The effects of being told you are in the intervention group on training results: a pilot study

Abstract

Little is known about the placebo effects when comparing training interventions. Consequently, we investigated whether subjects being told they are in the intervention group get better training results compared to subjects being told they are in a control group. Forty athletes (male: n = 31, female: n = 9) completed a 10-week training intervention (age: 22 ± 4 years, height: 183 ± 10 cm, and body mass: 84 ± 15 kg). After randomization, the participants were either told that the training program they got was individualized based on their force–velocity profile (Placebo), or that they were in the control group (Control). However, both groups were doing the same workouts. Measurements included countermovement jump (CMJ), 20-m sprint, one-repetition maximum (1RM) back-squat, a leg-press test, ultrasonography of muscle-thickness (m. rectus femoris), and a questionnaire (Stanford Expectations of Treatment Scale) (Younger et al. in Clin Trials 9(6):767–776, 2012). Placebo increased 1RM squat more than Control (5.7 ± 6.4% vs 0.9 ± 6.9%, [0.26 vs 0.02 Effect Size], Bayes Factor: 5.1 [BF10], p = 0.025). Placebo had slightly higher adherence compared to control (82 ± 18% vs 72 ± 13%, BF10: 2.0, p = 0.08). Importantly, the difference in the 1RM squat was significant after controlling for adherence (p = 0.013). No significant differences were observed in the other measurements. The results suggest that the placebo effect may be meaningful in sports and exercise training interventions. It is possible that ineffective training interventions will go unquestioned in the absence of placebo-controlled trials.