REF-1472 · Fogt et al., 2016 · International Journal of Exercise Science · Paper · PubMed · Free full text

Does a nicotine vape lower aerobic power?

In 20 non-smokers, 18 vs 0 mg/mL made no clear change to VO2peak or peak power about 55 min later; diastolic pressure rose about 3 mmHg. Not habitual users, not athletes.

Main caveat: Dose uncertain: the authors note label nicotine may vary, inhaled volume was not controlled, inhalations were often shallow, and the cotinine kit gave only…
limited evidenceMeasured on non-athletes and recreational people

Fogt and colleagues (University of Texas at San Antonio) tested whether vaporised nicotine changes blood pressure, metabolic rate or aerobic power in young normotensive non-smokers. Twenty participants (10 female), after a fasted 8 am arrival, used a blinded e-cigarette with 0 or 18 mg/mL nicotine, one deep inhalation every 30 s for 10 min.

Resting metabolic rate was measured about 40 min later and an incremental cycle test began about 55 min after the last inhalation, 15 W a minute to exhaustion. VO2peak and peak power did not differ.

Against placebo, diastolic pressure was 3.0 mmHg higher and systolic 3.7 mmHg lower at rest (both p = 0.04); during exercise diastolic was higher at all stages (p = 0.05) and peaked at 79.4 vs 74.9 mmHg (p = 0.02). Resting metabolic rate and heart rate were unchanged. The authors note the rise may not be clinically relevant in itself.

Our reading: no sign that nicotine vapour lowers aerobic power, an hour after use, in non-users; the test cannot speak for an athlete using a vape at the start line or for a regular user.

Protocol

Participants: n = 20 (10 female), age 23.1 ± 2.5 years, height 1.69 ± 0.1 m, weight 70.6 ± 14.9 kg; no tobacco products within the past year; normotensive.
Treatment: one brand of over-the-counter e-cigarette (Green Smart Living), 0 or 18 mg/mL, trials separated by at least 1 week; inhale once every 30 s for 10 min (20 inhalations).
Tests: resting metabolic rate at about 40 min; incremental cycle test from 15 W, +15 W per minute, at about 55 min; heart rate, blood pressure and gas exchange.
Exposure check: urine cotinine strips, ranges only.
Funding and interests (as printed): Collaborative Seed Grant through the Office of the Vice President for Research, University of Texas at San Antonio; no conflict statement in the text.

Key Results

OutcomeNicotinePlacebop
VO2peak (L/min)2.3 ± 0.82.3 ± 0.70.77
Peak power (W)201.0 ± 53.8204.8 ± 57.80.29
Peak exercise diastolic pressure (mmHg)79.4 ± 7.674.9 ± 8.30.02
Resting diastolic pressure3.0 mmHg higher0.04
Resting systolic pressure3.7 mmHg lower0.04
Urine cotinine (ng/mL, strip ranges)30–1000–10<0.001
Unchanged: resting metabolic rate, resting VO2, RQ, heart rate; peak systolic pressure (p = 0.14); no treatment effect on exercise VO2 or heart rate.
Numbers that do not add up: the resting metabolic rate P value is 0.79 in the abstract and 0.39 in the Results.

Mechanisms

Measured: small diastolic rises at rest and in exercise; no change in aerobic power or metabolic rate.
Authors' interpretation: the rises may relate to catecholamines known to increase with smoking; the diastolic rise "in itself does not necessarily indicate a clinically relevant finding" and warrants further study.
Inference: a test about 55 min after use, in shallow novices, may simply have missed the peak nicotine effect, so "no effect" is limited to this timing and dose.

Practical Application

Does a nicotine vape lower aerobic power? In 20 non-smokers, 18 vs 0 mg/mL made no clear change to VO2peak or peak power about 55 min later; diastolic pressure rose about 3 mmHg. Not habitual users, not athletes.
For a vaper asking if it hurts the session: this is not the study to answer that; it says only that one light use, an hour before, in non-users, did not visibly lower a ramp test.
Not a performance aid: nothing here suggests a gain either (REF-1461).
What it does not show: effects in regular vapers, in trained athletes, close to the start of a session, in heat (REF-1462) or over long efforts; airway effects (REF-1473).

Limitations

Dose uncertain: the authors note label nicotine may vary, inhaled volume was not controlled, inhalations were often shallow, and the cotinine kit gave only wide ranges.
Timing: exercise began about 55 min after the last inhalation.
Who was measured: healthy non-users, not athletes; findings do not transfer automatically to habitual users.
Incremental test, not a race or time trial; n = 20 cannot exclude a small effect.
No non-use arm: placebo inhalation is the only control.
Reporting: one P value differs between abstract and Results.
Funding and interests: university seed grant; none else stated.
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level

a crossover with at least 15 participants would reach the rubric's B+, held one step down: nicotine dose unverified (inhaled volume uncontrolled, semi-quantitative cotinine strips), exercise about 55 min after the last inhalation so any effect may have waned, and an incremental test in non-users

Full text (checked 2026-10-30)
Twenty (10 female) volunteer subjects self-reporting as healthy and non-smoking participated (age=23.1±2.5 years) (full text)
Placebo 0 mg•ml−1 nicotine EC trial and 18 mg•ml−1 nicotine EC trial; inhale deeply once every 30 s over the course of 10 min (20 inhalations total) (full text)
Cycle exercise began ~55 min following the last EC inhalation (full text)
VO2peak nicotine trial (2.3±0.8 L•min−1), placebo trial (2.3±0.7 L•min−1), p=0.77; Wpeak nicotine (201.0±53.8 W), placebo (204.8±57.8 W), p=0.29 (full text)
Nicotine use resulted in a 3.7 mmHg lower resting SBP (p=0.04) but a 3.0 mmHg higher DBP (p=0.04) (full text)
Exercise DBPpeak after nicotine (79.4±7.6) was significantly higher (p=0.02) than placebo (74.9±8.3 mmHg) (full text)
Cotinine ranges after nicotine inhalation (30–100 ng•ml−1) compared to placebo (0–10 ng•ml−1) (full text)
The volume of vapor inhaled by our subjects was not controlled; observed inhalations were shallow in most subjects (full text)
This study was supported by a Collaborative Seed Grant through the Office of the Vice President for Research, University of Texas at San Antonio (full text)