Background: Caffeine and sodium bicarbonate (SB) are widely used ergogenic supplements that influence exercise performance through distinct physiological mechanisms and may differentially modulate exercise-related metabolic responses. Whether their co-ingestion provides benefits beyond either supplement alone remains uncertain. This study evaluated the incremental effects of caffeine and SB co-ingestion within trials specifically designed to investigate the combined supplementation strategy. Methods: A systematic review and Bayesian arm-based multilevel network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials published up to May 2026 was conducted. Eligible studies investigated acute caffeine–SB co-supplementation and, where available, included caffeine-only and SB-only arms, with placebo as the common reference. Exercise performance was the primary outcome; blood lactate, blood pH, blood bicarbonate, and rating of perceived exertion were secondary outcomes. Effects were estimated using Hedges’ g, Bayesian credible intervals, and SUCRA rankings. Results: Thirteen studies involving 181 participants met the eligibility criteria. Within this co-supplementation trial network, caffeine (g = 0.21), SB (g = 0.21), and co-ingestion (g = 0.28) produced small but credible improvements in exercise performance relative to placebo. However, comparisons among active conditions provided no clear evidence that co-ingestion was superior to either supplement alone. SB increased blood pH (g = 0.95) and blood lactate (g = 1.13), whereas caffeine reduced blood bicarbonate (g = −0.89). Co-ingestion elicited the largest increase in blood lactate (g = 1.75), but this response was not accompanied by a proportionally greater improvement in performance. Exploratory analyses suggested possible variation in supplementation responses according to training status. Conclusions: Within trials designed to evaluate caffeine–SB co-supplementation, the caffeine-only, SB-only, and combined conditions showed small improvements in exercise performance relative to placebo. However, co-ingestion elicited more pronounced metabolic responses without a clear performance advantage over either component alone, and the mechanisms underlying this divergence remain uncertain.

Background/Objectives: Ammonia inhalants, commonly known as smelling salts, are widely used in sport as an acute arousal strategy, yet their ergogenic value remains uncertain. This systematic review and three-level meta-analysis examined the acute effects of ammonia inhalation on physical performance and selected psychophysiological outcomes. Methods: Controlled human studies involving healthy adults, physically active individuals, or athletes were included when they compared ammonia inhalation with placebo, sham, or no-inhalation control conditions. Physical performance was the primary outcome, with heart rate and selected subjective responses analyzed as exploratory secondary outcomes. Results: Ten studies were included. The primary analysis showed no statistically significant effect of ammonia inhalation on overall physical performance (k = 47, g = 0.11, 95% CI [−0.06, 0.28]). Heart rate and subjective exertion/fatigue were also not significantly affected. In contrast, subjective activation/arousal increased significantly (k = 9, g = 0.73, 95% CI [0.43, 1.04]), although this finding was based on only two studies. Moderator analyses did not show consistent subgroup differences for performance type, training status, or comparator type, whereas sex-based differences were exploratory and based on limited evidence. Sensitivity analyses suggested that physical performance became significantly improved after removal of influential effects, and power/explosive performance showed a possible benefit; however, these findings should be considered preliminary rather than confirmatory. Conclusions: Overall, ammonia inhalation appears to act primarily as a brief arousal stimulus rather than a consistent ergogenic aid. Potential benefits may depend on task demands, with explosive or repeated high-intensity tasks appearing more plausible targets than maximal strength or precision-based skills. Current evidence remains limited by small samples, heterogeneous protocols, and low certainty.