Effect of Odor Stimulations on Physical Activity: A Systematic Review

2.1 Search Strategy

This systematic review followed the “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis” (PRISMA) guidelines [7]. Six databases were used to perform the search: Medline (1946-present), Embase (1974-present), EBM Reviews – Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1991-present), CINAHL Plus with Full Text (1937-present), SportDiscus with Full Text (1930-present) and Web of Science (1945-present). The last research was performed on December 22, 2021. The following keywords were used to search the concept of: “aerobic training” OR exercise* OR “physical activity” OR “physical training” OR “resistance training” OR sport* OR “strength training” OR “weight training” OR weightlifting OR “weight lifting” OR running OR football OR hockey OR athletes OR exertion OR “athletic performance”. For olfaction, the following keywords were used: odor OR odour OR aroma OR fragrance* OR smelling OR smell OR olfactory OR olfaction OR normosmic OR normosmia OR hyposmic OR hyposmia OR anosmic OR anosmia OR odorant* OR sniff OR sniffing.

Included studies had to meet the following inclusion criteria: (1) investigate the effect of certain odors on PA; (2) involve humans, both adults and children; (3) essential oils or odors were administered nasally. On the other hand, studies were not included if (1) olfactory acuity had changed following head trauma or surgery; (2) studies were not completed or published; (3) studies were written in a language other than English or French.

2.2 Study Selection

Figure 1 shows the evolution of the number of articles retained and excluded at each stage. Duplicates were removed after studies identification. The first screening of articles was done only using titles by two authors (MC, AD). The second screening of articles was done using abstracts by two authors (MC, AD). Subsequently, a final sorting was done by two authors (MC, AD) using the full texts of the remaining studies. All authors’ conflicts were discussed internally and resolved by a third author (ACG).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

Flowchart of studies selection from their identification to final inclusion

2.3 Data Extraction and Analyses

Articles included following the selection process were read and analyzed by two authors (MC, AD). The data were processed by MC, extracted by MC and validated independently by AD. If differences were present, the authors reached a consensus following a discussion. If necessary, a third author (ACG) was consulted to make the decision. Data from included studies are summarized in Table 1, and their protocols are summarized in Table 2.

2.4 Risks of Bias and Quality Assessment

Risks of bias and quality assessment were analyzed using the QUADAS-2 tool [8]. This tool consists of four key domains, which cover 1) patient selection, 2) index tests, 3) reference standards, and 4) flow of patients through the study and timing of the index test(s) and reference standard (“flow and timing”) [8]. Each domain was assessed in terms of their risk of bias, and the first three domains were also assessed in terms of concerns regarding applicability. The risk of bias was assessed by one author (ACG), and a consensus was reached through discussion with two authors (MC and AM).

3.1 Study Selection

Two thousand eight hundred seventy-seven studies were screened based on their titles, and 47 were kept for full-text studies assessment. From those studies, 19 studies were analyzed and extracted. As presented in Table 1, those studies had between 7 and 104 participants, for a total of n = 421 participants. Out of these 19 studies, 18 had an experimental design [9-26], while one study had a quasi-experimental nonrandomized design [27]. All 19 studies assessed the effect of certain odors on PA characteristics like strength, cardiovascular capacity, precision, and balance.

3.2 Study and Olfactory Interventions Characteristics

As presented in Table 1, studies took place in Belgium [19], Iran [9, 12, 18], Japan [13, 16], Korea [14, 15], Palestine [27], Philippines [20, 21], the United Kingdom [22, 25], and the United States of America [10, 11, 17, 23, 24, 26]. Most of those studies were conducted on young athletes [10-22, 24-27] and the rest on adults [9, 23]. Each study had an intervention time ranging from 1 [12, 13, 15-18, 24] to 10 [9] sessions. Various methods were used to assess olfactory responses. Five studies placed the odor right under the nose with an adhesive strip [11, 12, 20, 21, 24] while other used small tubes [13, 22, 26], nasal spray [19], scented headphones [23], nasal cannula [10], odor on the wrist [15], odor in a mask [9, 16, 17], or odor diffused in the testing room [14, 18, 25, 27]. The period in which the participant inhaled the odor also varied between three seconds [26] to five minutes [27] before the PA. Odors that were presented more often in those 19 studies were peppermint [10-12, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 27], lavender [9, 20, 21, 24], citrus [14, 16, 27], and ammonia [22, 26]. There were also jasmine [17], essential oil mixture [15], and forest smell [25]. Caffeine and glucose were used for the nasal spray study [19].

3.3 Physical Activity Protocols Characteristics and Tests

As presented in Tables 1 and 2, PA included cardiovascular exercise on a treadmill [10, 12, 14, 18] or a track [11, 21, 23, 27], or cycling on an ergometer [16, 19, 25]; resistance training (e.g., squats, deadlift, leg press, push-up, handgrip) [11, 13, 15, 18, 22, 24, 26]; precision task (e.g., dart throw, basketball free throw) [11, 17, 20]; and/or balance tasks [9]. The effect of each odor was assessed with the changes of some PA variables such as the number of repetitions, rated perceived exertion, effort perception evaluated with different scales, cardiac output, exercise duration, skills ability, and blood analysis. In short, these studies assessed strength, cardiovascular, precision, and balance variables.

3.4 Effect of Odors on PA

3.5 Risk of Bias Assessment

Although most of the studies included in this systematic review do not have any ‘‘risk of bias’’ nor ‘‘applicability concerns’’, some cases were deemed unclear or at high risk. Results are summarised in Table 3. One study by Esfangreh, Azarbaijani [18] raised too much uncertainty and concerns about its applicability and especially about its risk of bias. It thus made it ineligible to be included in the present systematic review. Even though the study by Hirsch, Ye [17] also presented some unclear risks of bias or applicability concerns, its methodology and presentation made it eligible for analysis in the present systematic review. Concerning patient selection, out of the remaining 17 studies, three had an unclear risk of bias [10, 11, 16]. Concerning the index test, none of the 17 remaining studies had an unclear or high risk of bias. Concerning reference standards, three studies had an unclear risk of bias [19, 21, 23]. Concerning flow and timing, one study had an unclear risk of bias [16]. For the applicability concerns, four studies had an unclear risk for patient selection [10-12, 16]. Concerning the index test, one study had an unclear risk [23]. Concerning reference standards, two studies had an unclear risk [21, 23]. Overall, only two studies presented a questionable risk of bias assessment and quality assessment results [17, 18], and one was deemed unfit for further analysis [18].

4.1 Strength Tasks

Six studies that explored the effect of odors on strength tasks were included in this review, and four of them used a stimulating odor, including peppermint and ammonia [11, 22, 24, 26]. One study had no significant results with ammonia while trying to test if there was a strength increase by measuring the 1RM and the number of repetitions at 85% of the 1RM [26]. The other studies showed a significant increase in the number of push-ups (+2.2) (peppermint) [11], heart rate (+11.5%) (ammonia) [22], alertness (ammonia) [22], performance perception (ammonia) [22], and pleasantness (peppermint) [24]. These significant results are in line with the current literature. Some studies explained that menthol, an organic compound from peppermint, would decrease the discomfort during breathing and may be caused by its stimulation of the sensory and palatine nerves [28-30]. In contrast, even though ammonia is also a stimulant odor, its effect comes from another pathway. Indeed, for ammonia odor, some studies have postulated that it would be the irritation of the lungs and the nose in response to the stimulating odor inhalation that would triggers an inhalation reflex, causing rapid inhalation. It would then results in better and faster work from the breathing muscles, causing an increase in alertness [31, 32]. This process might explain the results obtained in both studies, while the non-significant one [26] evaluated the strength and the significant one [22] the participants’ feelings during the strength task. Since the PA were strength tasks, the respiratory system was less solicited than for other types of PA. Therefore, it may explain why the participants’ feelings are better, but not the strength itself.

In three studies, different odors were used [13, 15, 24]. More precisely, one study let their participants decide their pleasant odor to inhale, resulting in a decrease in their diastolic blood pressure during a rhythmic handgrip task (e.g., 6.7 mmHg lower) [13]. Another study used an oil mixture containing lavender, rosemary, and peppermint. It appeared that participants in the odor intervention group had lower rate of perceived exertion on the Borg Scale from 6 to 20 during the exercises (e.g., 2.1 lower during biceps curl exercise and 1.4 lower during leg curl exercise) [15]. While it may be possible to hypothesize that the oil mixture is a pleasant odor with the use of rosemary, multiple studies have suggested that pleasant and unpleasant odors might activate different pathways in the peripheral and central nervous system [33, 34]. It may also cause a change in the heart rate, where pleasant odors would decrease its frequency and therefore decrease blood pressure [33, 35]. Finally, the last study showed that lavender inhalation have decreased participants’ attention during a handgrip task, which is the first significant negative outcome during a strength task [24]. However, those results are not in agreement with the literature on this odor. A systematic review has suggested that attention should increase following the inhalation of lavender [36]. The authors of this review supported their statement with the linalool, one of the main components of the lavender essential oil, and its effect on the GABAergic pathway [36]. Knowing that participants in the study with decreased attention had the same adhesive strip under their nose for the hole experimentation, there might have been a familiarization effect or a diminished linalool concentration at the end of the task. These results suggest that each of the odors described has the potential to improve performance during strength exercise. However, it is important to note that each odor affects specific parameters of strength tasks and participants’ feelings.

4.2 Cardiovascular Tasks

Cardiovascular tasks were explored in ten studies included in this review, six of them used the peppermint odor [10-12, 21, 23, 27]. Out of these six studies using peppermint, four showed a better overall performance with faster running time (e.g., 2.94 sec faster for 400m run) [10, 11, 27], two better participants’ feelings evaluated with different scales (e.g., effort, fatigue, frustration) [10, 21], and one improved lung function evaluated with a spirometer [27]. Similarly, as described earlier in this review, peppermint and, more precisely, menthol might decrease breathing discomfort, which explain such improvements [28-30]. Two other studies produced no significant results [12, 23]. One study with nonsignificant changes in the maximal heart rate with the peppermint odor [12] is also coherent with the ambiguous literature that reported no change in heart rate with nasal administration of this substance [37]. The last study without significant results [23] measuring walking distance after inhaling peppermint might be explained by the intensity of the exercise that was submaximal (walking: 1.5-3.8 METS) in comparison to other studies which had more intense exercises during their experimentation (running: 3.5-23 METS; bicycling: 3.5-16 METS) [38].

Three studies tested citrus odor during aerobic exercise, and they all had significant results [14, 16, 27]. Indeed, participants had a significant increase in feeling (i.e., participants’ mood), which was evaluated with different scales, lung function, which was evaluated with a spirometer, and performance (e.g., 53.20 sec faster for a 1500m run). These results are supported by the literature in which this odor is characterized by its stimulant effect and ability to enhance mood and mental, and physical performances [39, 40]. Some studies have also pointed out one crucial benefit of using this odor which is the lesser number of adverse effects compared to other odors such as unpleasant odors [39, 41].

The remaining three studies used lavender [21], forest smell [25] and a glucose spray [19]. In the first one, participants became faster and more agile after inhaling lavender while performing twice an agility test [21]. Those surprising results might be caused by increased attention as described by Malloggi, Menicucci [36]. It might also be related to the hypotensive effect of this odor that would put the participants in a better mood and a better physiological situation (i.e. lower blood pressure) [42]. It might therefore be suggested that a decreased anxiety during the task enhances its outcome The second study using the forest smell to mimick an outdoor practice of PA has shown that the occlusion of this smell may decrease the participants’ mood and increase the rate of perceived exertion and heart rate [25]. On the one hand, it might be possible that the forest odor was pleasant and would have a similar effect as described earlier for that type of odor although, there is very little literature on this odor. On the other hand, it might also be possible to analyze this result by emphasizing on the occlusion of the sense of smell and the unpleasantness of this situation. Indeed, Johnson [3] has stated that the inhalation of odor can affect self-rating mood measurements positively or negatively depending on the pleasantness of the odor. Another author showed a negative correlation between heart rate and odor pleasantness. [33] These results for unpleasant odor are in line with the research included in this review, but more studies are still needed to better understand the underlying mechanisms. The third study used a glucose nasal spray which increased average power (+2.4%) on an ergometer during a time trial [19]. This effect seems more related to the glucose molecule than the odor itself. Knowing that high-intensity PA can decrease whole-body glucose concentrations in humans [43], better regulation of this substance seems possible with intranasal administration. The study of Pontiroli, Alberetto [44] supports this fact by exposing an increased blood glucose concentration after the nasal administration.

These results suggest that every odor has its advantages and its mechanism. However, the positive effect might be more related to the participants’ mood rather than directly affecting their physical abilities.

4.3 Precision Tasks

Three of the 19 studies explored the effect of peppermint, lavender, or jasmine odor on the performance of a precision task [11, 17, 20]. Two of them had significant results [17, 20]. Peppermint generated ambiguous results, with different results reported in two studies [11, 20]. One of these studies noted no improvement of a basketball free-throw accuracy test [11], while the other had a significant increase on a dart-throw accuracy test [20]. Some studies have supported that peppermint increases vigilance and visuomotor accuracy [45, 46]. Therefore, it seems possible that peppermint odor has a positive effect on precision tasks. The differences between these two studies might come from participants’ selection. The study with the basketball free-throw accuracy test [11] recruited highly trained university athletes, including basketball athletes, and the other study showing a significant effect of odor on task accuracy recruited non-experienced university students [20].The benefit of peppermint odor may have a reduced effect on experts than on novices for a precision task.

The same study that reported significant results obtained a lower anxiety score when participants inhaled lavender odor than peppermint or no odor [20]. Even though this odor failed to increase performance, changes in the participants’ mood seem an important variable for precision tasks. A study by Nieuwenhuys and Oudejans [47] showed a negative correlation between anxiety levels and performance during an accuracy task. This lower anxiety level in the study using lavender is supported by the study of Sayorwan, Siripornpanich [48], in which lavender had a similar effect on the anxiety level by positively affecting the parasympathetic system activity. They also used an electroencephalogram for a better understanding of the cerebral changes, and they found an increase in the alpha band which can be interpreted as a relaxed state [48].

The third and last study that assessed a precision task used jasmine odor stimulation and found a better bowling score (+26.5%) while using this odor [17]. Like lavender, jasmine odor was rated as a pleasant odor which might explain its effect on decreasing average heart rate [33, 49]. One study also highlighted higher activation of the parasympathetic nervous system following the inhalation of jasmine [50]. Knowing that a similar mechanism happened with lavender odor and significant improvements were associated with it, more studies using jasmine odor should be conducted to confirm its impact on a precision task. These results suggest that odor stimulation significantly affects precision tasks when these odors are pleasant and presented to participants having little experience in the experimental task.

4.4 Postural Balance Tasks

The effect of odors on postural balance tasks has very little literature, with only one study included in this review which used lavender odor [9]. This study reported significant increases in all their postural balance tests, such as Berg Balance Scale, Timed Up and Go, and Fall Efficacy Scale (e.g., improvement of the Fall Efficacy Scale by -3.8 for the experimental group instead of +0.4 for the control group, with lower results showing a reduced fall risk) after inhaling lavender. As mentioned earlier, this odor seems to enhance the participants’ mood by modulating the parasympathetic nervous system [48]. It may also increase the participant’s attention and decrease anxiety [36]. One study assessed the relation between postural balance and anxiety, and it appeared that motor control was more difficult for those who were more stressed [51]. Both studies support each other, with better postural balance in a more relaxed mood.

4.5 How Can We Produce More Robust Results?

Studies evaluating the effect of different odors on PA have been creative in their administration methods. Indeed, the duration of the exposition, the distance between the odor and the participant, and the odor concentration were not consistent, and this could partly explain the different results reported across the literature. In the future, using different tools such as an olfactometer might be important to improve the consistency of the olfactory intervention. With the ability to control the duration of the exposition, the distance between the odor and the participant, and the odor concentration, the olfactometer seems the key to more standardized experimental protocols to present odors.

4.6 Strengths and Limitations

Even though many odors were tested, peppermint and lavender were the most tested. Those two odors were used for each type of PA included in this review (e.g., strength, cardiovascular, and precision tasks). However, balance tasks only tested lavender odor [9]. It was, therefore, impossible to understand the true mechanism of action of each odor. This systematic review also covered numerous physical qualities (e.g., 1RM, heart rate, overall performance) part of PA with the 19 studies included in this question. By separating each physical quality, a better understanding of the effects of different type of odors was possible. To perform better analyses, other variables than task performance were measured in most studies. These variables helped to generate a better understanding of the mechanisms in action after inhaling different odors.

The main limitation of this review is the irregularity in odor concentration and the duration of the odor stimulus. For example, duration of exposition range from 3 sec [26] to the total duration of the exercise [9, 11, 14, 17, 23, 24]. Knowing that some odors, such as peppermint and lavender, have a specific compound that plays a crucial role in the effects described earlier, their concentration should be standardized to assess the magnitude of their effects [28, 36]. Finally, another limitation of this review is the population sample. Most studies recruited healthy and/or athletic university students. As mentioned in a systematic review made by our lab recently, chronic PA change odor perception [52]. Therefore, it is important to have homogeneous groups in term of physical quality. Also, since olfaction ability seems to decrease with ageing [53-58], it could be interesting to test if the effect of odor stimulation on PA may be affected by age. All those inconsistencies in the methods made the possibility of doing a meta-analysis impossible. Also, since this review includes all the studies mentioned in this paragraph, the same strengths and limitations apply to this review.