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.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2013.822564 | DOI Listing |
Psychol Rev
January 2025
Pain Research Group, Institute of Psychology, Jagiellonian University.
Research suggests that negative affective states, such as fear and anxiety that accompany placebo treatment may be considered predictors of placebo hypoalgesia and nocebo hyperalgesia. There is also data showing that the likelihood of developing nocebo hyperalgesia is related to the relatively stable tendency to experience these negative emotions. We aimed to summarize the current state-of-the-art in studies and theoretical models on the role of fear and anxiety in placebo hypoalgesia/nocebo hyperalgesia, with a clear differentiation between these emotions.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFJ Psychosom Res
December 2024
Health Psychology, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, New Zealand. Electronic address:
Objective: To assess whether individuals reported more side effects and decreased mood after receiving an open-label placebo compared to a control group that received no treatment.
Methods: We randomized participants to receive an open placebo or no treatment. The primary outcome was reported side effects on the Side effect Attribution Scale (SEAS) at 15 min and at 24-h.
Front Psychiatry
December 2024
College of Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, United States.
Thousands of essays and studies have been published on placebo and nocebo. Yet, despite this plethora of information, we are not much closer to a comprehensive understanding of the fundamental mechanism producing placebo and nocebo effects than we were in 1946, when participants in the Cornell Conferences on Therapy speculated on the roles of authority, belief and expectancy. In this paper, we examine the weaknesses in current placebo and nocebo definitions and theories.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEpilepsia
December 2024
Comprehensive Epilepsy Center, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA.
Objective: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are necessary to evaluate the efficacy of novel treatments for epilepsy. However, there have been concerning increases in the placebo responder rate over time. To understand these trends, we evaluated features associated with increased placebo responder rate.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFPain
December 2024
Department of Psychology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milano, Italy.
Placebo hypoalgesia and nocebo hyperalgesia, which exemplify the impact of expectations on pain, have recently been conceptualised as Bayesian inferential processes, yet empirical evidence remains limited. Here, we explore whether these phenomena can be unified within the same Bayesian framework by testing the predictive role of expectations and their level of precision (ie, expectation confidence) on pain, with both predictors measured at the metacognitive level. Sixty healthy volunteers underwent a pain test (ie, 8 noxious electrical stimuli) before (Baseline) and after (T0, T1, T2) receiving a sham treatment associated with hypoalgesic (placebo), hyperalgesic (nocebo), or neutral (control) verbal suggestions, depending on group allocation.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEnter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!