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.

In June 2017 a group of experts in anthropology, biology, kinesiology, neuroscience, physiology, and psychology convened in Canterbury, UK, to address questions relating to the placebo effect in sport and exercise. The event was supported exclusively by Quality Related (QR) funding from the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). The funder did not influence the content or conclusions of the group. No competing interests were declared by any delegate. During the meeting and in follow‐up correspondence, all delegates agreed the need to communicate the outcomes of the meeting via a brief consensus statement. The two specific aims of this statement are to encourage researchers in sport and exercise science to1. Where possible, adopt research methods that more effectively elucidate the role of the brain in mediating the effects of treatments and interventions.2. Where possible, adopt methods that factor for and/or quantify placebo effects that could explain a percentage of inter‐individual variability in response to treatments and intervention.

We investigated associations between athletes’ use of sport supplements and their responsiveness to placebo and nocebo interventions. 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. 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. 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.

The aim of this study was to examine: 1) whether sport supplement use is related to doping and 2) whether sport supplement beliefs mediated this relationship. In Study 1, athletes (N = 598), completed measures of sport supplement use, sport supplement beliefs, and doping attitudes. In Study 2, athletes (N = 475) completed measures of sport supplement use, sport supplement beliefs, and doping likelihood. In both studies, sport supplement use predicted doping outcomes indirectly via sport supplement beliefs. Our findings provide novel evidence to suggest that sport supplement users, who strongly believe that sport supplements are effective, are more likely to dope. For anti-doping organisations wishing to prevent doping, targeting an athlete’s beliefs about sport supplements may improve the effectiveness of anti-doping prevention programmes.

Purpose: To investigate the placebo effect of caffeine on pacing strategy and performance over 1000-m running time trials using a balanced placebo design. Methods: Eleven well-trained male middle-distance athletes performed seven 1000-m time trials (1 familiarization, 2 baseline, and 4 experimental). Experimental trials consisted of the administration of 4 randomized treatments: informed caffeine/received caffeine, informed caffeine/received placebo, informed placebo/received caffeine, and informed placebo/received placebo. Split times were recorded at 200, 400, 600, 800, and 1000 m, and peak heart rate and rating of perceived exertion were recorded at the completion of the trial. Results: Relative to baseline, participants ran faster during informed caffeine/received caffeine (d = 0.42) and informed caffeine/received placebo (d = 0.43). These changes were associated with an increased pace during the first half of the trial. No differences were shown in pacing or performance between baseline and the informed placebo/received caffeine (d = 0.21) and informed placebo/received placebo (d = 0.10). No differences were reported between treatments for peak heart rate (η² = .084) and rating of perceived exertion (η² = .009). Conclusions: The results indicate that the effect of believing to have ingested caffeine improved performance to the same magnitude as actually receiving caffeine. These improvements were associated with an increase in pace during the first half of the time trial.