Effect of Huperzine A on Cognitive Function and Perception of Effort during Exercise: A Randomized Double-Blind Crossover Trial

International Journal of Exercise Science 14(2): 727-741, 2021. Huperzine A has shown the ability to acutely improve cognitive function in certain populations, and therefore is commonly added to pre-workout supplements. However, its effects have not been studied in exercise-trained individuals. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that acute consumption of huperzine A would improve cognitive function during exercise, which may be beneficial for exercise performance. METHODS: From January to April, 2018, 15 exercise-trained individuals (11 women [height 166 ± 2 cm, weight 60.5 ± 3.0 kg] and 4 men [height 173 ± 4 cm, weight 82.0 ± 11.0 kg], BMI 23.5 ± 1.4 kg/m2, age 30.4 ± 3.6 years) were studied in a double blind randomized-sequence cross-over study, in which they underwent tests for cognitive function (digit span, verbal/word fluency, and Stroop), neuromuscular performance (sharpened Romberg and dart throwing), and exercise performance (estimated aerobic capacity, hand-grip strength, vertical jump, and push-up) after acute ingestion of huperzine A (200 mcg) or placebo. One week separated the two trials. RESULTS: No measures of cognitive function differed between placebo and huperzine A trials (all p ≥ 0.296). Heart rates (157 ± 4 vs. 158 ± 4 bpm; p = 0.518) and ratings of perceived exertion (13.7 ± 0.56 vs. 13.9 ± 0.61; p = 0.582) did not differ between placebo and huperzine A trials, respectively. Ratings of subjective difficulty post-exercise (0-10 scale) were significantly higher (5.7 ± 0.38 vs. 6.8 ± 0.38; p = 0.002) in the huperzine A trial than the placebo trial. No differences were observed for neuromuscular or exercise performance measures between groups (all p ≥ 0.497). CONCLUSIONS: Huperzine A does not enhance cognitive function during exercise despite it being marketed as a cognitive enhancer. Because of its inability to enhance cognitive function, its inclusion in pre-workout supplements warrants reconsideration. Other more practical and effective strategies should be considered

Measurement Models Matter: How Retrospective Calendar Versus Global Reports Yield Different Estimates of Treatment Outcome

Abstract: Retrospective reports are less accurate than objective measures of behavior and must be interpreted with consideration of the amount of distortion and error introduced by this methodology. The Gambling-Timeline Followback (G-TLFB) method is the gold standard retrospective assessment tool that is designed to minimize such error by asking for a specific recall of precise gambling behavior day-by-day using recall aids as compared to a global summation over time (e.g., how many gambling days in last month, how much money gambled in the last month). It remains an empirical question whether this difference in measurement format, G-TLFB versus global reports, alters the estimates of gambling treatment efficacy. Eighteen studies were identified for inclusion in a meta-analysis to explore this question. A mixed-effects subgroup analysis indicated that the effect of treatment relative to nonactive control on gambling frequency at posttreatment was significantly lower for studies using the G-TLFB (g = -0.20) than studies using other assessments (g = -0.71). There was no significant difference in the effect of treatment relative to nonactive control on gambling intensity at posttreatment between studies using the G-TLFB (g = -0.22) and studies using other assessments (g = -0.38). Implications: The G-TLFB yields more conservative and likely more precise estimates of the effect of gambling treatment on gambling frequency but not intensity than other retrospective assessments. The use of global retrospective assessments to assess gambling frequency and intensity may overestimate effects of gambling treatment on gambling frequency

Transdiagnostic prevention and intervention efforts are needed to address executive dysfunction

Abstract: Executive functioning (EF) is a multi-faceted construct important to activities of daily living, emotion regulation, and higher-order thinking and is often impaired in individuals with gambling disorder and/or alcohol use disorders. Deficits in EF are associated with poor treatment engagement, psychiatric comorbidities, and relapse. The present study examined EF in college students (N = 832) aged 18-24 (M= 19.23, SD=1.37, 76.5% Women) in relation to gambling and hazardous drinking. The Barkley’s Deficits in Executive Functioning was used to assess for global EF and 5 facets of EF: Time Management, Organization/Problem Solving, Self-Restraint, Self-Motivation, and Emotion-Regulation. Bivariate correlation and ANOVA analyses were conducted. Approximately 3% of college students reported problem gambling and 20% reported engagement in hazardous drinking. Compared to individuals with non-problem drinking and non-problem gambling: (1) individuals with problem gambling had worse global EF, self-restraint, emotion regulation, and self-motivation, (2) individuals with hazardous drinking had worse Global EF, self-restraint, and emotion regulation and (3) individuals with both problem gambling and hazardous drinking had worse EF on self-restraint. Implications: Impairments in several domains of EF (e.g., inhibition/self-restraint, emotion regulation, and self-motivation) were endorsed at a significantly higher rate among problematic gamblers and hazardous drinkers. Results partially support the pathways model of gambling (Blaszcynski & Nower, 2002) and support transdiagnostic prevention and intervention efforts around emotion regulation, motivation, and impulsivity

College students\u27 gambling behavior: When does it become harmful?

Objective: The authors investigated behavioral indicators of pathological gambling in a college student sample. Participants and Methods: The authors administered a diagnostic interview for pathological gambling to 159 college students, who also completed a demographic questionnaire, and a self-report measure of psychological distress. Results: Consistent patterns of gambling behavior associated with pathological gambling included gambling more than 1.2 times per month, gambling more than 2.1 hours per month, intending to wager more than 6.1% of monthly income, and wagering more than 10.5% of monthly income. In addition, the combination of psychological distress, gambling frequency, and a history of parental gambling problems was significantly associated with pathological gambling in college students. Conclusions: These findings suggest initial markers of problematic gambling behavior in a college sample that may be used in assessment, prevention, and intervention. Copyright © 2008 Heldref Publications

Behavioral Assessment of Gambling: An Application of the Timeline Followback Method

The Gambling Timeline Followback (G-TLFB), a measure of gambling behavior that uses the timeline followback methodology, was psychometrically evaluated with samples of frequent-gambling young adults. Seven dimensions of gambling behavior were assessed: type, frequency, duration, intent, risk, win-loss, and consumption of alcohol while gambling. The G-TLFB demonstrated adequate to excellent test-retest reliability with a sample of 57 frequent gamblers (r = . 75 to .96) and with a group of 34 disordered gamblers (r = .73 to .93). With a separate sample of 58 frequent-gambling participants, convergent, concurrent, and discriminant validity were assessed. The G-TLFB correlated positively with daily self-monitoring reports (r = .59 to .87). The dimensions of frequency and duration demonstrated concurrent validity with gambling screening instruments, and standard drinks consumed while gambling demonstrated concurrent validity with a measure of alcohol misuse. The G-TLFB also demonstrated discriminant validity with demographic variables and a measure of positive impression management