REF-1461 · Mündel et al., 2019 · Frontiers in Physiology · Paper · PubMed · Free full text

Does nicotine make a trained cyclist faster?

In 10 well-trained cyclists, gum or patch made no clear change to a 1-h time trial: 62.9 and 62.6 vs 63.3 min on placebo. Non-users, temperate lab, small trial.

Main caveat: Small (n = 10) and men only; the typical error of 2.5% is larger than the mean changes, so a small benefit or harm is not excluded.
limited evidenceMeasured on trained to highly trained athletes

Mündel and colleagues (Massey University, New Zealand) noted that earlier nicotine studies used tests with poor validity and non-cyclists, and asked whether nicotine helps in a test built for trained cyclists.

Ten well-trained male cyclists (34 ± 9 years; VO2peak 71 ± 6 mL/kg/min) did a familiarisation trial and then three trials 7 days apart in random order and double blind: a 7 mg/24 h patch on about 10 h before and placebo gum; 2-mg gum chewed 30 min and placebo patch; or placebo for both.

The trial was an individual fixed amount of work (996 ± 132 kJ), the equivalent of 60 min at 80% VO2peak, done as fast as possible at 18-22 °C with a fan and a glucose drink. Times were 63.3 ± 4.1 min (placebo), 62.9 ± 4.1 (gum) and 62.6 ± 4.5 (patch), p = 0.73; mean power 263, 264 and 265 W. Typical error between trials was 2.5%, against changes of −0.6% and −1.0%.

The authors report the riders split: nine trials faster, eleven slower. Our reading: no support for nicotine as a speed aid at these doses in this setting, but ten riders and a typical error of 2.5% cannot rule out a small effect. The split between riders is not evidence of responders without repeat trials per person.

Protocol

Participants: n = 10 well-trained male cyclists, non-smokers, not habitual nicotine users.
Treatments: nicotine patch 7 mg/24 h (Habitrol) placed about 10 h before; nicotine gum 2 mg (Nicorette) chewed for 30 min; placebos for each. Blinding kept by an independent staff member; results stayed blinded until data collection ended.
Test: 996 ± 132 kJ on a Lode Excalibur ergometer; warm-up 3 min each at 100, 150 and 200 W; 100 mL of 7% glucose polymer every 20% of work; progress told every 20%.
Control: 24-h diet and exercise standardisation, a standard meal 3 h before, a standard ride 24 h before, no alcohol or caffeine.
Measures: time, power, heart rate, gastrointestinal temperature, RPE, venous pH, bicarbonate, lactate, serum cotinine.
Funding and interests (as printed): World Anti-Doping Agency (09D8TM) and Massey University Research Fund (RM13226); the authors declare no commercial or financial conflict. Not registered in a trial database, by the ethics statement.

Key Results

OutcomePlaceboGumPatchp
Time-trial time (min)63.3 ± 4.162.9 ± 4.162.6 ± 4.50.73
Mean power (W)263 ± 33264 ± 31265 ± 320.74
Change in time vs placebo−0.6 ± 4.4%−1.0 ± 4.8%
Noise: typical error between trials 2.5 ± 1.2%; both mean changes sit inside it.
Physiology: heart rate about 170 beats/min with no difference (p = 0.60); end core temperature 38.9 ± 0.7 °C with no treatment effect (p = 0.32); RPE (p = 0.89), pH, bicarbonate and lactate did not differ.
Dose check: cotinine patch > gum > placebo; 16 of 90 samples (18%) were below detection, mostly with gum, and mean gum cotinine was under 5 ng/mL.
Individual results: nine trials faster (gum −5.6 ± 0.8%, patch −4.8 ± 3.3%) and eleven slower (gum +2.8 ± 1.3%, patch +2.8 ± 2.1%); the same riders went the same way on both products in 19 of 20 trial results.
Correlations as printed: cotinine and performance time r = 0.63, p = 0.05; cotinine and body mass r = −0.36, p = 0.05 (patch). At n = 10 an r of −0.36 cannot reach p = 0.05 (our arithmetic), so this pair needs caution.

Mechanisms

Measured: no effect on any performance, perceptual or physiological measure.
Authors' interpretation: when sympathetic drive is already high in hard exercise, the peripheral effects of nicotine may be attenuated; at higher concentrations nicotine may depress rather than stimulate; the gum was poorly absorbed, so gum and patch may not have been pharmacologically alike.
Inference: a resting heart-rate rise with nicotine (Larue, REF-1471) and no difference at about 170 beats/min here are compatible, because self-paced work at near-maximal effort sets heart rate.

Practical Application

Does nicotine make a trained cyclist faster? In 10 well-trained cyclists, gum or patch made no clear change to a 1-h time trial: 62.9 and 62.6 vs 63.3 min on placebo. Non-users, temperate lab, small trial.
For an athlete asking about pouches or gum for speed: this gives no reason to expect a gain. It tested non-users at low doses, and did not test pouches or snus; for snus users see REF-1469.
In the heat: a separate reason for care; the authors flag it and REF-1462 measures it in trained men.
Anti-doping status: the authors state nicotine was not banned and was on WADA's Monitoring Program at the time; check the current list, as this 2019 paper cannot speak for later years.
What it does not show: that nicotine has no effect at all (small effects are not excluded); anything in habitual users, women, ultra-long or hot races; pouch or snus doses.

Limitations

Small (n = 10) and men only; the typical error of 2.5% is larger than the mean changes, so a small benefit or harm is not excluded.
Non-users: results may not hold for habitual users.
Dose delivery: the gum delivered little by its cotinine; cotinine was the only exposure measure, as nicotine itself was not measured.
Temperate conditions with fan and fluids; one distance.
Individual "dichotomous" response rests on single trials per treatment within measurement noise; it cannot identify responders.
Not registered, and the ethics number (CEN/08/09/056) and an earlier meeting poster suggest the data are older than the publication (our reading).
Funding and interests: WADA and Massey University; no conflicts declared.
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level

a crossover with fewer than 15 participants (rubric B); strong test validity, in the population that matters, but small, with a typical error larger than the differences measured

Full text (checked 2026-10-30)
All participants were non-smokers, and did not habitually use any form of nicotine administration (full text)
All testing was conducted in a temperate laboratory environment (18–22°C) with a fan-generated airflow of 19 km ⋅ h−1 (full text)
Set amount of work (996 ± 132 kJ), calculated as the equivalent of 60 min of cycling at 80% O2peak (full text)
Performance times of 63.3 ± 4.1 min, 62.9 ± 4.1 min, and 62.6 ± 4.5 min for PLA, GUM and PAT; mean power outputs of 263 ± 33, 264 ± 31, and 265 ± 32 W (full text)
The typical error of measurement as a CV between trials was 2.5 ± 1.2%; the change in performance time due to treatments was −0.6 ± 4.4% (GUM) and −1.0 ± 4.8% (PAT) (full text)
Of the 90 serum cotinine sample results returned, 16 (18%) were values below the limit of detection, the vast majority occurring during GUM (full text)
Nicotine improved performance times nine times (GUM: −5.6 ± 0.8%, PAT: −4.8 ± 3.3%) compared to a detriment eleven times (GUM: +2.8 ± 1.3%, PAT: +2.8 ± 2.1%) (full text)
The [cotinine] correlated with performance time (r = 0.63, p = 0.05) and body mass (r = −0.36, p = 0.05) for PAT (full text)
This study was funded by grants from the World Anti-Doping Agency (09D8TM) and Massey University Research Fund (RM13226) (full text)