Nicotine pouches in sport: why athletes use them and why it does not work
Snus and “tobacco-free” pouches have moved from team sports into endurance. In a controlled experiment they did not improve a one-hour cycling time trial at all, and the sense of focus in dependent users is simply withdrawal relief.
First it was Swedish hockey players and footballers. Then white pouches under the lip started appearing in locker rooms across Europe, and after that in conversations about cycling and running. The user's logic usually sounds like this: “it boosts concentration, takes the edge off before the start, and it isn't doping anyway.” Technically, the last part is hard to argue with. The rest is another matter.
What they are and how widespread they are
We are talking about two related products. Snus is a moist tobacco-free… more precisely, tobacco-containing powder that is tucked under the lip. Nicotine pouches are its “tobacco-free” successor: the same nicotine, but on a neutral filler without the tobacco leaf. That very wording became the marketing battering ram: the product is sold as “tobacco-free”, even though the active substance and the dependence are identical.
The scale is best documented in football. A joint study by the Professional Footballers' Association in England and Loughborough University found that snus or nicotine pouches are used by 18% of men and 22% of women among professional players, while 42% and 39% respectively had tried them at some point.
In endurance sports the share is lower — logically enough, given exactly what has to be paid there. But a 2026 review notes that these products are becoming increasingly common among elite athletes in general, and cycling is no exception.
What the controlled experiment showed
The main question is simple: does nicotine deliver a gain in endurance work? There is an answer, and a fairly clean one.
A randomised, double-blind, crossover study involved 10 well-trained cyclists (age 34 ± 9 years, VO₂max 71 ± 6 ml/kg/min — a serious level). Each completed three trials a week apart: 2 mg nicotine gum (chewed for 30 minutes roughly 40 minutes before the start), a 7 mg transdermal patch applied a day ahead (about 10 hours before), and placebo.
The one-hour time trial:
- placebo — 63.3 ± 4.1 min
- gum — 62.9 ± 4.1 min
- patch — 62.6 ± 4.5 min
- no differences (p = 0.73)
Average power: 263 ± 33, 264 ± 31 and 265 ± 32 W respectively (p = 0.74). Neither physiological nor subjective measures changed either. No side effects were recorded at these doses.
In other words: two different delivery methods, a decent sample by the standards of such protocols, a blinded design — and exactly zero effect.
So why does it feel like it helps
The 2026 review (“The Paradox of the Pouch”) answers this directly, and the answer is unpleasant for users. Nicotine does not improve physical performance and potentially worsens cardiovascular readiness, anaerobic performance and endurance. And the subjective improvement in concentration and composure that athletes describe is largely the relief of withdrawal symptoms in someone who is already dependent, not a real gain in function.
The mechanics here are cyclical and insidious: the first dose gives a mild stimulant effect, then dependence forms, and each subsequent portion no longer lifts you above baseline but merely returns you to it from a state of withdrawal. It feels like “the pouch helps.” It measures as zero.
Risks and legal status
- Oral health. Damage to the mucosa and gums at the placement site is the most common and predictable consequence.
- Strain on the heart. Nicotine raises heart rate and blood pressure; for a sport where the cardiovascular system is already working at its limit, that is a bad trade.
- Dependence. Nicotine doses in modern pouches are often higher than in a cigarette, and the “harmless” presentation lowers the barrier to entry.
- Mortality. Swedish cohorts of long-term snus use have recorded an association with mortality.
- WADA. Nicotine is not banned, but it is on the Monitoring Program — meaning the agency tracks how often it is used in sport. The review explicitly calls the regulatory status unclear and points to the exploitation of the “tobacco-free” loophole by aggressive marketing.
It is worth stating the obvious: “not banned” and “safe” are different claims. Alcohol is not banned in most sports either.
Key points
- Nicotine pouches contain the same nicotine as snus, just without the tobacco leaf; “tobacco-free” refers to the filler, not to the dependence.
- In football, 18% of men and 22% of women among professionals use them; in endurance the share is lower, but the products are spreading.
- In a blinded crossover RCT in cyclists with a VO₂max of 71, the one-hour time trial did not change with either gum or patch (p = 0.73).
- The 2026 review: nicotine does not improve performance and may worsen cardiovascular readiness and endurance.
- The feeling of “being more focused” in dependent users is withdrawal relief, not a gain in function.
- Risks: oral mucosa, strain on the heart, dependence, an association with mortality in long-term cohorts.
- WADA does not ban nicotine, but keeps it on the Monitoring Program. Permitted does not mean beneficial.
Sources: “The Paradox of the Pouch: A Systematic-Narrative Hybrid Review of Snus and Nicotine Pouch Use on Athletic Performance, Prevalence, Health Outcomes, and Regulatory Status in Sport”, Quality in Sport, 2026. https://apcz.umk.pl/QS/article/view/71294. “Nicotine Supplementation Does Not Influence Performance of a 1h Cycling Time-Trial in Trained Males”. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6444171/. World Anti-Doping Agency, “Effects of snus administration on sport performance”. https://www.wada-ama.org/en/resources/scientific-research/effects-snus-administration-sport-performance