Live data from Hacker News

Nootropics – The Facts About “Smart Drugs”

unfinishedman.com

121–130 of 157 posts

Re: Nootropics – The Facts About “Smart Drugs”

#121
post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have the time, some links would be greatly appreciated. I'd love to see those studies.

Not specifically about Down Syndrome, but here is one study with children with IQ below 75: http://books.google.com/books?id=bNfuX26mSsAC&pg=PA151&#... Note, however, that an IQ below 75 falls in the bottom 5% of cognitive ability. I highly doubt that it's possible to infer impact of these drugs on individuals in the upper 5% of cognitive ability (exactly the folks that are the most interest in boosting their intelli…

Quick clarification: I am not claiming that Piracetam can't have any effects in healthy, mildly-to-moderately gifted individuals, it's just that I am not certain you can extrapolate from studies of Piracetam use with impaired individuals.

Finally there could be other benefits to Piracetam use (reduced anxiety, better memory, better focus, etc..) even if there's no "boost" to performance IQ.

I just don't (yet?) see conclusive evidence of this.

Re: Nootropics – The Facts About “Smart Drugs”

#122

The 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…

> I have never seen any evidence of regular users of smart drugs doing anything smart. Paul Erdős famously claimed that amphetamines helped him in mathematics: > After 1971 he also took amphetamines, despite the concern of his friends, one of whom (Ron Graham) bet him $500 that he could not stop taking the drug for a month.[34] Erdős won the bet, but complained that during his abstinence mathematics had been set back…

Sartre, and many others have used amphetamines.

The real question is not that of the shill above, but: which major figures in the last X years were NOT on some kind of drug.

Americans...

Re: Nootropics – The Facts About “Smart Drugs”

#123

The 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…

Nooptroics work, otherwise they'd not have FDA [insert whatever system you're under] approval. A quick glance at the crap fluff piece above shows that many of them are simple supplements [i.e. distilled stuff from a normal diet], but some are real pharmaceutical drugs . Obviously, we immediately cull anything that is available from a normal diet, and ask the questions of the others. As such, your entire argument is i…

> Hint: drugs such as modafinil, caffeine, nicotine are part of daily life because they have a demonstrable effect.

The original story talks about racetams as opposed to stimulants. I don't think the fact that stimulants... stimulate is controversial: it's just side effects of stimulants are also well known. Of course, some stimulants are more socially accepted than others: no one calls me a junky and an addict, even though I run to the coffee machine every morning lest I experience (non-trivial) withdrawal syndroms (headache, excessive sleepiness).

Racetams appeal as they (seem to) have no known side effects -- which is that part that sounds too good to be true. As far as I understand the mechanism is such: poor absorption of choline (either due to lack of choline in diet or issues with choline receptors) creates cognitive impairment; racetams and choline "fix" this impairment. That isn't controversial.

However, what I don't know (and what tokenadult doesn't know) is what affect racetams and choline have on healthy individuals. In other words, is the money spent on months' supply of choline and *racetam simply better spent on French press, a good grinder, dark roasted beans, and a gym membership?

I don't know and I'm curious to see some studies. Note: I am not saying that folks shouldn't experiment with racetams, it's just they can't know a-priori it will have the advertised effect. OTOH if you are not short on money, there's nothing wrong with experimentation: the Placebo effect alone could be worth it. It's just you have to draw the line between "someone on the Internet reported did X and experienced Y" and "X implies Y is a scientific valid conclusion".

Of course the worst scam is energy drinks: a cup of coffee costs less and tastes better than five hour energy -- and I am at a loss at how a five hour energy could do something that coffee can not.

Re: Nootropics – The Facts About “Smart Drugs”

#124
post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nooptroics work, otherwise they'd not have FDA [insert whatever system you're under] approval. A quick glance at the crap fluff piece above shows that many of them are simple supplements [i.e. distilled stuff from a normal diet], but some are real pharmaceutical drugs . Obviously, we immediately cull anything that is available from a normal diet, and ask the questions of the others. As such, your entire argument is i…

> Hint: drugs such as modafinil, caffeine, nicotine are part of daily life because they have a demonstrable effect . The original story talks about racetams as opposed to stimulants. I don't think the fact that stimulants... stimulate is controversial: it's just side effects of stimulants are also well known. Of course, some stimulants are more socially accepted than others: no one calls me a junky and an addict, eve…

Racetams have proven effects on healthy adults. [Do you want to know more?]. There's a scaled effect which is notable, but most adults over 30 will benefit from them (i.e. the 'smarter / less damaged your systems are' the less benefit you get).

Do you really not have access to common papers? This might be a question of me assuming common access to information where there is none.

Or, think of it this way ~ unless you're living in a pristine environment (which most of you aren't), then they'll help you. Most humans are swimming in a whole sea of chemicals [airborne, ingested] and bacterial processes that you're not aware of. Heck, every human being's weight is 1Kg (ish) of non-human DNA and complex ecosystems.

Yep, that's right: you're a huge ecosystem of your own, revel in it. So take off 1kg off the scale, that's other beasties at play.

Ye Gods, most of you are firing off megadeath levels of antibacterials, chromosome damaging chemicals, metal-based-nasties and so forth just by getting ready in the morning.[1] Your brain chemistry is a whole lot more complex ~ and although we're getting there on understanding it, we've a while to go.

But, the Racetams have so far proven entirely benign, and helpful. They should be given to everyone by deafult, if we're in the realms of fluoridating water supplies.

[1] No, I like science. I love science. We all love it. Still doesn't change the fact that processes like decaffeinated coffee production had stupidly large amounts of cancer producing drugs in them until recently. Or DDT.

Re: Nootropics – The Facts About “Smart Drugs”

#126
post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hint: drugs such as modafinil, caffeine, nicotine are part of daily life because they have a demonstrable effect . The original story talks about racetams as opposed to stimulants. I don't think the fact that stimulants... stimulate is controversial: it's just side effects of stimulants are also well known. Of course, some stimulants are more socially accepted than others: no one calls me a junky and an addict, eve…

Racetams have proven effects on healthy adults. [Do you want to know more?]. There's a scaled effect which is notable, but most adults over 30 will benefit from them (i.e. the 'smarter / less damaged your systems are' the less benefit you get). Do you really not have access to common papers? This might be a question of me assuming common access to information where there is none. Or, think of it this way ~ unless you…

Unfortunately I am not in a university, so I no longer have access to JSTOR and the like. I did dig around PubMed/Google and what I've been able to find were studies of impaired individuals. Citations would be useful -- for studies on healthy (or like you said, "naturally" unhealthy -- due to age, environment, lifestyle, etc...) adults.

Re: Nootropics – The Facts About “Smart Drugs”

#127
I've been taking piracetam with choline twice daily for about 5 years now. It's not very profound, just lets you think a little harder for a little longer. In R&D that can mean a lot though.

The downside is it interacts with stimulants. Too much coffee and you'll be running to the bathroom. Just something to keep in mind.

Re: Nootropics – The Facts About “Smart Drugs”

#128
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You spent the entire comment condemning the lack of experimentation protocol, yet your final challenge is the most trivial of all. What conclusion could you draw from your proposed duel? If someone can't beat you in a standardized IQ test after ingesting 20mg of amphetamine? Or a cup of coffee? Or 5g of a racetam? Seems to me your conclusion would be "I perform better than you even when you're mentally stimulated". O…

Yeah, the reason I take Adderall is best summed up by the difference in my college GPA that occurred after being prescribed Adderall midway through. (Not to mention all the depression-like symptoms that came from underachieving constantly and knowing it and wanting to change that on my own but failing over and over.) And in the years since then I've gone a few months at a time without it to try to see if, now that I'…

If you are in any type of relationship or looking to start one I would advise you to make it clear to your S/O when you are taking Adderall. From my experience, I'd imagine they can tell. When I met my current G/F she was basically addicted to a very heavy dose of Adderall. She would get moody and incredibly snippy when she started taking her daily dosage. I described it as "lasering". She couldn't do anything except whatever was in front of her for the next $x hours. She stopped adderall cold turkey and has been just as productive and a more personable for the last 5 months. YMMV but if you care about the people in your life, make sure they are also aware of what could be driving you.

Re: Nootropics – The Facts About “Smart Drugs”

#129
post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Racetams have proven effects on healthy adults. [Do you want to know more?]. There's a scaled effect which is notable, but most adults over 30 will benefit from them (i.e. the 'smarter / less damaged your systems are' the less benefit you get). Do you really not have access to common papers? This might be a question of me assuming common access to information where there is none. Or, think of it this way ~ unless you…

Unfortunately I am not in a university, so I no longer have access to JSTOR and the like. I did dig around PubMed/Google and what I've been able to find were studies of impaired individuals. Citations would be useful -- for studies on healthy (or like you said, "naturally" unhealthy -- due to age, environment, lifestyle, etc...) adults.

Well, do a simple bit of logic there (sorry; the study I had in mind is locked). From the age of 20 > 30, there's a quantifiable degradation of DNA replication, or as we call it "ageing". We can all agree that ageing seems to impair certain functions, and if these types of drugs improve "impaired" individuals, then... ?

As stated: the greater the impairment, the greater the effect. Now, you might not want to spend $x on a mere 5% improvement, but we do it all the time in reality ~ tinfoil hats off, but why do we fluoridate water supplies or make sure children have nutritious meals? [in the old model of society that seems to have fallen away].

Note: I advise strongly against over-dosing or using the stronger types without some knowledge of what's going on in your brain. Although, most people fuck around with their brain chemistry happily enough on pleasure receptors anyhow, so it's better than even the legal abuses you can get up to [pain killers, alcohol, nicotine-purely-to-lungs].

Bottom line: it ain't going to kill you like other stuff, and there's no evidence it can actually damage you either [barring affective behaviours which will subside as the drug is removed[1]]. Try it, be sensible, and then whatever.

The entire theatre of this thread, set by the idiot who made the 1st post is ridiculous. Learn some science, maybe?

[1]You might get some slight mania etc depending on your base chemistry, but it's not going to be permanent.

Re: Nootropics – The Facts About “Smart Drugs”

#130
post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately I am not in a university, so I no longer have access to JSTOR and the like. I did dig around PubMed/Google and what I've been able to find were studies of impaired individuals. Citations would be useful -- for studies on healthy (or like you said, "naturally" unhealthy -- due to age, environment, lifestyle, etc...) adults.

Well, do a simple bit of logic there (sorry; the study I had in mind is locked). From the age of 20 > 30, there's a quantifiable degradation of DNA replication, or as we call it "ageing". We can all agree that ageing seems to impair certain functions, and if these types of drugs improve "impaired" individuals, then... ? As stated: the greater the impairment, the greater the effect. Now, you might not want to spend $x…

It's fine if the paper is behind a paywall: can you at least give a citation (from a peer-reviewed journal) and an abstract?

Additionally, please see tokenadult's posts: tokenadult is anything _but_ an idiot and has contributed much valuable insight to this community (often times with concrete citations). It's important to learn to disagree respectfully.

Post reply on HN