Given the common view that pre-exercise nutrition/breakfast is important for performance, the present study investigated whether breakfast influences resistance exercise performance via a physiological or psychological effect. Twenty-two resistance-trained, breakfast-consuming men completed three experimental trials, consuming water-only (WAT), or semi-solid breakfasts containing 0 g/kg (PLA) or 1·5 g/kg (CHO) maltodextrin. PLA and CHO meals contained xanthan gum and low-energy flavouring (approximately 122 kJ), and subjects were told both ‘contained energy’. At 2 h post-meal, subjects completed four sets of back squat and bench press to failure at 90 % ten repetition maximum. Blood samples were taken pre-meal, 45 min and 105 min post-meal to measure serum/plasma glucose, insulin, ghrelin, glucagon-like peptide-1 and peptide tyrosine-tyrosine concentrations. Subjective hunger/fullness was also measured. Total back squat repetitions were greater in CHO (44 (sd 10) repetitions) and PLA (43 (sd 10) repetitions) than WAT (38 (sd 10) repetitions; P < 0·001). Total bench press repetitions were similar between trials (WAT 37 (sd 7) repetitions; CHO 39 (sd 7) repetitions; PLA 38 (sd 7) repetitions; P = 0·130). Performance was similar between CHO and PLA trials. Hunger was suppressed and fullness increased similarly in PLA and CHO, relative to WAT (P < 0·001). During CHO, plasma glucose was elevated at 45 min (P < 0·05), whilst serum insulin was elevated (P < 0·05) and plasma ghrelin suppressed at 45 and 105 min (P < 0·05). These results suggest that breakfast/pre-exercise nutrition enhances resistance exercise performance via a psychological effect, although a potential mediating role of hunger cannot be discounted.

The nocebo effect, a phenomenon whereby learning about the possible side effects of a medical treatment increases the likelihood that one will suffer these side effects, continues to challenge physicians and ethicists. If a physician fully informs her patient as to the potential side effects of a medicine that may produce nocebogenic effects, which is usually conceived of as being a requirement associated with the duty to respect autonomy, she risks increasing the likelihood that her patient will experience these side effects and therefore suffer (unnecessary) harm, a violation of the duty of nonmaleficence. If, on the other hand, she intentionally withholds side effect information in an effort to protect her patient from suffering unnecessary harm from side effects, which is consistent with the duty of nonmaleficence, she violates the duty to respect patient autonomy. In this paper, the author discusses several previous attempts to deal with the nocebo effect and explains their weaknesses. He then proposes a means of managing the nocebo effect and argues that it does not share the weaknesses found in previous approaches. He concludes with a discussion of a simple, yet practical tool that might help clinicians manage the tension resulting from the nocebo effect.

Objectives: The current study aimed to examine if televised media about mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) framed in a sensationalized manner had a negative impact on cognitive functioning and persistent mTBI symptoms. Methods: One hundred two participants (MAge=37.16; SD=22.61) with a history of post-acute mTBI, recruited through a community research registry and an undergraduate recruitment system, were included in this study. Participants were assessed with a measure of health literacy, the Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (S-TOFHLA), and randomized to watch either a sensationalized or non-sensationalized news clip focused on mTBI. They were then assessed with the Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test (PASAT), Rivermead Post Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire (RPQ), Patient Reported Outcome Measures Information System (PROMIS) Depression scale, and the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th edition (PCL-5). Results: Bayesian analyses indicated that sensationalized media—alone (βPASAT=−0.08; βRPQ=−0.08) or in the context of covariates (βPASAT=−0.11; βRPQ=−0.14)—was not a strong predictor of PASAT score or post-concussion syndrome symptom severity. Conclusions: Although media sensationalization of mTBI symptoms is not desirable, this study suggests that one brief exposure to sensationalized information may not have a meaningful immediate impact on the cognitive functioning or symptom reporting of individuals with a history of mTBI. Future research should examine long-term and downstream effects of sensationalized media reporting in samples with greater diversity of TBI history. (JINS, 2019, 25, 90–100)

A growing number of studies show postconcussion syndrome (PCS) symptom report is influenced by factors other than head injury, suggesting symptoms typically associated with PCS may not be specific to head injury. Given the role that symptom expectation has been hypothesized to play in PCS symptom etiology, a comparison of symptoms expected for various disorders seems overdue. The present study asked 82 undergraduates to report the symptoms they currently experience, and then to report the symptoms they would expect to experience if they had had suffered either a head injury, an orthopedic injury, posttraumatic stress, or depression. No current differences in overall symptoms or in symptom subscales emerged. Results showed individuals portraying head injury, posttraumatic stress, and depression expected an increase in total symptoms, though individuals portraying an orthopedic injury did not expect such an increase. Results also showed simulators of head injury, posttraumatic stress, and depression expected equivalent rates of overall symptoms, memory/cognitive complaints, somatic concerns, and distracter symptoms, though head-injured individuals reported fewer affective symptoms than those portraying psychological disorders. In all, these findings suggest that individuals have a relative lack of specificity in symptom expectation for various disorders, with the implication that symptom checklists for “PCS” may not be useful for diagnosis. (JINS, 2002, 8, 37–47.)