SAJSM  VOL. 25  NO. 2  2013   43

Background. The potential performance-enhancement effect of pseudoephedrine (PSE) use has led to its prohibition in competition sports 
(urine concentrations >150 µg/ml). Data are, however, scarce regarding whether therapeutic PSE use enhances swimming performance. 
Objective. To investigate the effect of therapeutic PSE use on performance in aerobic and explosive sprint swimming events.
Method. A double-blinded cross-over study design was used. Participants in the control group initially received a placebo and those in the 
experimental group received a divided PSE dose of 90 mg/d. Anaerobic power (50 m sprint) and aerobic (2 000 m) swimming testing was 
conducted at (i) baseline; (ii) after ingestion of a placebo or PSE; and (iii) after the groups were crossed over, following a wash-out period 
of 4 days, to determine changes in performance between trials. 
Results. The participants (mean age 44 years; N=7) were competitive masters swimmers with normal resting heart rates (68 beats per minute 
(bpm); standard deviation (SD) ±14) and blood pressures (BPs) (171 (SD ±27)/83 (SD ±16) mmHg). The use of PSE during the anaerobic 
swim test showed only a trivial chance (68%) of improvement, with a likely enhancement in systolic BP (86%). The aerobic swim test did 
not affirm performance enhancement as measured by time to completion (52% chance of a positive effect; 41% chance of a negative effect), 
nor did any other physiological variable of interest (peak heart rate and exercising BP) differ significantly from baseline results. 
Conclusion. The use of a therapeutic amount of PSE in short and endurance swimming trials did not appear to have any major ergogenic 
effect on performance. 

S Afr J SM 2013;25(2):43-46. DOI:10.7196/SAJSM.378

Effect of a therapeutic dose of pseudoephedrine on 
swimmers’ performance
P J-L Gradidge,1 MSc (Med) (Biokinetics); D Constantinou,1 MB BCh, BSc Med (Hons), FFIMS; S-M Heard,1 BHSc (Hons) (Biokinetics); 
C King,1 BHSc (Hons) (Biokinetics); H Morris-Eyton,2 MEd (Adult Education) 

1  Centre for Exercise Science and Sports Medicine, School of Therapeutic Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, 
Johannesburg, South Africa

2 School of Education, Faculty of Humanities, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

Corresponding author: P J-L Gradidge (philippe.gradidge@wits.ac.za)

mailto:philippe.gradidge@wits.ac.za


44   SAJSM  VOL. 25  NO. 2  2013

Pseudoephedrine (PSE) is a sympathomimetic sub-
stance found in over-the-counter (OTC) products such 
as nasal decongestants, and in respiratory medicines 
in combination with antihistamines.[1] The action 
of sympathomimetic substances mimics that of 

epinephrine and norepinephrine, acting mainly on the α- and 
β-adrenoreceptors.[2] The ingestion of PSE results in the release of 
norepinephrine from storage sites in nerve and neural tissue.[2] This 
is thought to result from direct stimulation of post-synaptic receptors 
and inhibition of neurotransmittor reuptake.[3] It is also hypothesised 
that PSE has iono- and chronotropic effects on the heart and that it 
increases the exercising heart rate (HR), resulting in greater venous 
return and cardiac output.[2,3] The latter is thought ultimately to result 
in increased oxygenated blood supply to the exercising muscles, 
reducing the premature onset of muscle fatigue. The total torque 
production of the muscles is consequently increased and may result 
in enhanced athletic performance.[2,3] These and other positive effects 
of PSE appeal to athletes, although doses ≥240 mg (above therapeutic 
doses) may be needed for a positive ergogenic effect.[4,5]

Literature on the effectiveness of PSE as a performance enhancer is 
conflicting. Some studies have shown that PSE use improves 1 500 m 
running times, maximal torque in isometric knee extension, peak power 
during maximal cycling performance and lung-function capacity.[2,6] On 
the contrary, other studies have shown that therapeutic doses of PSE 
have no effect on cycling performance, 5 000 m endurance running, 
handgrip max imal voluntary contraction, time to fatigue, and peak 
mean total power output during anaerobic cycling.[1,3,5] The World Anti-
Doping Agency (WADA) decided to prohibit PSE use in sport because 
of evidence that it does, or has the potential to enhance performance;[7,8] 
however, confirmation of the ergogenic effect is limited and therapeutic 
use of PSE as a potential performance enhancer has only been exa-
mined in a small number of studies. Furthermore, research on its use in 
swimmers is limited. The purpose of this study was therefore to investigate 
the effect of the therapeutic use of PSE on swimming performance in 
aerobic and anaerobic (explosive sprint) swimming events.

Methods
We used a double-blinded, randomised, controlled cross-over trial 
design of repeated measures. Ethical approval of the study was granted 
by the University of the Witwatersrand (M1100445). 

Participants
Male and female masters-level swimmers competing in swimming 
events were invited to participate in the study (N=7). Inclusion 
criteria included an appropriate level of swimming, age 25 - 60 years 
(as defined by the Federation Internationale De Natation (FINA)[9]), 
a training frequency of ≥3 days per week, and a minimum of 2 years 
of swimming experience in masters-level competitive swimming 
events. Exclusion criteria included a history of or current cardiac 
disease, congenital defects, hypertension or renal disease; recent 
illness; the presence of musculoskeletal injury; and the existing use of 
performance-enhancing substances or recreational drugs. 

Participants were initially randomly assigned to an experimental 
group (PSE) or a control group (placebo). They were then asked to 
perform anaerobic power (50 m sprint) and aerobic (2 000 m) swim 
tests at (i) baseline; (ii) after ingestion of the placebo or PSE; and 

(iii) after the groups were crossed over, following a wash-out period of 
4 days, to determine changes in performance between trials.

To prevent a trained performance increase, the swimmers were asked 
to maintain their training regimens during the testing period. Their 
diets remained the same, except that they were asked to avoid caffeine, 
alcohol, nicotine and other stimulant drugs for 24 hours prior to testing.

Anthropometrical measurements
Resting and post-exercise HRs were measured using the radial pulse 
after a 5 - 10-minute resting period with participants seated. [10] 
Resting blood pressure (BP) was then measured using an aneroid 
sphygmomanometer and accompanying stethoscope (Delux (KT-102) 
Rappaport, Hi-care). BP was recorded immediately after the aerobic and 
anaerobic swim tests.[10] Height was measured using a stadiometer. [10] 
Weight was measured to the nearest kg with participants dressed in 
minimal clothing and with shoes removed (Seca, Germany).

Following baseline measurements, the participants were randomly 
assigned to the control and experimental groups. After a warm-up period 
to which they were individually accustomed, the participants were asked 
to perform the baseline aerobic and anaerobic swimming tests. The 
post-exercise HR, BP, rate of perceived exertion (RPE) (using the Borg 
1-10 RPE scale)[10] and time taken to perform the tests (Econosport 240 
stopwatch, Sportline) were recorded by the same researcher. 

Swimming performance tests 
Although the participants were familiar with the test protocols, and 
therefore knowledgeable regarding procedural expectations, the 
protocols were fully explained before each testing session to confirm 
full comprehension of participant requirements. Baseline testing 
served to acquaint the participants with the tests, and the results 
thereof allowed for comparison with the subsequent swim tests. 

The first test involved an anaerobic power activity, with participants 
required to give maximal effort in a 50 m sprint (2 lengths of a standard 
25 m pool). The second swim test comprised a timed 2 km aerobic 
swim, again required to be performed with maximal effort.[5] In the 
latter, the best time taken for the swimmer to complete the test was 
recorded, and the researchers counted the number of laps performed.[1] 

The tests were conducted at different swimming pools as participants 
belonged to different swim clubs; however, the aerobic and anaerobic 
tests were conducted in the same swimming pool per participant. 
Likewise, the tests were conducted at the same time of day per 
participant. To keep procedures consistent, the swimmers were 
required to start tests in the swimming pool and push off the pool wall. 
HR and BP were recorded before and immediately after each test. No 
verbal encouragement was given to participants to ensure consistency 
in this regard throughout testing. Participants were not given individual 
results, and were reminded that the data were analysed per group.

Placebo and PSE administration
After baseline data collection, each swimmer received either the placebo 
(no active ingredient) or 30 mg of PSE (Sudafed, Pfizer) 3 times daily for 
4 days (to ensure a therapeutic dose). The researchers and participants 
were blinded to which drug each group received. A sufficient supply of 
tablets for 4 days was administered to each participant by a research 
assistant. The placebos and active drugs were coded by independent 
persons, allowing for decoding at the end of the study.



SAJSM  VOL. 25  NO. 2  2013   45

To improve compliance, the participants received a daily text message 
via mobile phone, reminding them to ingest the tablet at the correct 
time of day. After taking the treatment for 4 days, the swimmers were 
tested in the same manner as for baseline testing. A wash-out period 
of 4 days was then observed to allow for complete elimination of the 
substances. The participants were subsequently crossed over, and the 
same procedures followed after ingestion of the opposite treatment 
(i.e. placebo or PSE). 

Statistical analysis  
Descriptive statistics were used for demographic data. Non-parametric 
statistics were used, as data were not normally distributed and the 
sample size was small (N=7). The Friedman analysis of variance 
(ANOVA) with Kendall co-efficient of concordance was used to 
measure the association between paired samples using Statistica 
(version 10). Paired t-tests were done to determine the effect statistic 
and p-value for each variable of interest. The magnitude of difference 
was calculated accordingly to determine if changes were ‘positive’, 
‘trivial’ or ‘negative’ according to Batterham and Hopkins[11] (a 
probability was ascribed to each magnitude). Cohen’s d was used to 
determine effect size between placebo and PSE use. 

Results
Seven masters-level competitive swimmers participated in the 
investigation. Participant demographics and baseline data are displayed 
in Table 1. The mean age (44 years; standard deviation (SD) ±7) 
represented a typical team at the masters stage of a swimming career. 
The swim times in the 50 m and 2 000 m protocols did not change 
in a meaningful way, reflected by the small effect sizes (d=0.18 - 0.06) 
and the magnitude inferences (%positive/trivial/negative effects) of 
%52/8/41 and %25/68/8, respectively (Table 2). HR did not change 
significantly in the 50 m time trial, but was likely to have increased in 
the 2 000 m swim (%85/6/9). This is supported by the small to moderate 
effect size shown in both tests (d=0.3 - 0.5). The majority of the other 
findings had effect sizes that were small; however, diastolic blood 

pressure (DBP) had medium effect sizes in the anaerobic and aerobic 
swim tests (d=0.76 and 0.56, respectively). The RPE during all trials was 
near maximal effort, as was requested of the participants, and did not 
change significantly throughout (small effect size; d=0.2). Finally, there 
may have been a likely change in systolic blood pressure (SBP) in the 
50 m sprint (%86/11/3) and 2 000 m time trial (%76/17/7).

Discussion
Athletes are continually looking for ways to enhance their performance 
in order to gain a competitive advantage in sport; and anti-doping 
organisations such as WADA are continually trying to keep abreast 
of these means.[12] Some athletes use well-known OTC medicines 
that have been prohibited as they have been shown to enhance 
performance.[3,12] Others, to aid with recovery and training, consume 
nutritional supplements that are potentially contaminated, knowingly 
or inadvertently, with prohibited substances.[13] In both cases, the athlete 
could be sanctioned if doping tests are positive; the former scenario 
being of particular concern, as PSE can be found in nasal decongestants 
and respiratory medicines in combination with antihistamines.[1] A 
recently published position statement argued that although OTC 
substances such as PSE could potentially augment performance, these 
products could cause long-lasting harm to athletes and should therefore 

Table 2. Anaerobic swim test results for the 50 m and 2 000 m swim protocols (N=7)

Testing variable
Baseline 
mean (±SD)

Placebo
mean (±SD)

PSE
mean (±SD)

Friedman 
ANOVA 
(p-value)

Kendall co-
efficient of 
concordance

Effect 
size

Positive*
%

Trivial* 
%

Negative* 
%

50 m swim protocol
  Time (s)
  HR (bpm)
  SBP (mmHg)
  DBP (mmHg)
  RPE

38.8 (±5.6)
119 (±24)
171 (±27)
89 (±16)
7.1 (±2.6)

38.7 (±5.5)
126 (±35)
175 (±27)
77 (±8)
7.7 (±2.1)

38.6 (±5.4)
122 (±25)
161 (±27)
80 (±8)
7.9 (±1.6)

0.92 (0.6)
0.27 (0.9)
3.2 (0.2)
4.6 (0.1)
1.9 (0.4)

0.7
0.02
0.2
0.3
0.1

0.18
0.30
0.68
0.76
0.16

25
56
86
1
1

68
35
11
99
99

8
9
3
0
0

2 000 m swim protocol
  Time (s)
  HR (bpm)
  SBP (mmHg)
  DBP (mmHg)
  RPE

1 993 (±550)
117 (±9)
166 (±26)
77 (±8)
6.9 (±2.5)

2 091 (±392)
135 (±33)
170 (±23)
74 (±6)
6.9 (±2.40)

2 079 (±319)
109 (±45)
157 (±28)
75 (±5)
7.1 (±2.1)

1.14 (0.6)
1.56 (0.5)
1.18 (0.6)
0.56 (0.8)
0.95 (0.95)

0.08
0.11
0.08
0.04
0.007

0.06
0.50
0.47
0.56
0.21

52
85
76
0
1

8
6
17
100
93

41
9
7
0
5

PSE = pseudoephedrine; ANOVA = analysis of variance; SD = standard deviation; HR = heart rate; SBP = systolic blood pressure; DBP = diastolic blood pressure; RPE = rate of perceived exertion.
*Values are rounded and therefore may not add up to 100% exactly.

Table 1. Summary of sample characteristics (N=7)
Variable Mean (±SD)
Height (m) 1.76 (±7.30)
Weight (kg) 88 (±14)
BMI (kg/m2) 28.6 (±3.3)
Resting HR (bpm) 68 (±14)
SBP (mmHg) 129 (±12)
DBP (mmHg) 80 (±10)
SD = standard deviation; BMI = body mass index; HR = heart rate; SBP = systolic blood 
pressure; DBP = diastolic blood pressure.



46   SAJSM  VOL. 25  NO. 2  2013

be avoided if suspicion is warranted.[14] Nevertheless, the time taken for 
optimal effect could be extensive with the use of nutritional supplements; 
therefore, they are not as appealing as the faster-acting PSE.[15] 

PSE is banned in-competition, due to its potentially ergogenic 
effect on athletes in theoretical urine concentrations >150 µg/ml, 
even though evidence of its effect in athletes is limited.[7,8] In our 
study, performance was measured after a 4-day period of ingestion of 
90 mg/d of PSE – an amount sufficient to cause a substantial increase 
in urine concentration. Furthermore, performance was tested in 
both sprint and long-distance events. However, the findings showed 
no likely enhancement in the majority of variables tested, with the 
exception of a probable increase in HR in the 2 000 m swim trial 
(positive/trivial/negative: 85/6/9) with a small effect size (d=0.1). The 
RPE subjectively measured effort level of performance, and it was 
ensured that the tests were conducted at high intensity (RPE ≥6). The 
tests were performed using PSE and placebo in indiscriminate order 
initially, with these substances switched after a 4-day wash-out period. 

There were slight improvements in swim time with the use of PSE in 
the 50 m and 2 000 m events; however, the probabilty that these changes 
were meaningful was low (25% and 52%, respectively). Of interest was 
the reduction in SBP in both tests with PSE use; an acute, but unexpected 
effect. This is contrary to a similar study by Chester et al.,[4] which 
did not show a significant change in SBP or DBP during endurance 
running, even with use of a higher treatment dose of PSE (240 mg). 
Similarly, Hunter et al.[16] reported no influence on performance in a 
cycling time trial with the use of 120 mg of PSE 2 hours prior to testing. 
In our study, the greatest effect size was observed in DBP during the 
50 m sprint, but the magnitude of this effect was almost certainly trivial 
(99%). The results of our study support that therapeutic PSE use does 
not convey quantifiable benefits during explosive anaerobic events, 
although the sporting discipline of our study differed from that of the 
aforementioned, which utilised either prolonged[16] or endurance[4]  
testing protocols. Likewise, enhancement of performance was not 
evident in endurance events in our study.

On the other hand, some studies have shown performance enhance-
ment with PSE use. Hodges et al.[6] showed an improvement in 
running time (2.1%; p=0.001) among athletes, with no effect on HR. 
Apart from investigating performance in a different sport (running v. 
swimming in our study), the study recruited elite athletes and employed 
a higher dose of PSE (180 mg v. 90 mg in our study). The ingestion 
of higher than therapeutic (>120 mg) amounts of PSE may lead to 
increased performance, as seen in a number of other studies. [1,6] For 
instance, Pritchard-Peschek et al.[17] reported a 5.1% increase in time 
trial cycling performance with the ingestion of 180 mg of PSE. The 
researchers attributed the improvement to stimulation of the central 
nervous system or alterations in metabolism, but these cannot be 
proven without appropriate biochemical investigations. In the same 
way, another study by Gill et al.,[2] which saw participants ingest 180 
mg of PSE, showed an improvement in anaerobic cycling and isometric 
knee extension, and contrary to the present study, a significant change 
in HR (p<0.001). Interestingly, there were no reported adverse effects.[2] 
These studies support the theory that higher doses of PSE may result in 
enhanced performance time, which may be of relevance in swimming 
competitions, warranting further investigation.

Improvements could be made for future studies in this area. Firstly, a 
larger sample size should be used to substantiate the findings to a more 

comprehensive population. Secondly, future studies should include 
different swimming populations and should measure blood and urine 
concentrations of the therapeutic dosage of PSE, with the clear purpose 
of examining the relationship with performance. Thirdly, the swimming 
pool size was consistent, but the location differed. The use of one 
swimming pool with controlled environmental factors would ensure 
consistency throughout testing. The warm-up used prior to testing – 
which varied between participants in our study, according to what they 
were accustomed – could be standardised for prospective studies.

Conclusion
In our study, a therapeutic dose of PSE (90 mg/d) did not show 
statistically significant effects on HR, SBP, swim times and RPE when 
ingested in therapeutic doses by masters-level swimmers. However, 
when the magnitude of these differences was examined, there was a 
relatively high probability of a decreased SBP in the 50 m sprint and 
decreased HR and SBP in the 2 000 m swim associated with the use 
of PSE. Nevertheless, an ergogenic advantage does not seem to be 
gained from the recommended therapeutic dose of PSE (<120 mg/d) 
in endurance and sprint swimming performance. 

References
1. Hodges ANH, Lynn BM, Bula JE, et al. Effects of pseudoephedrine on maximal 

cycling power and submaximal cycling efficiency. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2003;35:1316-
1319. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1249/01.MSS.0000078925.30346.F8]

2. Gill ND, Shield A, Blazevich AJ, Zhou S, Weatherby RP. Muscular and cardiorespiratory 
effects of pseudoephedrine in human athletes. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2000;50:205-213. 
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2125.2000.00252.x] 

3. Chu KS, Doherty TJ, Parise G, Milheiro JS, Tarnopolsky MA. A moderate dose of 
pseudoephedrine does not alter muscle contraction strength or anaerobic power. Clin 
J Sport Med 2002;12:387-390.

4. Chester N, Reilly T, Mottram DR. Physiological, subjective and performance effects of 
pseudoephedrine and phenylpropanolamine during endurance running exercise. Int J 
Sports Med 2003;24:3-8. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-2003-37193]

5. Salo D, Riewald SA. Complete conditioning for swimming. 1st ed. Illinois, USA: Human 
Kinetics, 2008.

6. Hodges K, Hancock S, Currell K, Hamilton B, Jeukendrup AE. Pseudoephedrine enhances 
performance in 1500 m runners. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2006;38:329-333. [http://dx.doi.
org/10.1249/01.mss.0000183201.79330.9c]

7. World Anti-Doping Agency. The 2012 Prohibited List World Anti-Doping Code. 
Montreal: World Anti-Doping Agency, 2011.

8. Pokrywka A, Tszyrsznic W, Kwiatkowska DJ. Problems of the use of pseudoephedrine by 
athletes. Int J Sports Med 2009;30:569-572. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0029-1202826]

9. Federation Internationale De Natation (FINA). Masters Rules. Lausanne: FINA, 2010. 
http://www.fina.org (accessed 9 November 2012).

10. American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM). ACSM’s Guidelines for Exercise Testing 
and Prescription. 8th ed. Philadelphia, USA: Lippincot Williams & Wilkins, 2010.

11. Batterham A, Hopkins W. Making inferences about magnitudes. Int J Sports Physiol 
Perform 2006;11(1):50-57. 

12. Gradidge P, Coopoo Y, Constantinou D. Attitudes and perceptions towards 
performance-enhancing substance use in Johannesburg boys high school sport. South 
African Journal of Sports Medicine 2010;22(2):32-36.

13. van der Merwe PJ, Grobbelaat E. Inadvertent doping through nutritional supplements 
is a reality. South African Journal of Sports Medicine 2004;16:3-7.

14. Buell JL, Franks R, Ransone J, Powers ME, Laquale KM, Carlson-Phillips A. National 
Athletic Trainers’ Association position statement: Evaluation of dietary supplements 
for performance nutrition. J Athl Train 2013;48(1):124-136. [http://dx.doi.
org/10.4085/1062-6050-48.1.16]

15. Gradidge P, Coopoo Y, Constantinou D. Prevalence of performance-enhancing 
substance use by Johannesburg male adolescents involved in competitive high school 
sports. Archives of Exercise in Health and Disease 2011;2(2):114-119. [http://dx.doi.
org/10.5628/aehd.v2i2.102]

16. Hunter G, Derman WE, Noakes TD, Smith P, Evans A, Gabriels G. Pseudoephedrine is 
without ergogenic effects during prolonged exercise. J Appl Physiol 1996;81(6):2611–2617.

17. Pritchard-Peschek KR, Jenkins DG, Osborne MA, Slater GJ. Pseudoephedrine ingestion 
and cycling time-trial performance. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab 2010;20:132-139. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1249/01.MSS.0000078925.30346.F8]
http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2125.2000.00252.x]
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-2003-37193]
http://dx.doi.org/10.1249/01.mss.0000183201.79330.9c]
http://dx.doi.org/10.1249/01.mss.0000183201.79330.9c]
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0029-1202826]
http://www.fina.org
http://dx.doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-48.1.16]
http://dx.doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-48.1.16]
http://dx.doi.org/10.5628/aehd.v2i2.102]
http://dx.doi.org/10.5628/aehd.v2i2.102]