Ginseng nutrition formula tied to small edge on thinking tests and grip

A six-month study in older adults with both memory problems and weak muscles has linked a nutrition formula with ginseng and a nutrient compound called HMB to small differences in thinking test scores and grip strength, compared with a similar formula without those additions.¹ The results were published in the journal Aging Clinical and Experimental Research.² The authors describe the differences as modest and say bigger trials are needed before anyone can tell whether they matter in daily life.¹

What the trial found

The study enrolled 136 adults aged 65 or older who had cognitive impairment (problems with memory and thinking) and sarcopenia (the loss of muscle and strength with age).¹ Each person was assigned at random to take 100 grams a day of one of two formulas for six months.¹ One was enriched with ginseng extract and calcium beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyrate, a compound known as CaHMB or HMB. The other was a control formula matched for nutrition.¹

At six months, the group on the enriched formula scored higher than the control group on two standard thinking tests. The gap was 1.40 points on the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and 1.71 points on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA).¹ Grip strength, measured by how hard a person can squeeze, was 1.44 kilograms higher in the enriched group.¹ All three differences passed a statistical correction for testing several outcomes at once.¹

Other, less central measures at six months also leaned toward the enriched formula, but the researchers had decided in advance to give the most weight to their four main measures.¹

How the study was run

The trial was randomized and blinded: neither the participants nor the people measuring results knew who was getting which formula.¹ Everyone was checked at the start, at three months and at six months.¹

The researchers named four main measures before the study: the two thinking tests, grip strength, and a measure of muscle mass in the arms and legs adjusted for body size, called ASMI.¹ Their main analysis counted the 121 people who followed the study plan. A backup analysis included all 136 people who were randomized, filling in missing results with an accepted statistical method.¹

The team also ran several extra checks that make different assumptions about the people who dropped out. The thinking scores and grip strength results held up under all of them.¹

The muscle measure that wobbled

The fourth main measure, muscle mass, gave a less steady picture. In the main analysis, the enriched group came out ahead by 0.227 kilograms per square meter, a result that only just passed the statistical bar.¹ Under two of the extra checks about missing data, that difference was no longer statistically significant.¹ The authors concluded that the muscle mass result depends on assumptions about missing results and remains uncertain.¹

That leaves a mixed answer for the muscle side of the question: grip strength differed between the groups, but the study cannot say with confidence that muscle mass did.¹

What it does not show yet

The researchers themselves list several limits. The trial was run at a single center, which makes it harder to know whether the results would hold elsewhere or in other groups of people.¹ It was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry on July 22, 2024, after the trial had already begun rather than before enrollment.¹ Registering a trial in advance is meant to lock in what researchers will measure, so late registration is generally treated as a weakness.

The authors say larger, multicenter trials registered ahead of time are needed to confirm the findings and to learn whether they make a real difference to patients.¹ Until then, they say, the results are an early signal rather than a basis for clinical recommendations.¹

Biohack’s own reading adds two points that the sources do not address directly. First, because the formula combined ginseng and HMB, the design does not separate the two, so the study cannot tell which ingredient, if either, is behind the differences. Second, six months is a short window for conditions that develop over years, and the trial does not show whether any differences would last or grow.

On safety, side effects judged at least possibly related to the product were more common in the enriched group, mostly complaints about a bitter taste and how easy it was to take.¹ No serious side effects occurred.¹

Who is behind it

The paper is by Chuncao Ao, Linfeng Chen, Su Zhang, Xinhui Zhang, Hanxi Li, Qiping Huang, Yunjun Lu and Zhong Li.² The journal lists its publication date as October 13, 2026.² It was released as an open-access, peer-reviewed accepted manuscript, ahead of the final edited version.¹

The sources Biohack reviewed do not say who paid for the study or who made the formulas, and they do not list any conflicts of interest.

How it fits the field

Memory problems and muscle loss often show up together in older people, and both are tied to losing independence.¹ The study’s authors note that evidence for nutrition approaches that target both problems at once is limited, which is why they designed the trial.¹

Ginseng on its own has been studied for thinking and memory before. A review that pooled nine randomized trials with 617 older adults who had mild cognitive impairment, Alzheimer’s disease or other dementias found that people given ginseng scored 0.38 points higher on the MMSE than those in control groups.³ The review’s authors wrote that those improvements did not reach the threshold for clinical significance, meaning a size of change thought to matter in daily life.³ They also called for larger, high-quality trials, citing the small number of studies and differences between them.³ The review’s own wording is not fully consistent: its conclusion says ginseng can improve thinking, and in the next sentence says the improvement is modest, not statistically significant, and of uncertain clinical relevance.³

The new trial’s gap on the same test, 1.40 points, is larger than that pooled figure.¹ But the two are not directly comparable. The new trial added HMB, studied people who also had muscle loss, and was a single study at one center, while the review pooled different trials of ginseng alone.¹³

What to watch next

• The final version of the paper. The published accepted manuscript comes ahead of the final version of record.¹
• Larger trials. The authors call for bigger, multicenter trials registered before they begin.¹ Whether such trials are launched, and whether they test ginseng and HMB separately as well as together, will shape what this early result means.
• Whether the differences matter. The key open question, in the authors’ words, is the clinical relevance of the findings: whether small score changes translate into everyday function and independence.¹

This article reports on a study and is not medical advice.