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

The Hidden Cost of Smart Drugs (2008)

scienceblogs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–46 of 46 posts

Re: The Hidden Cost of Smart Drugs (2008)

#41

Post by Alex3917 »

Daniel_Newby wrote: post #38
Alex3917 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, you can't really judge a person's happiness just by looking at them. Second, you can't really cheat your biology in the long run, because your brain will always compensate for any psychoactive drug you consume. Take dopamine for example. If you take a drug that increases the amount of dopamine in your brain, then your brain will decrease its density of dopamine receptors to compensate. If you take a drug that…

> Second, you can't really cheat your biology in the long run, because your brain will always compensate for any psychoactive drug you consume. Not true; this is a common pop-sci myth. Nearly all neurological signal processors have numerous types of inputs and outputs. While it is true that the body usually alters drug sensitivity so as to counteract the drug effect, it simultaneously alters many other signal senders…

"This is not even remotely true."

I meant psychoactive drugs. I realize that NSAIDs and other drugs stay effective.

"The central nervous system drugs work too, although the statistics are less impressive."

If by work, you mean they have some effect, then yes. However, all the research seems to show that you're worse off in the long term than if you'd never taken the drug at all:

http://www.madinamerica.com/madinamerica.com/Home/AB86250A-A...

(And again, you'd really have to read the book to understand the research he's citing and its implications, but the blog post is at least a quick glance at the results of some of the biggest longterm efficacy studies.)

Re: The Hidden Cost of Smart Drugs (2008)

#42

Post by metamemetics »

justin_vanw wrote: post #25
metamemetics wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless of his lack of scientific method, I would agree that most stimulants do decrease creativity to some degree. However, some nootropics that enhance utilization of acetylcholine DO enhance creativity, specifically piracetam and aniracetam. My problem with the article is mis-titling it "smart drugs" if it is only about Provigil. The wikipedia nootropic article has almost everything you would want to know: http…

So you would like to complain that the article is unscientific, but counter with snake oil?

No, I interpreted madair's comment as a complaint the article was unscientific and agreed with the article. Except for the choice of title.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Smart Drugs (2008)

#43

Post by justin_vanw »

silentbicycle wrote: post #35
justin_vanw wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since you apparently already modded me down for disagreeing with me, would you care to back up your nonsense? I would love to see a link to a reputable scientific journal which demonstrated that "some nootropics that enhance utilization of acetylcholine DO enhance creativity, specifically piracetam and aniracetam". If you can't come up with one, would you like to explain the whole 'probably effective'?

I didn't mod you down. I'm not that invested. The part that really bothers me is the whole, "We're going to talk about how 'smart drugs' make you creative, and then spend a post rambling about how taking speed is awesome" load of crap that seems to come up like clockwork here. I've tried piracetam (and other various racetams), and stand by my opinion at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1212193 . I did my research,…

I'm still honestly curious, what is paracetam supposedly effective at?

You have to take grams of the stuff, and there appears that there is basically no LD-50. The studies that show any effect at all are fairly dubious IMHO, and meta studies have been particularly harsh on the methodologies used. If I had to make a wager, I would say that it has no measurable effect on anything.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Smart Drugs (2008)

#44

Post by metamemetics »

justin_vanw wrote: post #43
silentbicycle wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't mod you down. I'm not that invested. The part that really bothers me is the whole, "We're going to talk about how 'smart drugs' make you creative, and then spend a post rambling about how taking speed is awesome" load of crap that seems to come up like clockwork here. I've tried piracetam (and other various racetams), and stand by my opinion at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1212193 . I did my research,…

I'm still honestly curious, what is paracetam supposedly effective at? You have to take grams of the stuff, and there appears that there is basically no LD-50. The studies that show any effect at all are fairly dubious IMHO, and meta studies have been particularly harsh on the methodologies used. If I had to make a wager, I would say that it has no measurable effect on anything.

I get great effects from ~400mg aniracetam when combined with an acetylcholine precursor + any other stimulant. It makes almost every other drug more potent and last longer and increases clarity\recall. Boosting acetylcholine also activates the sympathetic nervous system to lower heart rate which offsets any of the usual caffeine anxiousness\restlessness for me. I agree piracetam (which is even less stimulatory than aniracetam) would not be a wonder-drug if taken alone without an acetylcholine precursor or stimulant.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Smart Drugs (2008)

#45

Post by eavc »

Alex3917 wrote: post #40
eavc wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of strong claims here. Can you provide solid sources? I have a hard time believing that psychiatrists and psychologists would endorse psychotropic drugs because of some big pharma conspiracy. If you're right, I'd like to know. But if claims like, "every longterm study on every pharma drug shows that you are worse off in the long run," are so sweeping as to seem spurious.

Anatomy of an Epidemic by Robert Whitaker. Also check out this blog post of his that summarizes the largest longterm studies of the mainstay psych drugs: http://www.madinamerica.com/madinamerica.com/Home/AB86250A-A... You definitely have to read the book though, it's incredibly well researched.

Thanks for the reply.
Post reply on HN