Effects of Appearance- and Performance-Enhancing Drugs on Personality Traits

Unauthorized ingredients in "nootropic" dietary supplements: A review of the history, pharmacology, prevalence, international regulations, and potential as doping agents

The first nootropic prohibited in sport was fonturacetam (4-phenylpiracetam, carphedon) in 1998. Presented here 25 years later is a broad-scale consideration of the history, pharmacology, prevalence, regulations, and doping potential of nootropics viewed through a lens of 50 selected dietary supplements (DS) marketed as "cognitive enhancement," "brain health," "brain boosters," or "nootropics," with a focus on unauthorized ingredients. Nootropic DS have risen to prominence over the last decade often as multicomponent formulations of bioactive ingredients presenting compelling pharmacological questions and potential public health concerns. Many popular nootropics are unauthorized food or DS ingredients according to the European Commission including huperzine A, yohimbine, and dimethylaminoethanol; unapproved pharmaceuticals like phenibut or emoxypine (mexidol); previously registered drugs like meclofenoxate or reserpine; EU authorized pharmaceuticals like piracetam or vinpocetine; infamous doping agents like methylhexaneamine or dimethylbutylamine; and other investigational substances and peptides. Several are authorized DS ingredients in the United States resulting in significant global variability as to what qualifies as a legal nootropic. Prohibited stimulants or ß2-agonists commonly used in "pre-workout," "weight loss," or "thermogenic" DS such as octodrine, hordenine, or higenamine are often stacked with nootropic substances. While stimulants and ß2-agonists are defined as doping agents by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), many nootropics are not, although some may qualify as non-approved substances or related substances under catch-all language in the WADA Prohibited List. Synergistic combinations, excessive dosing, or recently researched pharmacology may justify listing certain nootropics as doping agents or warrant additional attention in future regulations.

Appearance and Performance-Enhancing Drugs and Supplements, Eating Disorders Symptoms, Drive for Muscularity, and Sexual Orientation in a Sample of Young Men

In an anonymous online study (N = 824), we investigated the frequency of use of appearance and performance-enhancing drugs and supplements (APEDS) in a sample of young men (15−30 years) in Sweden, along with their self-reported eating disorder (ED) symptoms, drive for muscularity and sexual orientation. A total of 129 participants (16.1%) reported regular use of supplements (at least once a week), including one individual using anabolic steroids (0.1%), while a lifetime use of APEDS was reported by 32.3%. The overlap between those using protein supplements and creatine was large (83.6%). Some symptoms of ED (e.g., dietary restraint, objective binge eating, self-induced vomiting, and excessive exercise) significantly predicted the use of APEDS. In addition, the use of APEDS was significantly predicted by the drive for muscularity. The prediction was stronger for the behavioral component of drive for muscularity (Exponential B = 8.50, B = 2.14, SE = 0.16, p < 0.001, Negelkerke R2 = 0.517) than for its attitudinal component (Exponential B = 1.52, B = 0.42, SE = 0.06, p < 0.001, Negelkerke R2 = 0.088). A significantly larger proportion of those identifying as heterosexual reported using APEDS (34.4%) compared to those identifying themselves as homosexual (25.0%), bisexual (19.2%) or other (23.7%). Overall, our results suggest that the use of APEDS might be more related to the drive for muscularity and sexual orientation than symptoms of ED.

The prevalence of misusing over-the-counter and prescribed drugs in Syrian gymnasiums for performance-enhancing reasons: a cross-sectional study

Background

This study investigates the prevalence of misusing over-the-counter (OTC) and prescribed drugs in Syrian gymnasiums, in addition to types, sources of knowledge, and patterns of use. A structured questionnaire was distributed to 381 members of sports groups on social media, between April 2020 and February 2021. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS software Version 26 for windows.

Results

A total of 133 participants (about 35%) stated they took OTC and prescribed drugs. Of those, 79 (11.8%) took proteins and amino acids, and 14 (3.7%) claimed they used 50 different products (mentioned 167 times) of anabolic steroids and other hormones (e.g., growth hormone and thyroxine). The most frequently used substance was testosterone (N =25, 15.56%), followed by thyroxine (N = 12, 7.18%) and stanozolol (N = 11, 6.58%). The source of knowledge was the Internet (48.6%) followed by friends (28.4%) and coaches (20.9%). Most users were males (61.6%) and had a bachelor’s university degree (64%). All anabolic steroid users (N = 14) practiced bodybuilding. Statistically significant relationships were found between the usage of anabolic steroids, proteins, and amino acids with each of the monthly income, frequency of training, level of training, and gender. Users claimed that they got benefits from taking these substances, and the majority of users (about 70%) did not experience any adverse effects.

Conclusions

Our results showed significant differences compared to neighboring countries, regarding attitudes towards misusing OTC and prescribed medications.

Benefits and Harms of 'Smart Drugs' (Nootropics) in Healthy Individuals

'Smart drugs' (also known as 'nootropics' and 'cognitive enhancers' [CEs]) are being used by healthy subjects (i.e. students and workers) typically to improve memory, attention, learning, executive functions and vigilance, hence the reference to a 'pharmaceutical cognitive doping behaviour'. While the efficacy of known CEs in individuals with memory or learning deficits is well known, their effect on non-impaired brains is still to be fully assessed. This paper aims to provide an overview on the prevalence of use; putative neuroenhancement benefits and possible harms relating to the intake of the most popular CEs (e.g. amphetamine-type stimulants, methylphenidate, donepezil, selegiline, modafinil, piracetam, benzodiazepine inverse agonists, and unifiram analogues) in healthy individuals. CEs are generally perceived by the users as effective, with related enthusiastic anecdotal reports; however, their efficacy in healthy individuals is uncertain and any reported improvement temporary. Conversely, since most CEs are stimulants, the related modulation of central noradrenaline, glutamate, and dopamine levels may lead to cardiovascular, neurological and psychopathological complications. Furthermore, use of CEs can be associated with paradoxical short- and long-term cognitive decline; decreased potential for plastic learning; and addictive behaviour. Finally, the non-medical use of any potent psychotropic raises serious ethical and legal issues, with nootropics having the potential to become a major public health concern. Further studies investigating CE-associated social, psychological, and biological outcomes are urgently needed to allow firm conclusions to be drawn on the appropriateness of CE use in healthy individuals.