Background: Nutritional expectations have been shown to influence exercise performance via placebo and nocebo effects. The present study aimed to evaluate performance-enhancement expectations for coffee and energy drinks using the Stanford Expectations of Treatment Scale. Methods: A total of 402 participants (48.5% male) with an average exercise history of 4.53 years, engaging in average physical activity 3.91 times per week, were included in the study. Data collection was conducted through the Qualtrics platform. Results: Participants exhibited significantly higher positive expectations for coffee compared to energy drinks (p = 0.002), whereas negative expectations were more pronounced for energy drinks than for coffee (p < 0.001). Males and individuals engaging in anaerobic exercise expressed more positive expectations for energy drinks than females and those participating in aerobic or mixed exercise regimens. Additionally, high-frequency exercisers (≥4 sessions per week) reported greater positive expectations for both beverages and fewer negative expectations for coffee than low-frequency exercisers (≤3 sessions per week). Correlational analyses revealed weak but significant associations between expectations and variables such as exercise history, frequency, intensity, and age. Conclusions: The findings suggest that coffee is perceived as a more effective performance enhancer and exhibits greater placebo-inducing potential than energy drinks, which may elicit stronger nocebo effects. These group-specific perceptions should be considered by trainers, coaches, and researchers when addressing placebo–nocebo mechanisms in the context of sports and exercise.

Exercise addiction is widely studied, but an official clinical diagnosis does not exist for this behavioral addiction. Earlier research using various screening instruments examined the absolute scale values while investigating the disorder. The Exercise Addiction Inventory-3 (EAI-3) was recently developed with two subscales, one denoting health-relevant exercise and the other addictive tendencies. The latter has different cutoff values for leisure exercisers and elite athletes. Therefore, the present 15-country study (n = 3,760) used the EAI-3 to classify the risk of exercise addiction (REA), but only if the participant reported having had a negative exercise-related experience. Based on this classification, the prevalence of REA was 9.5% in the sample. No sex differences, and few cross-national differences were found. However, collectivist countries reported greater REA in various exercise contexts than individualist countries. Moreover, the REA among athletes was (i) twice as high as leisure exercisers, (ii) higher in organized than self-planned exercises, irrespective of athletic status, and (iii) higher among those who exercised for skill/mastery reasons than for health and social reasons, again irrespective of athletic status. Eating disorders were more frequent among REA-affected individuals than in the rest of the sample. These results do not align with recent theoretical arguments claiming that exercise addiction is unlikely to be fostered in organized sports. The present study questions the current research framework for understanding exercise addiction and offers a new alternative to segregate self-harming exercise from passionate overindulgence in athletic life.