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

Nootropics – The Facts About “Smart Drugs”

unfinishedman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 157 posts

Re: Nootropics – The Facts About “Smart Drugs”

#71

Post by [deleted] »

lars wrote: post #66
Permit wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

You test some statistical hypothesis, and you end with some probability that the hypethesis is true. Increasing the number of people increases the number of samples. Loosely speaking, increasing the number of samples will reduce the variance on the variable you are measuring. When the variance is reduced, the confidence in the result is increased. Say you are measuring IQ before and after taking omega 3. Say your hyp…

[deleted]

Re: Nootropics – The Facts About “Smart Drugs”

#72

Post by matznerd »

tokenadult wrote: post #50

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…

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 studying Alzheimer's and other Neurodegenerative diseases. They look at improving people who are already in decline, not improving people who are at a baseline or normal state and attempting to increase brain power. The users of Nootropics have to extrapolate their results based on those studies.

Re: Nootropics – The Facts About “Smart Drugs”

#73

Post by matznerd »

stephengillie wrote: post #4

Unlike in athletics, academics isn’t necessarily a zero sum game. While in a race there is necessarily a winner and a loser, nobody in academics is held back if another student is better able to retain their information. No, but the doped student's advantage could cause her to be selected over another (undoped) student in college entrance exams, program entrance exams, and other educational competitions. Does this me…

There are already many students who are prescribed Ritalin, Concerta, Adderal etc, and these drugs give those students an unfair edge. How are normal students supposed to compete with their peers who are on amphetamines?

Re: Nootropics – The Facts About “Smart Drugs”

#74

Post by pnathan »

Permit wrote: post #62
tokenadult wrote: post #50

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…

>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…

> So I'm curious, what would be an appropriate number of subjects?

This depends on the experiment. Some of the things to account for are the number of variables, the confidence you are looking for and the amount of interdependence. Consult a statistician, particularly one expert in experimental trials, for an evaluation.

Re: Nootropics – The Facts About “Smart Drugs”

#75

Post by matznerd »

aelaguiz wrote: post #22

The article is really interesting, but I can't help but be suspicious of the data (opinion) contained within. The expert used in the article is John Holcomb, who owns a supplement e-commerce site. I can't find anything on his site that talks about his qualifications or any hard facts to back up most of this. I'm really interested in nootropics and increasing mental efficacy - but there is no shortage of snake-oil ven…

Most of what John Holcomb says is pretty true. He is involved in a company that sells supplements. Brainpower Nutriceuticals is a new company that comes from his former company, Cerebral Health. Cerebral Health is well known in the Nootropic community as a good, honest, and safe supplier of many different substances. I have used them as a piracetam source before. He really does little to sell his products in his article and discusses what is already common knowledge to even beginners interested in Nootropics.

Being an outsider on the topic, I can see how this may come off as sketchy, but the truth is that the Racetams, as well as any drug, have different effects on different people. If you want to get into Nootropics, you will need to do a little experimenting and a lot of research. There is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all stack or supplement regiment, but when you hit it right, you will notice a difference. You won't be a genius, but you can remove what is called "mental fog," a condition that you rarely known you have until it is gone.

Re: Nootropics – The Facts About “Smart Drugs”

#76

Post by matznerd »

systemtrigger wrote: post #60
aelaguiz wrote: post #22

The article is really interesting, but I can't help but be suspicious of the data (opinion) contained within. The expert used in the article is John Holcomb, who owns a supplement e-commerce site. I can't find anything on his site that talks about his qualifications or any hard facts to back up most of this. I'm really interested in nootropics and increasing mental efficacy - but there is no shortage of snake-oil ven…

I question his motives because he recommends Piracetam daily dosage of 3 to 5 grams and said it may take up to 6 weeks to realize the effects. I bought Piracetam on Amazon after someone here on HN recommended it, and for the past 2 months have been taking 800 mg per day. I often skip a few days and have not noticed any addiction symptoms. I doubled my dosage one day, so took 1600 mg that day, and felt sick to my stom…

Many people take 4.8 grams of Piracetam twice per day. I personally think that is a bit much, and I think 600-800mg two times a day is optimal. I'm surprised to hear of you getting sick and vomiting as that is a a rare side-effect of racetams, the most common being a headache due to lack of choline...

Re: Nootropics – The Facts About “Smart Drugs”

#77

Post by matznerd »

plantain wrote: post #2

There may be places out there to find reliable information on the efficacy and safety of prescription medication taken off-label, but a guest post from a seller of them certainly is not one.

Unfortunately, companies are not legally allowed to discuss or mention in their marketing materials the "Nootropic" effects of these substances due to the FDA. This pushes a lot of the reliable information regarding Nootropics into forums and other areas on the internet. It is pretty interesting to see the communities that thrive around Nootropics. Just trying to learn the basics and build a stack, I have spent hundreds of hours researching.

Re: Nootropics – The Facts About “Smart Drugs”

#79

Post by tryitnow »

pdog wrote: post #69
tokenadult wrote: post #50

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…

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”

#80

Post by matznerd »

cbarnsdale wrote: post #63
aelaguiz wrote: post #22

The article is really interesting, but I can't help but be suspicious of the data (opinion) contained within. The expert used in the article is John Holcomb, who owns a supplement e-commerce site. I can't find anything on his site that talks about his qualifications or any hard facts to back up most of this. I'm really interested in nootropics and increasing mental efficacy - but there is no shortage of snake-oil ven…

I realize this isn't worth much, but I'll say it anyway. I personally asked John to write this article for my site. Why? He's a sharp fellow, and though the information is available, I wanted a clear, consolidated overview for my readers. John had no interest in including his name or website; I suggested it. I would rather a name behind it than some random anonymous guest post.

I am surprised how closed-minded HNers are being towards this topic. Thank you for having John write this, I have been working on an article on Nootropics for a while now, but the topic is so deep and complex that it's hard to sum up in a short article. I think John did a good job writing this as a basic primer.

Thanks for the effort! I think the article will make aware the people who are truly interested in the topic and get them on the right path, although the dissenters are more vocal and visible here.

Post reply on HN