Earlier quoted context omitted.
Academics is about the advancement of science. Academics is also about fighting for the esteem and attention of your peers, winning grants and awards, and getting yourself known. If athletes are willing to risk their health for a few hundredths of a second in a race, I can imagine some academics would be willing to dope their brains for a better shot at a publication in Nature .
Your guess is correct: http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080409/full/452674a.html
Nootropics – The Facts About “Smart Drugs”
91–100 of 157 posts
Re: Nootropics – The Facts About “Smart Drugs”
#92Re: Nootropics – The Facts About “Smart Drugs”
#93The article begins with "It’s a lengthy read, but don’t let the wall of text dissuade you." That's scary right there. Anyone who is scared off by this short, popular fluff piece needs a lot of help in reading (or is not a native speaker of English). To learn to read a piece like this thoughtfully and critically mostly takes practice in reading, not the latest "smart drug." I've been hearing people tout smart drugs fo…
It is true that the prevalence of 12 person tests which barely correct for confounders, misunderstood p-values and outright making up results to get more positive outcomes is a very bad state affairs for medicine. Explaining in part why results are constantly contradicting each other. But even if it weren't so - without understanding a particular drug's sensitivity to genetics and the particular individuals respective haplotype, large numbers and good methodology will simply not not be good enough.
Not until sensing technology becomes more prevalent will it be possible to say anything about the effects of drugs with confidence. We already for example know that time of day, food content and acidity of stomach, how the drug is taken, consistency, metabolism and genetics can affect toxicity and or efficacy. You cannot have any kind of conversation on drugs without knowing what pathways it interacts with, how it saturates, how and if any haplotypes respond differently, where and how it is metabolized, state of vitals when taken and so on.
But there is good news. The effects of genetics on drugs is one of the easiest success stories one can point to for genomics. Sensors are getting better so that one day we can not just share testimonials but sequences, recorded metabolites, change in vitals, oxygenation, hormones etc. to finally be able to form proper correlations. It is true that tests can very much also include this type of data but at that point I don't think the lab experiments would even be necessary. A person could simply randomly place sugar capsules, do the battery of tests and then measure for absorption themselves.
It is for this reason I believe that personalized crowdsourced testimonials backed with hard real data will someday outpace the current lab based/phase 4 method of testing effectiveness.
Re: Nootropics – The Facts About “Smart Drugs”
#94> No one talks about this stuff! Yeah, right. Probably in some other internet. You can't find a site today where there they weren't discussed at least once. Personally I won't take them without prescription from a doctor. Yes, downsides are pretty obscure and rare but the same are benefits. Based on reviews they are not some magic pills like in Limitless. Closer to placebo actually.
I literally LOL'd at that. You can't throw a stick without hitting a bunch of college students obsessing about this stuff. Is this guy even on the internet?
Re: Nootropics – The Facts About “Smart Drugs”
#95Re: Nootropics – The Facts About “Smart Drugs”
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a lot of evidence supporting the use of Nootropics and other related supplements. Unfortunately, due to many of the issues brought up in the article, such as the inability to patent any of these substances, there is not a lot of direct research studying improving cognitive ability from a normal state. That being said, there is plenty of research on these substances, but most of the research is related to stu…
I've seen several studies related to use of Piracetam in children with Down Syndrome as well, leading to a statistically significant IQ improvement. Problem is that I don't believe intelligence always works this way, e.g., if having less of Y causes lower than average IQ, it doesn't imply that having more of Y will raise IQ in subjects with average/above-average IQ.
Re: Nootropics – The Facts About “Smart Drugs”
#97The article begins with "It’s a lengthy read, but don’t let the wall of text dissuade you." That's scary right there. Anyone who is scared off by this short, popular fluff piece needs a lot of help in reading (or is not a native speaker of English). To learn to read a piece like this thoughtfully and critically mostly takes practice in reading, not the latest "smart drug." I've been hearing people tout smart drugs fo…
>Warning Sign D3: Too Few Subjects >The author advertising smart drugs doesn't describe any careful studies, so of course he doesn't mention the number of subjects in any studies. Most so-called studies of smart drugs have been far too small to have any statistical power. Neither yourself, nor Peter Norvig suggested an appropriate number of subjects for tests like these. So I'm curious, what would be an appropriate n…
There are also exact formulas for simple tests.
Re: Nootropics – The Facts About “Smart Drugs”
#98The article begins with "It’s a lengthy read, but don’t let the wall of text dissuade you." That's scary right there. Anyone who is scared off by this short, popular fluff piece needs a lot of help in reading (or is not a native speaker of English). To learn to read a piece like this thoughtfully and critically mostly takes practice in reading, not the latest "smart drug." I've been hearing people tout smart drugs fo…
His efforts to double-blind himself and using Dual N-Back for testing effectiveness indicate he takes this topic seriously, and is trying to be very scientific about it. (I say "trying to" because I'm absolutely clueless in this area; it looks to me like he's being pretty rigorous, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to make that claim confidently.)
http://www.gwern.net/Nootropics
In particular I liked reading about his experiments with Adderall (which I am using currently), modafinil, and especially the choline/racetam combinations.
Part of the problem may be the pitching of certain drugs as "smart drugs" when instead they are "effectiveness drugs". Adderall doesn't make me any smarter; it corrects a chemical imbalance in my brain, and in doing so makes me more effective.
(Well, honestly, it doesn't "correct" anything; it's like putting your thumb over the end of a garden hose and spraying water at a guy who's thirsty. Solves the problem, just not without a lot of mess. And with dopamine instead of water.)
Re: Nootropics – The Facts About “Smart Drugs”
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
Piracetam and choline have been studied in an extensive number of clinical experiments. Their effects aren't poorly understood.
If you've got the time, any references would be appreciated.
Re: Nootropics – The Facts About “Smart Drugs”
#100Please, please, please ... Be careful with Nootropics. I'm a bit of a consciousness-naut and self-experimenter who's obsessed about increasing productivity. I've experimented a lot with Nootropics. My thoughts? Modafinil. Stay away from it. The stuff is wickedly addictive and many people have experienced significant long-term side effects, especially if they try to go off it. Piracetam. Does a lot to reduce ADD and h…
And you are basing this on what? When I went looking for studies, even the ones on patient populations like cocaine addicts, didn't report addiction: http://www.gwern.net/Modafinil#tolerance