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

Nootropics Survey Results And Analysis

slatestarcodex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 105 posts

Re: Nootropics Survey Results And Analysis

#81

Post by nl »

Natsu wrote: post #73
nl wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but that's a terrible comment. Medical progress often starts with observations, and is confirmed by trials. Penicillin is one such example. To discount the value of observations is to ignore an important part of the discovery process. There is extremely limited data available around the use of nootropics for mind enhancement (as opposed to in medical use for treating illness). In the absence of of such dat…

Observations are one thing, attempts to do any kind of serious study on the results are another. It is not meaningful to do statistics on data that bad.

No at all - you just need to be careful what conclusions we draw.

We can safely report the statistic that "more people self report caffeine having an impact than ginseng."

The author goes as far as noting how many people are reporting an impact where there appears to be no known mechanism that impact could be occurring. That's a defensible statistic too.

Data from self-reported surveys isn't entirely useless, and is in medical research often enough for there to be studies on the kinds of error that arise from them: http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=self+reporting+survey...

Re: Nootropics Survey Results And Analysis

#82

Post by venus »

thelogos wrote: post #76
venus wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the health effects of flavorings are still out there This is very true. I have been very concerned with "vapers" I know buying cheap juices from China - to me this is rolling the dice, almost as bad as smoking! You will find that reputable juice mixers will generally make statements about their ingredients. My usual favourite (indigo vapours - I have no commercial interest, just a customer) for example explicitly s…

I wasn't even aware of the formaldehyde issue. Here I thought propylene glycol is much safer than vegetable glycerin because of the acrolein.

Here is the study: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2013/03/05/tobac...

Here is a (rather editorialised) summary: http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/new-study-of-...

The study found variations up to 20x in levels of formaldehyde contained in the vapour produced by some top e-cigarette products. At the low range, the levels are of little concern and barely above background. At the high range, they are of some concern. Unfortunately brands, etc are not broken down.

I have a strong suspicion that formaldehyde levels correlate with country of origin and/or quality of the liquids involved. If you stick to using PG sourced from countries with reliable certification systems I think it is OK.

Re: Nootropics Survey Results And Analysis

#83

Post by aestra »

cma wrote: post #70
Anderkent wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless possessing prescription-only medicine is illegal where you live (doubtful), you can just order it on the internet. I don't think it's a restricted drug anywhere.

It is in the US, schedule 4. Oddly armodafinil metabolizes to the same thing and isn't restricted.

Yes Armodafinil is in Schedule 4 and it is a stereoisomer of Modafinil. You're thinking of the prodrug Adrafinil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrafinil

There's a few reasons why Adrafinil isn't scheduled. It wasn't ever approved by the FDA or marketed in the US and never used heavily in the US, thus the DEA never bothered to regulate it. When Modafinil got FDA approval, the DEA felt the need to evaluate it.

Adrafinil was used in France and other parts of Europe, however Cephalon is no longer allowed to market the drug in France, and they have discontinued it.

Re: Nootropics Survey Results And Analysis

#84

Post by surement »

thelogos wrote: post #51
surement wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using nicotine gum, you can avoid the typical health hazards of tobacco products. I personally found that caffeine wasn't comparable to nicotine, the former just keeps me awake, while the latter can keep me focused and motivated for several hours.

Not a good idea. Nicotine gum is not too good for gingival health. Nicotine patch is consider the safest form of nicotine delivery. Also the most expensive. E-cigarette is a good 2nd option. Vape unflavored or menthol, because the health effects of flavorings are still out there. Vendors have mostly stopped using diacetyl in their flavorings. Diacetyl gives that vanilla aroma, but also responsible for popcorn lung. S…

I've never heard that the gum is bad for gum health (heh). Do you know where I could find more information?

Re: Nootropics Survey Results And Analysis

#85

Post by aestra »

driverdan wrote: post #46
oldstrangers wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you find caffeine 2/3 as good because it's not as addictive as nicotine.

Caffeine is highly addictive. It only takes a few days of use for signs of addiction to show. Cessation is just easier than nicotine.

> It only takes a few days of use for signs of addiction to show.

Eh... not for me. I can use caffeine for days and then not use it for days no problems at all. Of course probably because caffeine does absolutely nothing to me. I just like the hot beverage.

Re: Nootropics Survey Results And Analysis

#86

Post by ohwaitamin »

simonster wrote: post #47
corin_ wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is nicotine gum actually not a health risk? Tobacco held in the mouth (for example Scandinavian 'snus') certainly has serious effects with long-term use, albeit they aren't exactly the same as smoking cigarettes. Gum is generally sold for short term use, so not sure if it's actually better, or just not generally used for long enough to see the effects.

My understanding is that nicotine itself is not particularly carcinogenic (there are some studies indicating slight increases in tumorigenesis in conjunction with specific carcinogens, and others indicating no increases), but there are a lot of other compounds in tobacco (including chewing tobacco) that are highly carcinogenic. To my knowledge there are no studies of the carcinogenic potential of long-term nicotine r…

Tobacco aside:

Nicotine has several metabolites. NNN, NNK and cotinine. The first two are carcinogenic, but the risk is negligible (but not absent) for smoking cessation therapy. The effects of cotinine appear to be slightly negative on brain health, but of course there are dietary and lifestyle factors which play into the cash value of all this.

Nicotine also appears to be slightly deleterious for kidney and heart health, so it's not entirely benign. It also has to be avoided with female oral contraceptives (greater risk with age) otherwise the risk of stroke increases fairly dramatically.

Do I use nicotine knowing these risks? Yes as a cognitive enhancer, but under the assumption that I'll cease before the age of 40 or upon financial success, while in good health and maintaining a fruit and vegetable rich diet.

Re: Nootropics Survey Results And Analysis

#88

Post by modthrowawayz »

thelogos wrote: post #68
happycube wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's generic, but it's still expensive. My insurance still required prior auth, but it was doable.

From what I've heard before, it was almost impossible for people to get approved by insurance for modafinil, maybe times have changed and I need to pay the doctor a visit in the future. For now though, nicotine hits the spot.

No it is still friggin impossible...

I have an actual sleep disorder and I am currently going through hell trying to get my insurance to pay for modafinil, and I've been through the whole battery of tests. :( I don't want to be "smarter" I want to be awake.

It is generic but still stupid expensive.

Re: Nootropics Survey Results And Analysis

#89

Post by thelogos »

sizzle wrote: post #79
thelogos wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with amphetamine is, when they do work, the crash is horrible. When the crash goes away, it no longer does anything. So you have to up the dose and the cycle starts again. Some people use NMDA antagonist to reverse tolerance, but lets just say that they do a lot more than reverse your tolerance. In the end, most user end up with a permanent tolerance that no amount of drug vacation will lower. I'm not eve…

you need to keep your ph levels in check for amps to absorb properly. if I have orange juice, I feel nothing working. can you share some links to the dopamine leakage you mentioned, that sounds terrible.

The disruption of the pH gradient is the central part of amphetamine's mechanism of action. Dopamine is stored inside vesicles inside presynaptic neurons. By disrupting the proton gradient between the lipid bilayer of these vesicles, dopamine is allowed to leak out and released into the synaptic cleft.

Which is part of the reason why amphetamine increases extracellular dopamine. Unfortunately, instead of being nicely packaged in vesicles, now some of these dopamine are floating around in the cytosol, making them susceptible to autooxidation to quinones, nasty stuff.

Unfortunately, most of these research are behind paywall but that is the little lf what I remembered from all the reading years ago.

Re: Nootropics Survey Results And Analysis

#90

Post by otl1248 »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #78
tokenadult wrote: post #50

Okay, I have read the fine blog post (which took a while to load). The article leads off by defining nootropics as "substances which purportedly improve mental functioning with relatively few side effects when used responsibility." The blog post author mentions a few small-n, limited duration studies, and then describes his voluntary-response survey methodology: "I asked people in the two largest online nootropics co…

The author would do well to study fundamental principles of statistics... If only the author understood this. Then he might have written this in the fifth paragraph: "They tend to “outpace” the scientific literature, using some substances that haven’t yet been shown to work...people combine a bewildering variety of chemicals without being sure which ones work better than others or even whether any of them work at all…

Sounds to me more like a justification for presenting useless statistics and allowing 'outpacers' to give themselves more confirmation bias (which those communities already provide in spades).
Post reply on HN