Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

More Nootropics: Racetams and Glycinergics

examine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 42 posts

Re: More Nootropics: Racetams and Glycinergics

#11

Post by samwilliams »

> The glycerinergics are those molecules that can bind to what is known as the 'glycine binding site' of a particular subset of stimulatory receptors (NMDA), and it seems that by stimulating this binding site the overall signalling is increased.

'Glycerinergics' has only one result on Google - this article. Even if we assume that they mean it in the same way as we talk about GABAergic or dopaminergic drugs the definition they have stated is fundamentally incorrect. Glycerinergic drugs would be those that bind to any of the same sites that the endogenous molecule glycine binds to - not necessarily just NMDAr sites, this is an over simplification. Further more, to say that NMDA receptors are inherently 'stimulatory' is frankly ridiculous. Ligands can be either agonists or antagonists at a given binding site - examples of non-excitatory NMDAr binding drugs would be the arylcyclohexamine family (PCP, Ketamine, PCE etc) and Dizocilpine (MK-801). Finally, 'overall signalling is increased' is almost laughable. 'Signalling' through which neurotransmitters? In what manner? How is 'overall' measured?

While I may not have an absolutely perfect understanding of psychopharmacology, I do know enough not to trust this article - particularly when it is taking about drugs with very little history of human use.

If you are considering using the drugs in this article, it might be advisable to question why. Just because a compound is new, does not mean it is going to be better or the effects more desirable than it's predecessor(s). Of course it is possible that it could be, but it seems likely that in reality you are simply exposing yourself to unnecessary health risks for minimal reward. Would it really be so bad to use Piracetam for a couple of years while the phenyl derivative's action in humans is not well documented? Consider your health and the potential gains carefully and make a rational decision.

Re: More Nootropics: Racetams and Glycinergics

#12

Post by drone »

ngcazz wrote: post #9
najhr999 wrote: post #2

Anyone use nootropics and want to share their usage/experience?

I took around 2g piracetam daily for a few weeks back in '09. I remember a general improvement in my mental visualization ability, dream recall and that's about it. There is no change in consciousness nor alertness (a theme I was curious about when I dabbled in the substance). I stopped taking that because obtaining it OTC where I live is kind of hit and miss. The drug requires a prescription (generally to treat dege…

In hindsight, given it's a relatively recent compound and there's so little research on it,

Piracetam is actually well-researched [1], it's been out since the early seventies. It's the most researched of all of the nootropics, AFAIK. I'm unaware of any studies that resulted in health damage from piracetam, but would, of course, love to read any if there are.

[1] Take, for one example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=piracetam[Title]

Re: More Nootropics: Racetams and Glycinergics

#13

Post by com2kid »

easy_rider wrote: post #7

There is one really awesome supplement that is often overlooked. (Neuroscience is one of my main side-interests and apparently I've been living under a rock in regards to L-Theanine. Well studied, It has a very good safety profile, with no apparent side-effects even in high dosage. It's the reason why I've switched from coffee to green tea. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21040626 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubme…

L-Theanine is amazing stuff, it basically cuts a lot of the side effects away from caffeine and increases the positive effects of caffeine to boot.

To get useful amounts of it I just take it separately whenever I consume a caffeinated beverage. 250mg-500mg suffices (technically you can dose it in relationship to how much caffeine you are dosing, but since there are no side effects to taking too much l-theanine, I just take 2 and call it good)

Re: More Nootropics: Racetams and Glycinergics

#14

Post by ngcazz »

drone wrote: post #12
ngcazz wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I took around 2g piracetam daily for a few weeks back in '09. I remember a general improvement in my mental visualization ability, dream recall and that's about it. There is no change in consciousness nor alertness (a theme I was curious about when I dabbled in the substance). I stopped taking that because obtaining it OTC where I live is kind of hit and miss. The drug requires a prescription (generally to treat dege…

In hindsight, given it's a relatively recent compound and there's so little research on it, Piracetam is actually well-researched [1], it's been out since the early seventies. It's the most researched of all of the nootropics, AFAIK. I'm unaware of any studies that resulted in health damage from piracetam, but would, of course, love to read any if there are. [1] Take, for one example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubm…

Hmm. That's good to hear. For some reason I was under the impression it was more recent.

Re: More Nootropics: Racetams and Glycinergics

#16

Post by azurelogic »

najhr999 wrote: post #2

Anyone use nootropics and want to share their usage/experience?

I take 1.5g of piracetam in the morning with a choline supplement. When I remember to, I take another 750mg around lunch to keep blood levels up. The half life of piracetam is reported to be around 4 hrs. It is one of those things that you don't realize is there until you notice that you've been focused and on task for hours without drifting off. It has also helped me expand my ability to hold larger object models in my head while coding. Also, it staves off that thing where you lose track of a word or thing you've been trying to remember. Great stuff.

For particularly taxing times, I have a bottle of oxiracetam that I use in conjunction with the piracetam. It reminds me of the heightened focus I used to get when I had prescriptions for Ritalin/Adderall growing up, yet without all of the nasty side effects. It was great a couple of hours before an exam during my masters program, or in the mornings right after my daughter was born.

I tried pramiracetam once. I got nothing but a bad headache from that.

I have a few samples of noopept around somewhere, but I don't think I've been brave enough to try them yet after the pramiracetam disaster.

Oh, and I've recently added 200mg of huperzine A to my morning regimen. Not sure how much it helps. Seems to be a decent replacement on the weekends when I don't want to take the full cocktail.

Re: More Nootropics: Racetams and Glycinergics

#17

Post by resu_nimda »

samwilliams wrote: post #11

> The glycerinergics are those molecules that can bind to what is known as the 'glycine binding site' of a particular subset of stimulatory receptors (NMDA), and it seems that by stimulating this binding site the overall signalling is increased. 'Glycerinergics' has only one result on Google - this article. Even if we assume that they mean it in the same way as we talk about GABAergic or dopaminergic drugs the defini…

It looks like "glycerinergic" was a typo for "glycinergic," which has ~100k results on Google (they also mention "glycincergics" - the poor copy editing would support your distrust).

But yeah, I'm not sure what's going on here. I guess it's just an announcement that they have added some info about these drugs to their database. To be fair, the article itself isn't really promoting their usage, and the subheading does describe them as "A large amount of somewhat poorly researched compounds." Perhaps there is better information on the actual pages for each substance.

Re: More Nootropics: Racetams and Glycinergics

#18

Post by tokenadult »

In every discussion I have seen of "smart drugs" (nootropics), what is conspicuously lacking is discussion of the actual smart deeds performed by the smart drug users. Self-reported n=1 anecdotes have not established a convincing case that any kind of nootropic actually does anyone any good in the real world.

(Maybe I'll edit this comment some more below during its editing time window. Or perhaps this point is so evident that it needs no elaboration.)

Re: More Nootropics: Racetams and Glycinergics

#19

Post by xanmas »

sycamore wrote: post #3
najhr999 wrote: post #2

Anyone use nootropics and want to share their usage/experience?

I take noopept 20mg daily sublingually or orally, and occasionally modafinil. Modafinil works really well for me (300/400mg keeping me awake and FOCUSED but not buzzing/twitchy) but worked poorly for my brother (no noticeable effect at similar dosage). Since taking noopept I have noticed more of a willingness and now desire to learn, something which was an issue in my past. It also seems to help me work for prolonged…

Do you have any recommended places to pick up noopept?

Re: More Nootropics: Racetams and Glycinergics

#20

Post by samwilliams »

resu_nimda wrote: post #17
samwilliams wrote: post #11

> The glycerinergics are those molecules that can bind to what is known as the 'glycine binding site' of a particular subset of stimulatory receptors (NMDA), and it seems that by stimulating this binding site the overall signalling is increased. 'Glycerinergics' has only one result on Google - this article. Even if we assume that they mean it in the same way as we talk about GABAergic or dopaminergic drugs the defini…

It looks like "glycerinergic" was a typo for "glycinergic," which has ~100k results on Google (they also mention "glycincergics" - the poor copy editing would support your distrust). But yeah, I'm not sure what's going on here. I guess it's just an announcement that they have added some info about these drugs to their database. To be fair, the article itself isn't really promoting their usage, and the subheading does…

The spelling mistake would make sense, but I agree that it doesn't inspire confidence.

The impression I got from the article was the same as yours - they are not explicitly advocating the use of these drugs, but I don't think they were doing very much to inform the reader of the potential dangers that using any very new psychoactive compounds would entail. Perhaps the real fault here is in the manner that this has been submitted to HN, rather than the article itself? Personally, I think it would be more appropriate and safer to call the submission 'Racetams and Glycinergics of the future' or something similar. As the title currently stands the impression given is that these chemicals are appropriate for use now, by everyone.

Post reply on HN