23 replies to this topic

[JMorgan]

Hi, I've had a passing interest but have no idea where to start. It seems the Q&A sticky in this forum has been gutted. It's now all Q and no A. [lol] Perhaps someone would care to write a new one outlining what each nootropic is, what the common dosage is, what goes with what, etc.

So far, I began using 200mg of Pyritinol/day, 5mg Deprenyl/week and was going to start Piracetam but most on this board seem to suggest it should be taken with choline. So... where else should I begin?

[doug123]

Ironically, I was just about to do this.

I have my final exam next week, but will try to find the time ASAP. It will take me a couple of hours to do right...

What is most important is that folks get accurate information; such as: facts about clinical efficacy of cognitive enhancers. Although nootropic vendors could earn larger profits by presenting false and misleading information that could contend that modern nootropics (the Piracetam family, pyritinol, centrophenoxine, idebenone, deprenyl, etc.) are effective memory enhancers in healthy individuals, that wouldn't go over very well with intelligent folks whom have reviewed the literature.

Many individuals whom are first exploring the possibility of cognition enhancement have an untreated attention and/or depressive disorder and are seeking something they won't find in the unregulated dietary supplement type nootropics available in the USA. These individuals should first be pointed to a qualified health care professional.

What I will paraphrase is this previously posted information:

Don't go searching the web for solutions until modern medicine has failed you. At least half of the folks I interact with who inquire into nootropic therapies really have ADD or ADHD and don't really benefit from the deregulated nootropics that are sold on the web as dietary supplements. They have never been proven to work in healthy people so you are taking a gamble that what (barely) works for elderly subjects will work for an otherwise healthy individual.

Anyone interested in cognition enhancers should investigate and question the research supporting the use of compounds for which we have strong evidence of their efficacy in healthy subjects first rather than take the latest snake oil.

While there may be some evidence that suggests that these dietary supplement products may be effective in elderly or demented subjects, there is zero solid evidence that the conventionally accepted nootropics would affect memory functions of an individual with a perfectly functioning memory in the same manner. It is theoretically possible, but unproven nonetheless.

On the other hand, we do have solid evidence from randomized, double blind, placebo controlled trials in healthy subjects that suggest that prescription-only drugs such as Provigil AKA modafinil, Aricept AKA donezepil HCL, and Ritalin AKA Concerta AKA methylphenidate can improve short and long term memory functions -- once again -- in healthy subjects...

Bacopa has also been researched in healthy subjects: the following two double blind studies suggest benefits for healthy subjects as well:

This and this too

Cross references; where applicable:

http://www.ncbi.nlm....l=pubmed_docsum

Adrafinil is not currently illegal or a controlled substance in the USA, so it can be imported without the legal threat imposed from Modafinil -- a schedule IV controlled drug in the USA.

Nootropics can work for some people, but let's first find out whether or not folks have an attention related or depressive disorder before going forward.

The cognition enhanced classroom; by Danielle Turner and Barbara Sahakian is also worth a read.

Beginners should also watch:

Nick Boström on cognitive enhancement, webcast presentation at the Oxford conf. (thank Opales for this)
Click below for an excellent video:
http://streaming.oii...6/16032006-1.rm

The second speaker in the above video is Danielle Turner, the woman from Cambridge University who did the research on modafinil and Ritaln in healthy subjects (I think I am falling in love [bl:)] )

Edited by nootropikamil, 08 June 2006 - 03:19 AM.

[sprinkles]

Adam: I agree with your assessment that most people seeking these drugs are untreated depressive and/or attention disorders, but I might expand that to other disorders such as addictive disorders and such.

I'm glad it looks like you've improved yourself and your mental status. I would ask, how did you do so?

Secondly, when will Bacopa become available at your site? - I do not wish to purchase powders from 1fast400 anymore, as now, I see, that my health is much more important than a few dollars I would save.

Also: what is your current opinion on hydergine?

[sprinkles]

http://www.ncbi.nlm....l=pubmed_docsum

Does modafinil enhance cognitive performance in young volunteers who are not sleep-deprived?

Randall DC, Viswanath A, Bharania P, Elsabagh SM, Hartley DE, Shneerson JM, File SE.

Psychopharmacology Research Unit, Centre for Neuroscience Research, King's College London, London, UK. Delia.Randall@papworth.nhs.uk

In a double-blind, parallel groups study, 60 healthy student volunteers (29 men and 31 women, aged 19-22 years) were randomly allocated to receive placebo, 100 or 200 mg modafinil. Two hours later, in the early evening, they completed an extensive cognitive battery. The 3 groups did not differ in self-ratings of sleepiness or tiredness before the testing session, and there were no treatment-associated changes in these or in mood ratings during the tests. Modafinil was without effect in several tests of reaction time and attention, but the 200-mg group was faster at simple color naming of dots and performed better than placebo in the Rapid Visual Information Processing test of sustained attention. Modafinil was without effect on spatial working memory, but the 100-mg group performed better in the backward part of the digit span test. Modafinil was without effect on verbal short-term memory (story recall), but 100 mg improved digit span forward, and both doses improved pattern recognition, although this was accompanied by a slowing of response latency in the 200-mg group. There were no significant effects of modafinil compared with placebo in tests of long-term memory, executive function, visuospatial and constructional ability, or category fluency. These results suggest that the benefits of modafinil are not clearly dose-related, and those from 100 mg are limited to the span of immediate verbal recall and short-term visual recognition memory, which is insufficient for it to be considered as a cognitive enhancer in non-sleep-deprived individuals.

This seems to go against the other study you posted. Have you seen this?

[doug123]

http://www.ncbi.nlm....l=pubmed_docsum

Does modafinil enhance cognitive performance in young volunteers who are not sleep-deprived?

Randall DC, Viswanath A, Bharania P, Elsabagh SM, Hartley DE, Shneerson JM, File SE.

Psychopharmacology Research Unit, Centre for Neuroscience Research, King's College London, London, UK. Delia.Randall@papworth.nhs.uk

In a double-blind, parallel groups study, 60 healthy student volunteers (29 men and 31 women, aged 19-22 years) were randomly allocated to receive placebo, 100 or 200 mg modafinil. Two hours later, in the early evening, they completed an extensive cognitive battery. The 3 groups did not differ in self-ratings of sleepiness or tiredness before the testing session, and there were no treatment-associated changes in these or in mood ratings during the tests. Modafinil was without effect in several tests of reaction time and attention, but the 200-mg group was faster at simple color naming of dots and performed better than placebo in the Rapid Visual Information Processing test of sustained attention. Modafinil was without effect on spatial working memory, but the 100-mg group performed better in the backward part of the digit span test. Modafinil was without effect on verbal short-term memory (story recall), but 100 mg improved digit span forward, and both doses improved pattern recognition, although this was accompanied by a slowing of response latency in the 200-mg group. There were no significant effects of modafinil compared with placebo in tests of long-term memory, executive function, visuospatial and constructional ability, or category fluency. These results suggest that the benefits of modafinil are not clearly dose-related, and those from 100 mg are limited to the span of immediate verbal recall and short-term visual recognition memory,which is insufficient for it to be considered as a cognitive enhancer in non-sleep-deprived individuals.

This seems to go against the other study you posted. Have you seen this?

Read the details closely, and you will see that these findings are consistent with earlier findings. This author is being scientific by stating what they did not find, rather than highlighting what they did.

This does not really "go against" the other study either if you look closely at it. These researchers finds benefits for the modafinil group in many areas but mostly also shows that 100mg may be too low of a dose in many cases. If you give most people I know 100mg modafinil, they won't report much of an effect.

200mg is the usual dose to achieve an effect for patients about 70kg.

This study found that:

1. "the 200-mg group was faster at simple color naming of dots and performed better than placebo in the Rapid Visual Information Processing test of sustained attention"

2. "The 100-mg group performed better in the backward part of the digit span test"

3. "100 mg improved digit span forward, and both doses improved pattern recognition, although this was accompanied by a slowing of response latency in the 200-mg group"

4. "100 mg are limited to the span of immediate verbal recall and short-term visual recognition memory"

So in many areas, modafinil improves cognition. In some areas; it does not. I would only suspect modafinil to improve cognition as it is directly related to one's increased alertness. And 100mg is too low of a dose for many of the cognition enhancing effects.

[FunkOdyssey]

So in many areas, modafinil improves cognition. In some areas; it does not. I would only suspect modafinil to improve cognition as it is directly related to one's increased alertness. And 100mg is too low of a dose for many of the cognition enhancing effects.

I think you are misinterpreting the results a bit. The study suggests distinct dose-response curves for modafinil's various effects. Here's what I got from this:

Benefits of 100mg:

Improved performance on forward and backward digit-span test
Improved performance on pattern recognition test, with quicker response time than 200mg

Benefits of 200mg:

Faster at simple color naming of dots
Improved performance on Rapid Visual Information Processing test of sustained attention
Improved performance on pattern recognition test, with slower response than 100mg

[doug123]

Re: Sabinsa's Bacopin 50%: I have been trying to get this back in stock for a month or so. I spoke with Sabinsa yesterday and was informed that their recent shipment is being inspected by FDA. Also, the US representative I am working with is going out of town for a week, so he won't be back in town until next week; so there may be more delays than expected. In the mean time, if you are just fiending Bacopa, I am sure AOR's or Jarrow's are both properly standardized. It doesn't have to be Sabinsa's Bacopa necessarily, but theirs is probably the best available. If you are interested in purchasing a generic Bacopa product, just check the COA (if you are buying a bulk powder) to see what company made it. If there is no company name on the Certificate of Analysis, who knows what it is, where it was made, or its purity. If there is a company name on the COA: ask that company how they ensure their product is standardized correctly. There is too much of a cash incentive for vendors to sell you crap; and if you don't test the product, you have no idea what you are ingesting.

Click below to see a Sabinsa COA:

http://nootropics.ip...-1117064084.jpg

Sabinsa's website:

http://www.sabinsa.com/

There are many problems with the dietary supplement market. Current data suggests that at least one third of the dietary supplements on the US market are not able to meet their label claim or are otherwise contaminated. Check Consumerlab.com to see the latest independent testing results of dietary supplements on the US market. Sign up there and you will be amazed at how many so called "high quality" brands aren't able to deliver what they claim on the label; not to mention, many are contaminated with lead (or other heavy metals), which can dramatically lower intelligence. Having this market unregulated has advantages though...I can sell high quality products for pretty cheap because there are no significant barriers to entry of this market; and supplements do not require a prescription, like they do in the EU. Sabinsa is a worldwide company with many representatives in the European Union, and their ingredients are used in several regulated products in the EU. Sabinsa also has WHO (World Health Organization) and OU (Orthodox Union) Kosher certification on their whole operation.

What are the major problems with quality control facing the natural products industry?
Todd Norton, president, Sabinsa Corp.:

One--the lack of generally accepted assay methods and reporting of active ingredient percentages. There is a significant problem in this industry with companies buying ingredients and relying solely on what is reported on the product certificate of analysis to assure quality. Some ingredients report an assay based on HPLC, and others report it based on UV or gravimetric or something else. Either way, the results are bound to differ.  Take guggul extract, for example. Sabinsa offers a minimum 2.5 percent Guggulsterone Z&E content in our Gugulipid product, as shown in clinical studies to be responsible for therapeutic benefits. We measure our guggulsterone content by HPLC to be precise. We compete against other generic guggul extracts that claim to offer 10 percent guggulsterones, yet when pressed on the method of analysis used to determine this percentage, the answer is either by UV, or "I don't know." So, what levels of guggulsterone Z&E do they really contain? And what is it exactly that constitutes the 10 percent assay? Now let's fast forward to the retail shelf. If two guggul products are side by side and one claims 10 percent while the other claims 2.5 percent guggulsterones, assuming they are similarly priced, which one will the consumer likely buy? Some manufacturers, when seeking the higher potency listed on a competitor's label then feel compelled to modify their product also. Does anybody along the way ask the question whether the jump to a higher assay is practical, necessary or possible in the first place? Sadly, the matter is best summed up by a comment made by industry consultant Jay Jacobowitz: "It's remarkable that in our industry it is 'news' when potency matches label claims."

Two--the lack of substantiated agreement on what actives are responsible and in what percentages for certain health benefits in botanicals. Look no further than to the media-beating this industry took over St. John's wort not long ago. After all, as long as it's St. John's wort, it's all the same, isn't it?

And third--too much downward pressure on pricing. I am a firm believer that in most instances you get what you pay for. The trend toward constantly chasing the lowest price is taking an adverse toll on product quality. What is basically happening is the barriers to entry to be a supplier of ingredients keep getting lowered, yet industry manufacturers increasingly expect suppliers to provide more documentation, product testing and marketing support. This is an inverse relationship, and it only can last for so long before something gives.

My father worked in the poultry industry for nearly 20 years. His company adopted the following motto and I think it is appropriate: "The bitterness of poor quality will remain long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten." Sound words of wisdom for any industry, especially one professing to transform the "snake oil" persona that shows up repeatedly in the mass media. Quality, or the lack thereof, does come with a price. It is up to the industry to decide where they will pay.

What types of QC certifications do you hold?

Sabinsa is the sales and marketing arm for our manufacturing operation SAMI Labs Inc., which is located outside the United States. SAMI Labs recently obtained World Health Organization (WHO) certification for its manufacturing operations.

How did you determine whether to hold a QC certification, and what does it offer you and your customers in the marketplace?

Sabinsa has a number of agents worldwide that represent our product line, many of which are affiliated with the European Union. We felt that WHO certification would best serve our diverse customer base and be universally recognized in the major international markets where we have a presence.

What do you do to ensure the quality of the raw materials you supply?

People need to remember that we are dealing with plant products that can, and do, change depending on which region they come from and the season in which the are harvested. The Sabinsa/SAMI operation is 100 percent vertically integrated. In some instances we control the cultivation of certain botanicals, and go so far as to provide our farmers with the seedling plants to ensure the right species is grown. When purchasing raw materials from outside sources, such as small villages or collection groups, we have a procurement team that travels with a portable testing equipment to quickly assess the identity and potency. If further testing is required we send the materials to our lab in the corporate office. Based on these results we either purchase or we dont.

What types of tests do you conduct on raw materials, and how do you determine the testing methods used?

The first thing to do is confirm with an identity test, usually thin layer chromatography (TLC), that you have the correct species of plant. Once confirmed, and before production begins on any of our standardized extracts, we first determine the assay value of our starting material. From here we can determine if any modifications are required to our manufacturing process. The whole idea of a standardized botanical extract is to provide the same percentage of active constituents from batch to batch. Testing the finished material varies depending on what the product is standardized for. Wherever possible an HPLC method of analysis is recommended due to the high degree of accuracy and reproducibility it offers. This is a good method to use when you want to identify a specific compound. Some products, however, contain a mixture of compounds that provide the activity. The methods generally used for testing in these instances are UV spectrophotometry or gravimetric. These methods identify compounds that are similar in chemical structure, thereby giving a cumulative percentage of their presence in the material. The methodology used is a function what you are testing for in the product. There are also other sophisticated methods and equipment available that can test for things like residual solvents and pesticide levels.

http://www.acsu.buff...etyefficacy.htm

A study of ginseng products found tremendous variability, with as little as 12% and as much as 328% of the active ingredient in the bottle, compared to the information on the label (Am J Clin Nutr. 2001. 73. 1101-1106)

A study of 59 Echinacea products from retail stores analyzed by thin layer chromotography showed that 6 contained no measurable Echinacea and only 9 of the 21 preparations labelled as standardized extracts actually contained in the sample the content listed on the label. Overall, the assay results were consistent with the labelled content in only 31 of the 59 preparations (Arch Intern Med. 2003. 163. 699-704).

When the FDA announced in 2003 a proposed rule to establish good manufacturing practices for supplements, the FDA cited data that 5 of 18 soy and/or red clover supplements contained only 50-80% of the quantity of isoflavones stated on the label, and 8 of 25 probiotic products contained less than 1% of the live bacteria claimed on the label.

In 1998 the California Department of Health reported in a letter published in the New England Journal of Medicine that 32% of Asian patent medicines sold in that state contained undeclared pharmaceuticals or heavy metals, including ephedrine ( a stimulant), chlorpheniramine (an antihistamine), methyltestosterone (an anabolic steroid), phenacetin (a pain killer), lead, mercury, and arsenic (N Engl J Med. 1998. 339. 847).

A study in which 500 Asian patent medicines were screened for the presence of heavy metals and 134 drugs found that 10% were contaminated (Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. 2000. 65. 112-119).

A study in which all unique Ayurvedic herbal medicine products were purchased from all stores within 20 miles of Boston City Hall found that 14 of 70 products (20%) contained heavy metals and that if taken as recommended by the manufacturer, each of these 14 products could result in heavy metal intakes above published regulatory standards (JAMA. 2004. 292. 2868-2873).

Adulteration of imported Chinese dietary supplements sold in Japan is responsible for 622 cases of illness, 148 hospitalizations, and 3 deaths (Report of the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare. September 20, 2002).

A 2002 Bastyr University study of 20 probiotic supplements found that 16 contained bacteria not listed on the label, 6 contained organisms that can make people sick, and 4 contained no live organisms.

PC-SPES was removed from the market in 2002 after it was determined that it was adulterated with the prescription blood thinner, warfarin.

http://www.acsu.buff...etyefficacy.htm

Edited by nootropikamil, 09 June 2006 - 04:32 PM.

[doug123]

I am not saying anything other than the findings of the referenced study are not terribly inconsistent with earlier findings. Modafinil appears to improve cognition in many areas, for healthy voulenteers; in many models.

Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2004 Dec;177(1-2):161-9. Epub 2004 Jun 24.

Effects of modafinil on working memory processes in humans.

Muller U, Steffenhagen N, Regenthal R, Bublak P.

Department of Psychiatry, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany. um207@cam.ac.uk

RATIONALE: Modafinil is a well-tolerated psychostimulant drug with low addictive potential that is used to treat patients with narcolepsy or attention deficit disorders and to enhance vigilance in sleep-deprived military personal. So far, understanding of the cognitive enhancing effects of modafinil and the relevant neurobiological mechanisms are incomplete. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of modafinil on working memory processes in humans and how they are related to noradrenergic stimulation of the prefrontal cortex. METHODS: Sixteen healthy volunteers (aged 20-29 years) received either modafinil 200 mg or placebo using a double blind crossover design. Two computerized working memory tasks were administered, a numeric manipulation task that requires short-term maintenance of digit-sequences and different degrees of manipulation as well as delayed matching task that assesses maintenance of visuo-spatial information over varying delay lengths. The battery was supplemented by standardized paper pencil tasks of attentional functions. RESULTS: Modafinil significantly reduced error rates in the long delay condition of the visuo-spatial task and in the manipulation conditions, but not in the maintenance condition of the numeric task. Analyses of reaction times showed no speed-accuracy trade-off. Attentional control tasks (letter cancellation, trail-making, catch trials) were not affected by modafinil. CONCLUSIONS: In healthy volunteers without sleep deprivation modafinil has subtle stimulating effects on maintenance and manipulation processes in relatively difficult and monotonous working memory tasks, especially in lower performing subjects. Overlapping attentional and working memory processes have to be considered when studying the noradrenergic modulation of the prefrontal cortex.

PMID: 15221200 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2003 Jan;165(3):260-9. Epub 2002 Nov 1.

Cognitive enhancing effects of modafinil in healthy volunteers.

Turner DC, Robbins TW, Clark L, Aron AR, Dowson J, Sahakian BJ.

Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, School of Clinical Medicine, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 2QQ, UK.

RATIONALE: Modafinil, a novel wake-promoting agent, has been shown to have a similar clinical profile to that of conventional stimulants such as methylphenidate. We were therefore interested in assessing whether modafinil, with its unique pharmacological mode of action, might offer similar potential as a cognitive enhancer, without the side effects commonly experienced with amphetamine-like drugs. OBJECTIVES: The main aim of this study was to evaluate the cognitive enhancing potential of this novel agent using a comprehensive battery of neuropsychological tests. METHODS: Sixty healthy young adult male volunteers received either a single oral dose of placebo, or 100 mg or 200 mg modafinil prior to performing a variety of tasks designed to test memory and attention. A randomised double-blind, between-subjects design was used. RESULTS: Modafinil significantly enhanced performance on tests of digit span, visual pattern recognition memory, spatial planning and stop-signal reaction time. These performance improvements were complemented by a slowing in latency on three tests: delayed matching to sample, a decision-making task and the spatial planning task. Subjects reported feeling more alert, attentive and energetic on drug. The effects were not clearly dose dependent, except for those seen with the stop-signal paradigm. In contrast to previous findings with methylphenidate, there were no significant effects of drug on spatial memory span, spatial working memory, rapid visual information processing or attentional set-shifting. Additionally, no effects on paired associates learning were identified. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that modafinil selectively improves neuropsychological task performance. This improvement may be attributable to an enhanced ability to inhibit pre-potent responses. This effect appears to reduce impulsive responding, suggesting that modafinil may be of benefit in the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

Publication Types:
Clinical Trial
Randomized Controlled Trial

PMID: 12417966 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[sprinkles]

What is your opinion on hydergine?

[xanadu]

A good Q and A would be nice but not all written by one person particularly one with an agenda. One person no matter how well intentioned is going to have his or her own biases. Most people like piracetam, some don't. Same with many other compounds. Perhaps we could have the best 2 or 3 answers to each type of question and let the readers make up their own minds.

[doug123]

Go ahead and write it, xanadu. We all know your agenda; so in this case, we've already removed the bias. I am still waiting for you to address the issues I raised. You should defend yourself in as scientific a manner as Aubrey De Grey defends SENS.

http://www.imminst.o...=0

Peace out, homey.

[scottl]

Adam,

On the avant board in the off topics section is a poster who used to be a far right winger politically, he now makes Kerry and Gore look conservative and is off the scale in the other direction. I think you are making the same mistake. And recommending amphetamines i.e. ritalin now matter how legal I can't go along with.

[scottl]

Oh and modafinil is a stimulant...is it promethius...perhaps (don?) who points out that caffeine has these sorts of benefits. So recommending two stimulants across the board....

[doug123]

Scott: it is good to see you back in this nootropic forum. Historically, I notice you see everything pretty fair and balanced -- and if it is not that way, you are first to set it back in place; I admire that ability of yours. (And that's NOT a sarcastic smile.)

The reason I present (emphasis is not recommend) the clinically proven cognition enhancers first is because many folks searching the web who might come here might be ADD/ADHD or depressive and should seek help from a licenced physician first (if they have not already) to see if they might benefit more from real medicines rather than try stuff that has never been shown to really work in healthy folks. The chance of side effects are much higher with the prescription drugs, and many are controlled substances; and we don't want anyone we know getting bad side effects or going to jail.

I DO NOT recommend nor do I prescribe myself these medicines (I do take more modafinil than I am prescribed). When I got real "smart" and was taking every compound purported to increase cognition I turned largely into a psychotic and delusional monster and was my own worst enemy. I lost my friendship with you (and several others) for a while and that sucked.

The nootropics that are the dietary supplement type in the USA I do believe do something; but before folks mess with these substances, I feel they should be informed about the stuff that really works and figure out if they might have a "disorder" (I classify disordered as perhaps "below average" function in school -- when they are trying their very best; like me before 2002. I would study my ass off, and barely pass exams. I was getting Cs until I started Adrafinil, then I earned A's in some classes for the first time in my life -- and no, not everyone is a student or will respond to adrafinil, some just want to fight cognitive decline). I do not suggest anyone to take, for example, Ritalin or Aricept without a prescription; or anyone to take or import modafinil without an Rx either. I can safely suggest for folks to try Adrafnil because it appears to be safe in elderly subjects; but I think it is smarter to get an Rx for Provigil as it may be easier on the liver (which might be especially important for folks taking several supplements reading Internet forums).

I take Aniracetam, Oxiracetam, and several other purported cognitive enhancers. I don't know if they really do anything due to lack of supporting data. So I would not want to be dishonest and mislead folks. I think people with impaired memory function can easily benefit from several nootropic therapies, but most folks would like to know what has been proven to work in healthy folks first rather than try stuff without real supporting data.

It really is a question of an individual's budget. If someone only has, say, $50 a month to blow on cognitive enhancers, I would suggest they spend that money wisely; and first seek professional help to see if they have ADD/ADHD, a depressive disorder, or anything else that can be treated by "Western Medicine." Obviously not every psychiatrist is good so there is also the chance that visit could be a total waste of time. The best way to see if a psychiatrist might be helpful is to tell them that you might have ADD/ADHD or depression and the medicines you are interested in exploring before even entering their office. That way, you can save a potential waste of time.

No one should take an amphetamine derived stimulant such as Ritalin without having a healthy heart, wouldn't you agree?
see this .

Once folks have straightened out whether or not they have a real "disorder," (once again, by disorder I mean they are not functioning as well as they would like to be) there are many interesting supplements to explore. I have just interacted with many people in real life (many from this forum, I can PM you the explicit people I know, most know you but wouldn't want their names posted in a public forum I think) who literally had been taking supplements for years searching for what they got from Modafinil, Strattera, Ritalin and other prescription drugs. Once some tried these drugs many (over 75%) totally ditched the supplements they had been taking for years. I know a 53 year old who just figured out he has ADD and still thanks me for recommending Strattera...he took that for a year, then switched to Adderall...everyone is different.

I would like to hear more on this topic. Peace.

Edited by nootropikamil, 10 June 2006 - 12:09 AM.

[xanadu]

When it was LM doing most of the info, the answers were a bit too enthusiastic towards nootropics. Likewise, every person is going to have their own approach and their favorites and things they hate. I would rather hear Scott's opinion on things than Adam's but it's good to have several points of view rather than just one. Maybe we could have some suggestions on good questions and then people could give their answers. Pick the best 2 or 3 answers to each question and put them up. Or perhaps a compilation of 2 or more courses of action. That way, a newbie could see several approaches to each situation and not be steered into a controversial approach.

[scottl]

I'm really not qualified to do a nootropic Q and A (as opposed to health promoting supps which is my area of interest).

I don't really like adrifinil/modafinil in my body and I really think trial and error is the only way to go about these supps. Not that there are not some guidelines, and some combos,etc to start with. I wrote up some info for the avant wiki which I'll dig up at some point.

[JMorgan]

Wow, I ask a simple question and make a little suggestion and the topic goes all over the place.

Regarding a Q&A, I like the idea of 2 or 3 people providing short answers/opinions on individual nootropics as well as a general breakdown regarding what most here would find to be "basic" info. This shouldnt include lengthy medical pros and cons regarding modafinil, for example.

With regard to my question... what do you guys think about where I'm starting?

[doug123]

Your original question was:

Hi, I've had a passing interest but have no idea where to start. It seems the Q&A sticky in this forum has been gutted. It's now all Q and no A. biggrin.gif Perhaps someone would care to write a new one outlining what each nootropic is, what the common dosage is, what goes with what, etc.

So far, I began using 200mg of Pyritinol/day, 5mg Deprenyl/week and was going to start Piracetam but most on this board seem to suggest it should be taken with choline. So... where else should I begin?

I was replying to these issues. We have little, if any data to even suggest these nootropics are effective for healthy individuals. If you would like to review the data we do have (99% on elderly or demented subjects, which ARE NOT the same as healty subjects):

See this forum (I will downsize the fonts soon, as soon as I have the time)

Common dosages (or reference doses -- those used most frequently in actual clinical studies) for nootropics, neuroprotective, or "smart drugs":

Piracetam Derivatives:
Aniracetam: 750 mg twice daily
Oxiracetam: 800 mg twice daily
Piracetam: 2400 mg - 4800 mg daily in three divided doses
Pramiracetam: 400 - 800 mg twice daily

All above can and should be taken with meals

Pyritinol HCL:
400-600mg twice daily with meals *possible liver toxicity concern

Centrophenoxine:
250mg twice daily with meals

Picamilon
50-100 mg twice daily with meals

Idebenone

45mg twice daily with meals

R-alpha-lipoic acid from GeroNova Research, Inc.'s RLA-MCT25™ (23-25% R-ala in medium chain triglycerides (MCT) )

Based on the Hagen/Ames studies, an appropriate dose after adjusting for allometric metabolic scaling would be 1.29 to 4.3 g of ALCAR and 612.6 - 1225.2 mg R-Lipoic. Happily, these dosages span the ranges used in human clinical trials for neurodegenerative disease, so we can have some confidence that these are appropriate dosages in terms of safety and efficacy in humans.

R-lipoic acid has a very short half-life in plasma, although there is some evidence that it hangs around in cells for longer; to be safe, it makes sense to take this at least 3 times daily. Taking it on an empty stomach is best for overall absorption, although taking it with food gives a mild sustained-release effect.

800 mg one-three times a day, on an empty stomach (~200 mg R-ala)

Acetyl-l-carnitine

1-1.25 gram(s) twice a day on an empty stomach

Alpha GPC 60%

600 - 1000 mg twice daily with meals

Bacopa monniera standardized for 50% bacosides a/b

300mg; once, or twice daily with meals

Bacopa monniera standardized for 20% bacosides a/b

800 mg, once, or twice daily with meals

Centella asiatica (Gotu Kola) 10% triterpene standardized

1-2 grams a day on an empty stomach

Ashwagandha (Withania somnifera) standardized to 2.5% withandolides, 1.5% alkaloids

750mg twice daily with meals

[u]Vinpocetine

20-60mg a day in two divided doses with food

[scottl]

F--K data (no, not the android).

Depending on your goal pick one supp/combo and work with it e.g.

pyritiol (I'd have to look up dosing) or

piracetam + choline source (CDP or alpha GPC choline)

whichever combo you pick take for awhile at least several weeks to a month or so...work with the doses and see if it is doing anything for you.

[sprinkles]

Adam,

On the avant board in the off topics section is a poster who used to be a far right winger politically, he now makes Kerry and Gore look conservative and is off the scale in the other direction.  I think you are making the same mistake.  And recommending amphetamines i.e. ritalin now matter how legal I can't go along with.

I'm not sure how politics has anything to do with this thread. Please leave me alone.

[scottl]

oh no it is you...sorry there are several sprinkles around the boards.

The relevance is the tendency of human nature to go from one extreme to the other as you did in one area, and Adam in another.

I"ll drop it.

[sprinkles]

oh no it is you...sorry there are several sprinkles around the boards.

The relevance is the tendency of human nature to go from one extreme to the other as you did in one area, and Adam in another.

I"ll drop it.

Thanks friend.

[slainte]

Hello,

This is my first post. Adam, following up our chat on the phone, maybe you could provide a bit of clarity to something.

The term, "heatlhy persons" is thrown around like a basketball, however the term appears to be subjective in nature.

If I have ADD/ADHD, Personailty Disorder, Mild Depression, Acid Reflux, and Athletes foot, am I healthy? Relative to someone with AIDS, and Cancer, of course I am. Realtive to someone with a mild case of Alzeimers? maybe not.

While I agree with the conculssions drawn as to the market and business conditions that limit certain types of studies, I have conerns, and confusion about why the term "healthy persons" is used as a golden benchmark for applying studies or not.

Would you, and some others please address this, and hopefully explain what the reference point is, to help draw clarity to previous posts and threads.

Many thanks,

And agian thanks for your selfless time, and chat on the phone. It was appreciated.

Slainte.

[doug123]

http://www.sahealthi...articipants.htm


pr7.1 Research on healthy volunteers
A healthy volunteer has been defined as an individual who is not known to suffer any illness relevant to the proposed study and who is able to understand and give valid consent to the study.


DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) criteria is used to select subjects for research in particular disorders (ie dementia, ADD, depression) etc. Subjects are selected based on their DSM-IV criteria -- and healthy volunteers would have not be disordered or otherwise "unhealthy."

http://allpsych.com/disorders/dsm.html

So if your memory is not damaged, there is no evidence to suggest that many supplements or nootropics work. However, I take R-alpha-lipoic acid in combination with Acetyl L Carnitine acid in hopes of decreasing mitochondrial reactive oxygen species, increasing endogenous antioxidants, neuroprotective benefits, etc; and there is no substantial evidence of these effects in healthy humans. It is a reasonable assumption to take such supplements and expect real benefits because our mitochondria all seem to run the same...but there is much more evidence from studies in diabetic neuropathy to suggest R-lipoic acid can funciton similarly to insulin; so we know it is safe and effective from actual human data too. To learn more about R-lipoic properties click here

An individual with a damaged or aged brain might have a different set of brain parameters than an individual with a perfect memory; this can be influenced by age alone and (of course), genetic factors. Elderly individuals affected by Alzheimer's disease tend to have severely degraded and/or comprised cholinergic mechanisms.

A methamphetamine addict can have reason to assume drug abuse can render serious neurodegenerative long term damage on the brain:

http://www.usnews.co...s/hb050415a.htm

Brain chemistry
This is your brain off meth
By Helen Fields

4/15/05

Taking drugs can literally reshape your brain. With new brain-imaging techniques, scientists are becoming able to tell just how that happens—and what happens when you stop taking the drugs. Researchers in California looked at the brains of people who had used methamphetamine but had subsequently stopped.

What the researchers wanted to know: How does the brain recover after the flow of methamphetamines stops?

What they did: The researchers used a technique called "magnetic resonance spectroscopy" to look at the subjects' brains. This technology lets them look for specific chemicals in the brain, including N-acetylaspartate (NAA), a substance which can give an idea of how much brain matter has been lost (people with Alzheimer's disease, for example, have low levels of NAA in certain regions of the brain). The researchers recruited 24 former methamphetamine users from treatment centers and matched them with 13 controls who hadn't used the drug. The former users had all been addicted to methamphetamine. Eight of them had been off the drug for one to six months; the rest had been off for one to five years.

What they found: The former methamphetamine addicts had lower levels of the compound NAA in the anterior cingulum cortex, a region of the brain involved in cognition and emotion, than the people who hadn't used the drug. However, measurements of some compounds suggested that the anterior cingulum cortex of people who had been off methamphetamine longer had recovered somewhat; for measurements of another compound, their brains weren't measurably different from the brains of the controls.

What the study means to you: Methamphetamine does indeed alter your brain, and some of that change seems to be permanent. But this research suggests that some losses can be recovered—so, yes, it is worth quitting.

Caveats: The researchers didn't look at the brains of the people who had used methamphetamine before they started using the drug, so it's possible that they had different brains to start with. Also, meth users often abuse multiple drugs, so the results may have been confused by the effects of several drugs.

Find out more: Read information about methamphetamine from the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Check out USNews.com for an article on what methamphetamines do to the brain.

Read the article: Nordahl, T.E. et al. "Methamphetamine Users in Sustained Abstinence." Archives of General Psychiatry. April 2005, Vol. 62, pp. 444–452.

Article online: http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org

It wasn't really selfless time. To type a reasonable response it would take me probably longer than the few minutes we chatted. I hope you found the links on the previous page to be useful. Peace.

Edited by nootropikamil, 21 June 2006 - 05:23 AM.