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 1,513 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.

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.