PRMQ) and the Hospital and Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS). Results: Alcohol gel users performed significantly worse on the Block Design task (p<0.01) and PRMQ (p<0.01) relative to both alcohol only and control groups, and significantly worse on the digit span relative to controls (p=0.01). Both alcohol misusing groups scored comparatively on digit span backwards (p<0.01), with both groups performing significantly worse than controls. The alcohol gel group reported significantly higher levels of anxiety relative to controls (p=0.02). Conclusions: Whilst there could be constitutional differences between alcohol misusers who additionally abuse alcohol gel, the findings suggest that alcohol gel ingestion may have a greater impact on psychological functioning than traditional alcohol misuse.

The placebo and nocebo effects on peak minute power during incremental arm crank ergometry

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.