• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

'Smart Pills' Are on The Rise. But Is Taking Them


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#1 doug123

  • Guest
  • 2,424 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Nowhere

Posted 13 June 2006 - 12:30 PM


Link to article source (subscription required)

A Dose Of Genius
'Smart Pills' Are on The Rise. But Is Taking Them Wise?

By Joel Garreau
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 11, 2006; D01

Studying with diligent friends is fine, says Heidi Lessing, a University of Delaware sophomore.

But after a couple of hours, it's time for a break, a little gossip: "I want to talk about somebody walking by in the library."

One of those friends, however, is working too hard for dish -- way too hard.

Instead of joining in the gossip, "She says, 'Be quiet,' " Lessing says, astonishment still registering in her voice.

Her friend's attention is laserlike, totally focused on her texts, even after an evening of study. "We were so bored," Lessing says. But the friend was still "really into it. It's annoying."

The reason for the difference: Her pal is fueled with "smart pills" that increase her concentration, focus, wakefulness and short-term memory.

As university students all over the country emerge from final exam hell this month, the number of healthy people using bootleg pharmaceuticals of this sort seems to be soaring.

Such brand-name prescription drugs "were around in high school, but they really exploded in my third and fourth years" of college, says Katie Garrett, a 2005 University of Virginia graduate.

The bootleg use even in her high school years was erupting, according to a study published in February in an international biomedical and psychosocial journal, Drug and Alcohol Dependence. Mining 2002 data, it noted that even then, more than 7 million Americans used bootleg prescription stimulants, and 1.6 million of those users were of student age. By the time students reach college nowadays, they're already apt to know about these drugs, obtained with or without a prescription.

Comparable accounts are common on other campuses, according to dozens of interviews with university students in Virginia, the District, Maryland and Delaware, as well as reports in student newspapers serving campuses in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Michigan, Indiana and Missouri.

"I'm a varsity athlete in crew," says Katharine Malone, a George Washington University junior. "So we're pretty careful about what we put in our bodies. So among my personal friends, I'd say the use is only like 50 or 60 percent."

Seen by some ambitious students as the winner's edge -- the difference between a 3.8 average and a 4.0, maybe their ticket to Harvard Law -- these "brain steroids" can be purchased on many campuses for as little as $3 to $5 per pill, though they are often obtained free from friends with legitimate prescriptions, students report.

These drugs represent only the first primitive, halting generation of cognitive enhancers. Memory drugs will soon make it to market if human clinical trials continue successfully.

There are lots of the first-generation drugs around. Total sales have increased by more than 300 percent in only four years, topping $3.6 billion last year, according to IMS Health, a pharmaceutical information company. They include Adderall, which was originally aimed at people with attention-deficit disorder, and Provigil, which was aimed at narcoleptics, who fall asleep uncontrollably. In the healthy, this class of drugs variously aids concentration, alertness, focus, short-term memory and wakefulness -- useful qualities in students working on complex term papers and pulling all-nighters before exams. Adderall sales are up 3,135.6 percent over the same period. Provigil is up 359.7 percent.

In May, the Partnership for a Drug-Free America issued its annual attitude-tracking study on drug use. It is a survey of more than 7,300 seventh- through 12th-graders, designed to be representative of the larger U.S. population and with an accuracy of plus or minus 1.5 percent, according to Thomas A. Hedrick Jr., a founding director of the organization. It reported that among kids of middle school and high school age, 2.25 million are using stimulants such as Ritalin without a prescription.

That's about one in 10 of the 22 million students in those grades, as calculated by the U.S. Department of Education. Half the time, the study reported, the students were using these drugs not so much to get high as "to help me with my problems" or "to help me with specific tasks." That motivation was growing rapidly, Hedrick says.

Why should we be surprised? This generation is the one we have pushed to get into the best high schools and colleges, to have the best grades and résumés. Computer nerds are culture heroes, SAT scores are measures of our worth and the Ivy League is Valhalla. Hermione Granger in "Harry Potter" is a heroine despite being such a goody two-shoes that she doubles up her course load with a spell that allows her to be in two places at once. This is the kind of focused overachievement that is addressed by smart pills.

A student Web site for a consortium of tony Philadelphia prep schools makes the point with one of those jokes that's not really a joke: You know you are part of this elite educational set if:

· "You applied to Penn as a backup school."

· "You tend to think anything below a 1400 is a mediocre SAT score."

· "You could get adderall in less than 5 minutes at practically any time of the school day."

Smart-pill use has not been the focus of much data collection. This comes as no surprise to researchers such as Richard Restak, a Washington neurologist and president of the American Neuropsychiatric Association, who has written extensively about smart drugs in his 2003 book, "The New Brain: How the Modern Age Is Rewiring Your Mind," as well as his forthcoming "The Naked Brain: How the Neurosociety Is Changing How We Live, Work and Love."

Contributing to this dearth, he points out, is that these drugs are not famous for being abused recreationally and they are not being used by people with a disease.

This is not "the type of data collected by the FDA," he says. Law-enforcement activity has been sparse. "Who is the complainant?"

Compared with the kind of drug users who get police attention, "This is an entirely different population of people -- from the unmotivated to the super-motivated," Restak says. These "drug users may be at the top of the class, instead of the ones hanging around the corners."

Smart-pill use generally doesn't show up in campus health center reports, he says, because "This is not the kind of stuff that you would overdose on" easily. Amphetamines are associated with addiction and bodily damage, but in use by ambitious students, "if you go a little over you get wired up but it wears off in a couple of hours. And Provigil has a pretty good safety record." Finally, smart-pill use is a relatively recent development that has not yet achieved widespread attention, much less study, although Restak expects that to change.

"We're going to see it not only in schools, but in businesses, especially where mental endurance matters." Restak can easily imagine a boss saying, " 'You've been here 14 hours; could you do another six?' It's a very competitive world out there, and this gives people an edge."

That's why even small surveys conducted by students themselves are suggestive. For a senior project this semester, Christopher Salantrie conducted a random survey of 150 University of Delaware students at the university's Morris Library and Trabant Student Center.

"With rising competition for admissions and classes becoming harder and harder by the day, a hypothesis was made that at least half of students at the university have at one point used/experienced such 'smart drugs,' " Salantrie writes in his report. He found his hunch easy to confirm.

"What was a surprise, though, was the alarming rate of senior business majors who have used" the drugs, he writes. Almost 90 percent reported at least occasional use of "smart pills" at crunch times such as final exams, including Adderall, Ritalin, Strattera and others. Of those, three-quarters did not have a legitimate prescription, obtaining the pills from friends. "We were shocked," Salantrie writes. He says that in his report, he was "attempting to bring to light the secondary market for Adderall" specifically because "most of the university is not aware" of its extent, he says.

When you start asking questions about smart pills, the answers you get divide sharply into two groups.

When you ask the grown-ups -- deans, crisis counselors, health counselors -- they tell you they don't know too much about the subject, but they don't think it is much of a problem at their institutions.

"I'm not sure of the size and scope," says Jonathan Kandell, a psychologist and assistant director at the University of Maryland Counseling Center. "I have heard about it. But I don't get a sense it's a major thing that they come to the center about."

When you ask the students, they look at you like you're from the planet Zircon. They ask why you weren't on this story three years ago. Even if some of these drugs are amphetamines, it's medicine parents give to 8-year-olds, they say. It's brand-name stuff, in precise dosages. How bad can it be? Sure, there are problems with weight loss, sleep loss, jitters and throwing up, they say. But other unintended consequences are not what you might expect. Universities now sport some of the cleanest apartments in the history of undergraduate education. Says one student who asked for anonymity because she has been an off-prescription user of these drugs: "You've done all your work, but you're still focused. So you start with the bathroom, and then move on to the kitchen . . . ."

Warning: Side Effects

In the name of altering mood, energy and thinking patterns, we have been marinating our brains in chemicals for a very long time.

Caffeine is as old as coffee in Arabia, tea in China, and chocolate in the New World. Alcohol, coca leaves, tobacco and peyote go way back.

Even psychopharmaceuticals have been around for generations. Amphetamines -- which are the active ingredient in Adderall and Ritalin -- were first synthesized in Germany in 1887. Students have been using them for generations, in the form of Benzedrine and Dexedrine.

Beta blockers have been the dirty little secret of classical musicians since the 1970s. Originally prescribed to treat high blood pressure, they became the "steroids of the symphony" when it became clear Inderal controlled stage fright. As long ago as 1987, a study of the 51 largest orchestras in the United States found one in four musicians using them to improve their live performances, with 70 percent of those getting their pills illicitly.

What's new is the range, scope, quantity and quality of substances, old and new, aimed at boosting our brains -- as well as the increase in what's in the pipeline. Current psychopharmaceuticals represent only the beginning of cognitive enhancers aimed at improving attention, reasoning, planning and even social skills.

The memory compounds being raced to market by four U.S. companies are initially aimed at the severely impaired, such as early-stage Alzheimer's patients. But researchers expect the market for memory drugs to rapidly extend into the aging population we think of as normal, such as the more than 70 million baby boomers who are tired of forgetting what they meant to buy at the shopping mall and then realizing they've forgotten where they parked their cars, too. Or students who think such drugs could gain them hundreds of points on their SATs.

In research now underway, one such substance, ampakines, boosts the activity of glutamate, a key neurotransmitter that makes it easier to learn and encode memory. How useful they might be in a French or law exam.

But there are side effects with every drug. Strattera -- the ADHD medicine that is not a stimulant and may be taken for weeks before it shows an effect -- comes with a warning that it can result in fatal liver failure. The FDA warns it also may increase thoughts of suicide in young people. For a while last year, Canada pulled a form of Adderall from its markets as a result of sudden unexplained deaths in children with cardiac abnormalities. Provigil can decrease the effectiveness of birth control. All of these drugs come with a raft of side-effect warnings.

Nonetheless, pharmaceutical companies are racing to bring to market new drugs aimed at fundamentally altering our attitudes toward having a healthy brain. The idea is less to treat a specific disease than it is to, in the words of the old Army recruiting commercial, "Be all that you can be."

Of Mice and Men

Is this what smart has come to in the early 21st century? Is Ken Jennings, the "Jeopardy" phenom, our model of smart? Do SATs and grade-point averages measure all of what it means to be intelligent? If so, these drugs have a potent future. But definitions of intelligence may change -- already, some colleges have stopped requiring SAT scores from applicants.

Howard Gardner of Harvard is the godfather of the idea that smart is more than what IQ tests test. In his seminal 1983 book, "Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences," and later works, he laid out a then-novel model of cognition that included many other kinds of sagacity.

"I feel that what we call 'intelligence' is almost always 'scholastic skill' -- what it takes to do well on a certain kind of short-answer instrument in a certain kind of Western school," he writes in an e-mail. "Other uses of intellect -- musical competence, facility in the use of one's hands, understanding of other people, sensitivity to distinctions in the natural world, alertness to one's own and others' emotional states etc. -- are not included in our definitions of intelligence, though I think that they should be. Unless performances in these other domains were directly tapped, we'd have no idea of whether 'performance enhancing pills' affect these other forms of intelligence as well."

Eric R. Kandel is shocked by the idea that powerful elixirs like the ones he is developing might rapidly trickle down to ambitious college kids. He shared the 2000 Nobel Prize in medicine for his research on the physiological basis of memory storage in neurons. He also founded Memory Pharmaceuticals.

"That's awful! Why should they be taking drugs? They should just study! I think this is absurd. What's so terrible about having a 3.9? The idea that character and functioning and intelligence is to be judged by a small difference on an exam -- that's absurd. This is just like Barry Bonds and steroids. Exactly what you want to discourage. These kids are very sensitive. Their brains are still developing. Who knows what might happen. I went to Harvard. I like Harvard. It ain't worth it."

The mind amplifiers he's working on, he insists, could have major effects on lots of needy people -- those with mental retardation or Down syndrome, or those with memory loss from depression or Alzheimer's or cancer chemotherapy or schizophrenia. "There are lots of populations out there that really, really need help," he says.

Kandel is hugely enthusiastic about taking a memory that has slipped and bringing it back up to reasonable. His compounds are terrific in aging mice, he says.

But ambitious college kids?

Why take the risk?

In normal mice, he says, his stuff improves memory -- only by 20 percent to 50 percent.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

#2 maestro949

  • Guest
  • 2,350 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Rhode Island, USA

Posted 13 June 2006 - 12:42 PM

It sounds like some of these are fairly safe per the limited evidence we currently have. So the question to ponder... Is it worth the risk? What if it helped speed longevity research for those taking them?

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for BRAIN HEALTH to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 benson123

  • Guest
  • 48 posts
  • 0

Posted 13 June 2006 - 05:53 PM

20-50 percent improvment in memory is very substantial. Expecially since one can stack these new smart drugs.

#4 dopamine

  • Guest
  • 210 posts
  • 7

Posted 13 June 2006 - 06:01 PM

It's interesting how the article categorizes smart drugs, or "smart pills" - as they seem to be primarily talking about prescription ADD/ADHD medications and not classic nootropics like Piracetam. Their is some discussion about the ampakines, but no specific mention of Aniracetam. It is certainly not shocking news that students use and have been using drugs like Ritalin and Adderall for purposes of studying long hours, but there is defintely a difference between snorting amphetamine salts and taking an 800 mg pill of Piracetam.

Maybe they will start conducting urine tests on students periodically to ensure that none of them is gaining a biochemical edge on the rest of the class.

#5 stephen

  • Guest
  • 202 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Boston, MA

Posted 13 June 2006 - 09:22 PM

Maybe they will start conducting urine tests on students periodically to ensure that none of them is gaining a biochemical edge on the rest of the class.


Is this really news, though? I went to a big state school, and kids were doing aderall constantly. And that was four years ago in a non-ivy-league-pressure-cooker school.

The only difference between the low performers and the high performers is that some of us have that brain chemistry naturally. ;) "I'm sorry sir, your brain shows high levels of neurotransmitter X... you're disqualified from academia."

#6 doug123

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,424 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Nowhere

Posted 13 June 2006 - 09:30 PM

It's interesting how the article categorizes smart drugs, or "smart pills" - as they seem to be primarily talking about prescription ADD/ADHD medications and not classic nootropics like Piracetam. Their is some discussion about the ampakines, but no specific mention of Aniracetam. It is certainly not shocking news that students use and have been using drugs like Ritalin and Adderall for purposes of studying long hours, but there is defintely a difference between snorting amphetamine salts and taking an 800 mg pill of Piracetam.

Maybe they will start conducting urine tests on students periodically to ensure that none of them is gaining a biochemical edge on the rest of the class.


Dopamine, I know you to be a pretty sharp dude. After cancelling for the placebo effect, do you really think the racetam compounds would have any clinical effect when measured next to modafinil, the amphetmaine derivatives, or Aricept (which have all demonstrated clinically significant effects in healthy subjects)? I think the racetams aren't very effective at anything in particular except for potentially draining your wallet. They may be safe if you have a good source, but the amount of effect you get for your money...is a joke compared to the aforementioned compounds, in my experience, at least.

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 "dietary supplement" 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

Doctors in one study successfully eliminated warts by painting them with a brightly colored, inert dye and promising patients the warts would be gone when the color wore off. In a study of asthmatics, researchers found that they could produce dilation of the airways by simply telling people they were inhaling a bronchiodilator, even when they weren't. Patients suffering pain after wisdom-tooth extraction got just as much relief from a fake application of ultrasound as from a real one, so long as both patient and therapist thought the machine was on. Fifty-two percent of the colitis patients treated with placebo in 11 different trials reported feeling better -- and 50 percent of the inflamed intestines actually looked better when assessed with a sigmoidoscope ("The Placebo Prescription" by Margaret Talbot, New York Times Magazine, January 9, 2000).*


Peace.

#7 dopamine

  • Guest
  • 210 posts
  • 7

Posted 13 June 2006 - 10:12 PM

There are a number of studies on Piracetam showing beneficial effects in healthy humans

Single-dose piracetam effects on global complexity measures of human spontaneous multichannel EEG.

Kondakor I, Michel CM, Wackermann J, Koenig T, Tanaka H, Peuvot J, Lehmann D.

The KEY Institute for Brain-Mind Research, University Hospital of Psychiatry, Zurich, Switzerland.

Global complexity of 47-channel resting electroencephalogram (EEG) of healthy young volunteers was studied after intake of a single dose of a nootropic drug (piracetam, Nootropil UCB Pharma) in 12 healthy volunteers. Four treatment levels were used: 2.4, 4.8, 9.6 g piracetam and placebo. Brain electric activity was assessed through Global Dimensional Complexity and Global Omega-Complexity as quantitative measures of the complexity of the trajectory of multichannel EEG in state space. After oral ingestion (1-1.5 h), both measures showed significant decreases from placebo to 2.4 g piracetam. In addition, Global Dimensional Complexity showed a significant return to placebo values at 9.6 g piracetam. The results indicate that a single dose of piracetam dose-dependently affects the spontaneous EEG in normal volunteers, showing effects at the lowest treatment level. The decreased EEG complexity is interpreted as increased cooperativity of brain functional processes.


Piracetam affects facilitatory I-wave interaction in the human motor cortex.

Wischer S, Paulus W, Sommer M, Tergau F.

Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, University of Goettingen, Robert-Koch-Strasse 40, D-37075, Goettingen, Germany.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate by means of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) the effect of a single oral dose of the GABA derivate piracetam on intracortical facilitatory I-wave interaction. METHODS: The study was performed in 8 healthy volunteers. Before, 1, 3, 6, and 24 h after intake of 4000 mg piracetam, MEPs in the relaxed abductor digiti minimi muscle were elicited by a recently introduced double pulse TMS technique with a suprathreshold first and a subthreshold second stimulus. From interstimulus intervals of 0.5-5.1 ms 3 periods were observed in which MEP facilitation showed maxima - so-called peaks of I-wave interaction - and which were separated by two troughs with no facilitation. We studied the changes in timing and size of the peaks over time. RESULTS: With piracetam, I-wave peaks showed a reduction in size as well as a shortening of the latencies at which the peaks occurred. Both changes were significant at 6 h after drug intake compared to baseline. The effects were partially reversible after 24 h. CONCLUSIONS: The mode of action of piracetam within the nervous system is almost unknown. The peak size reduction was similar to effects that were seen under GABAergic drugs, although GABAergic properties of piracetam have not been observed so far. Shortening of the I-wave peak latencies is a new phenomenon. The results are discussed on the basis of the known therapeutic effects of piracetam in cortical myoclonus and as nootropic agent.


Randomized placebo-controlled double-blind cross-over study on antihypoxidotic effects of piracetam using psychophysiological measures in healthy volunteers.

Schaffler K, Klausnitzer W.

Institute for Pharmacodynamic Research, Munich, Fed. Rep. of Germany.

The effects of two acute doses (1600 mg, 2400 mg) of 2-oxo-pyrrolidine-1-acetamide (piracetam, Normabrain) on hypoxia resistance were screened vs placebo in a randomized, double-blind 3-way change-over design in 9 healthy male volunteers (mean age: 26.4 +/- 3.5 years; mean body weight: 74.9 +/- 8.4 kg). Psychophysiological measurements were done with the oculodynamic test (ODT) for oculomotor, performatory and additional cardiorespiratory parameters. Intradiurnal assessments were done under normoxia (prevalue) and hypoxic hypoxidosis (1 hypoxic prevalue, 3 postdose values: 1.0, 2.5 and 4.0 h) with a content of 10.5% O2 and 89.5% N2 in inspired air (hypoxic hypoxidosis)--as a model of brain dysfunctions, related with several types of senile dementia (Primary Degenerative Dementia = Alzheimer type; Multi Infarct Dementia). The results indicate that piracetam especially in its higher dose (2400 mg) displays antihypoxidotic effects already after a single administration in oculomotor, performatory and cardiorespiratory parameters.


So Piracetam has shown some efficacy in healthy volunteers, but a few studies don't substantiate a solid conclusion.

#8 doug123

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,424 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Nowhere

Posted 13 June 2006 - 10:27 PM

Minor changes in EEGs and prophylatic effects are nice...but you did not really answer my question.

After cancelling for the placebo effect, do you really think the racetam compounds would have any clinical effect when measured next to modafinil, the amphetamine derivatives, or Aricept (which have all demonstrated clinically significant effects in healthy subjects)?

I don't think the current racetams are all that. They are WAY over hyped in my opinion. I am not saying to dump them; just that folks without a huge budget should look elsewhere first...wouldn't you agree?

I take Aniracetam and Oxiracetam, and a whole bunch of other stuff. I'd post my stack, but I'm afraid of stellar...j/k ;)

#9 Guest_da_sense_*

  • Lurker
  • 0

Posted 13 June 2006 - 10:41 PM

Adam
I have to agree that effects from piracetam are not comparable to amphetamines. But piracetam doesn't bring money while amphetamines does, so it's to expect more studies to be done with amphetamines than nootropics.
There are many good herbs out there, but not many studies were done simply because it doesn't bring even 0.00001% of profit as real drugs do.
While I'm sure amphetamines are good they have more side effects than nootropics.

Also you're very pro stimulant orientied, you take modafinil daily, use amphetamines etc...many newcomers who read your post could get the idea that nootropics sucks and amphetamines and stimulants are solution to everything.

#10 doug123

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,424 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Nowhere

Posted 13 June 2006 - 11:51 PM

You guys are going to have to kick me out of this forum soon. If I type here forever, I'll never graduate from college...

The article above addresses your concern about the safety of these compounds in individuals who are not prescribed these drugs and obtain them from more clandestine sources than a true doctor/patient relationship.

Note that the drugs I referenced above; namely Strattera, Wellbutrin, Provigil, Aricept, and Ritalin are prescription only in the USA. I would not assume the health conscious readers of these forums would be taking such drugs without a prescription from an MD. I have prescriptions for all of the drugs I take -- except for Hydergine FAS (which has been used for about 30 years and appears to be safe); how else would I be able to access of afford them? For one, they are not available without a prescription; second, there is no way I could afford them without insurance. My insurance does not cover one of my Meds and it cost me at least twice as much to get and I have to risk dealing with a lengthy legal procedure when I import it. I'd much rather get it at the pharmacy than order it from overseas...

Nonetheless, pharmaceutical companies are racing to bring to market new drugs aimed at fundamentally altering our attitudes toward having a healthy brain.


Are trying to insinuate that ampethamines are more profitable for drug companies to sell rather than racetams? It's not quite that simple. The dietary supplement type nootropics available in the USA, as clinical therapies failed to show effectiveness in models from which currently available clinically proven cognitive enhancers demonstrated real results.

Abstract: Preclinical research suggests that piracetam (a nootropic drug) may improve cognitive functions, but previous studies have failed to demonstrate a clear benefit for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD). We report a 1-year, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study with a high dose of piracetam (8 g/d per os) in 33 ambulant patients with early probable AD. Thirty subjects completed the 1-year study.[b] No improvement occurred in either group, [b]but our results support the hypothesis that long-term administration of high doses of piracetam might slow the progression of cognitive deterioration in patients with AD. The most significant differences concerned the recall of pictures series and recent incident and remote memory. The drug was well-tolerated.[1]


Abstract: Sixty children with dyslexia (41 boys, 19 girls; ages 9 to 13) were enrolled in a 10-week summer tutoring program that emphasized word-building skills. They were randomly and blindly assigned to receive either placebo or piracetam, a purportedly memory-enhancing drug that has been reported to facilitate reading skill acquisition. The children were subtyped as "dysphonetic" or "phonetic" on the basis of scores from tests of phonological sensitivity and phoneme-grapheme correspondence skills. Of the 53 children who completed the program, 37 were classified as dysphonetic and 16 as phonetic. The phonetic group improved significantly more in word-recognition ability than the dysphonetic group. Overall, the children on medication did not improve more than the nonmedicated ones in any aspect of reading.

The phonetic subgroup on piracetam gained more in word recognition than any subgroup but did not improve significantly more than the phonetic subgroup on placebo. Results are discussed in relation to findings from previous studies of piracetam in children with dyslexia.[2]


The clinical effect from the racetam type compounds was so minuscule (if there is even any real clinical effect) that FDA found them unworthy of approval to treat Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia (I do not even think FDA never even came close to approving any of these compounds) where cholinesterase inhibitors such as Tacrine, and
Aricept (donezepil HCL) both received a prompt FDA approval; even though Tacrine is quite hepatoxic...

..and even more telling is that the racetam compounds never caught on in European countries either, where some require a prescription...Oxiracetam has been out of commercial production for over 10 years; that's not "just a coincidence." Oh, and Pramiracetam is in such minute production that the cost is unreal without effect to match...They just don't do [i]enough and when doctors prescribe something to their patient, they want it to really work...

No Medical Doctor I know of in currently in clinical practice prescribes these compounds for their patients, or finds their use at all practical. I used to think that was due to bias; but then I evaluated the data myself; pretty of it. I could not market any of the racetams to a competent medical doctor based on evidence. That's the measure I use to try to gauge effectiveness; how do you think prescription drugs get on the market? Yes, pharmaceutical marketing agents happen go around with free samples, free notepads, pens, etc. with the name of the drug they want to sell. But most doctors I know are quite well educated and won't just start prescribing stuff without knowing how it works, its potential side effects, and perhaps other ways it might affect their patients. And unfortunately, where the scientific standards are high, these drugs' effects fail to reach clinical significance again and again. The patents on Aniracetam was previously held by Hoffman-La Roche, Pramiracetam's by Warner-Lambert/Parke Davis, and Oxiracetam's by Ciba-Geigy. Not a single one of these compounds received FDA approval, or were even noteworthy enough to attract proper media attention. Development and interest in racetam compounds ended in the early 1980s due to more compelling results from other compounds. As much as I would be pleased to see a revival and development of new racetam compounds, the ampakines current look the most promising at this point.


1. Abbreviated Journal Title: Neurology
Date Of Publication: 1993 Feb
Journal Volume: 43
Page Numbers: 301 through 305
Country of Publication: UNITED STATES
Language of Article: Eng
Issue/Part/Supplement: 2
ISSN: 0028-3878

2.
Abbreviated Journal Title: J Learn Disabil
Date Of Publication: 1991 Nov
Journal Volume: 24
Page Numbers: 542 through 549
Country of Publication: UNITED STATES
Language of Article: Eng
Special Journal List:
Issue/Part/Supplement: 9
ISSN: 0022-2194

Peace.

Edited by nootropikamil, 14 June 2006 - 12:02 AM.


#11 doug123

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,424 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Nowhere

Posted 14 June 2006 - 12:11 AM

Grammar and text errors are ANNOYING. Fix that quote bug, please.

#12 Ghostrider

  • Guest
  • 1,996 posts
  • 56
  • Location:USA

Posted 14 June 2006 - 02:49 AM

Maybe they will start conducting urine tests on students periodically to ensure that none of them is gaining a biochemical edge on the rest of the class.


Some students were born with a biochemical advantage. What's the difference between natural ability and supplemented ability? In the future, however far away, you can be sure that supplemented ability (genetic engineering, gene therapy, etc.) will dominate in the long run. If students want to take hardcore amphetamines to boost their GPA and enhance their careers in exchange for ??, then fine. I personally would stay far away from neurotoxic substances, but I understand that life is short and I admire those who have the will to escape the mediocre life. Too bad some choose to waste their minds on more trivial fields such as... Ultimately, I think this entire problem can be solved through radical life extension. Life is like a drag race, there's just not enough time to do everything we want to do. But if we had a longer time to complete our life objectives, although I guess these are and should be constantly expanding, I think people would not be quite as desperate to get to point X by time Y. Your odds of getting into position X, wherever 'X' may be, decrease with age.
  • like x 1

#13

  • Lurker
  • 1

Posted 14 June 2006 - 07:15 AM

Some students were born with a biochemical advantage. What's the difference between natural ability and supplemented ability?


There should be no difference. Yet supplementation is considered unethical, particularly in sports. This is ironic since the sporting achievements of elite athletes have more to do with their genetic makeup than any other factor and the only way that some athletes can compete is by using supplements to compensate for relative genetic deficiencies. The advent of broadly available self-enhancement genetic modification should even out the playing field.

#14 emerson

  • Guest
  • 332 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Lansing, MI, USA

Posted 14 June 2006 - 07:45 AM

There's one aspect of this which makes me cautiously optimistic. It may be evidence of an increasing willingness to see oneself as something other than a static, unchanging, and unimprovable form. I see a huge amount of distaste within the general public for the idea that their nature or identity can be altered. Which is something of a shame given that the nature of our species is to grow old, wither, and die. But many people accept that fact because they believe it to be a part of who they are, and as a result neither can or should be changed. But it's just possible that these kids, with their willingness to temporarily change the natural inbuilt limits of their bodies, may be the first step to a public who will push for life extension related research.

On the other hand, I know how history usually turns out. We've already seen one generation of potheads grow up to be the most draconian and cruel legislators of the drug war. Temptation to conform, age, culture shock from progressing technologies, and most especially having kids can turn the strongest supporters of any radical cause into someone equally scared of them. So I know it's a bit foolish to take any of this for something more than face value. Still, being an optimistic fool every now and again is one of the more enjoyable things in life, so I think I'm going to indulge myself in that for a bit.

#15 dopamine

  • Guest
  • 210 posts
  • 7

Posted 14 June 2006 - 05:38 PM

After cancelling for the placebo effect, do you really think the racetam compounds would have any clinical effect when measured next to modafinil, the amphetamine derivatives, or Aricept (which have all demonstrated clinically significant effects in healthy subjects)?


The two types of drugs do have different effects, which is why I said that their categorization of "smart pills" is rather precarious. There are drugs, like the amphetamines, which may enhance cognitive and motor performance acutely, but not chronically. Certainly there is a division within the category of substances which may enhance various parameters of cognitive performance in healthy individuals. Those with the greatest acute effect will predictably be the most popular and probably the most dangerous in the long term, generally speaking.

Drugs like Aricept have been studied in healthy volunteers and pilots with some success. This is encouraging, but the current evidence doesn't substantiate a solid conclusion. We also do not know the possible long-term effects of many of these drugs because they are often prescribed to older individuals who do not live long enough to properly document chronic effects on the body. If, for example, a child were given Aricept from infancy - would he be a "smarter" person in adulthood because of his early exposure to a supposed "smart pill"? What would that person's brain look like at age 25 compared to another control subject who was not exposed to the drug treatment for that extended period of time?

The "smart pills" should be one of many tools in our arsenal - but we shouldn't become dependent on them to live our otherwise healthy lives.

#16 xanadu

  • Guest
  • 1,917 posts
  • 8

Posted 14 June 2006 - 09:39 PM

Stimulants are a huge mistake, in my opinion. The best smart drugs are things like piracetam, bacopa, fish oil and a few others. The writer of the article seems to think stimulants are smart drugs which they are not.

#17 doug123

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,424 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Nowhere

Posted 14 June 2006 - 09:53 PM

Stimulants are a huge mistake, in my opinion. The best smart drugs are things like piracetam, bacopa, fish oil and a few others. The writer of the article seems to think stimulants are smart drugs which they are not.


xanadu; besides being well known for not listening to reason, spreading unsubstantiated anecdotes around the nootropic forum is getting pretty boring. Care to use a scientific reference to support any of your arguments?

1. Why is Piracetam a "smart drug," and when has it demonstrated such an effect ever in a human clinical trial in healthy subjects?
2. Why are stimulants a "mistake" when they seem to work best in many patients suffering from an attention deficit disorder?
3. How is fish oil a "smart drug" and when has it ever demonstrated such effects in a human clinical trial?

Thank you.

#18 doug123

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,424 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Nowhere

Posted 14 June 2006 - 10:17 PM

The two types of drugs do have different effects, which is why I said that their categorization of "smart pills" is rather precarious. There are drugs, like the amphetamines, which may enhance cognitive and motor performance acutely, but not chronically. Certainly there is a division within the category of substances which may enhance various parameters of cognitive performance in healthy individuals. Those with the greatest acute effect will predictably be the most popular and probably the most dangerous in the long term, generally speaking. 

Drugs like Aricept have been studied in healthy volunteers and pilots with some success. This is encouraging, but the current evidence doesn't substantiate a solid conclusion. We also do not know the possible long-term effects of many of these drugs because they are often prescribed to older individuals who do not live long enough to properly document chronic effects on the body. If, for example, a child were given Aricept from infancy - would he be a "smarter" person in adulthood because of his early exposure to a supposed "smart pill"? What would that person's brain look like at age 25 compared to another control subject who was not exposed to the drug treatment for that extended period of time?

The "smart pills" should be one of many tools in our arsenal - but we shouldn't become dependent on them to live our otherwise healthy lives.


Trying to remain as scientific as possible, a "smart drug" would seem to define a drug that enhances learning or memory. We would hope to have some evidence of this in healthy subjects before engaging in use of such compounds.

Donezepil seems to enhance learning and memory significantly in many patients suffering from Alzheimer's and other types of dementia in which learning and memory is severely compromised.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Jan 25;(1):CD001190. 

* Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(3):CD001190.


Donepezil for dementia due to Alzheimer's disease.

Birks J, Harvey RJ.

University of Oxford, Department of Clinical Geratology, Radcliffe Infirmary, Woodstock Road, Oxford, UK, OX2 6HE. jacqueline.birks@geratol.ox.ac.uk

BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease is the most common cause of dementia in older people. One of the aims of therapy is to inhibit the breakdown of a chemical neurotransmitter, acetylcholine, by blocking the relevant enzyme. This can be done by a group of chemicals known as cholinesterase inhibitors. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review is to assess whether donepezil improves the well-being of patients with dementia due to Alzheimer's disease. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialized Register was searched using the terms 'donepezil', 'E2020' and 'Aricept' on 12 June 2005. This Register contains up-to-date records of all major health care databases and many ongoing trial databases.Members of the Donepezil Study Group and Eisai Inc were contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: All unconfounded, double-blind, randomized controlled trials in which treatment with donepezil was compared with placebo for patients with mild, moderate or severe dementia due to Alzheimer's disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted by one reviewer (JSB), pooled where appropriate and possible, and the pooled treatment effects, or the risks and benefits of treatment estimated. MAIN RESULTS: 23 trials are included, involving 5272 participants. Most trials were of 6 months or less duration in selected patients. Available outcome data cover domains including cognitive function, activities of daily living, behaviour , global clinical state and health care resource costs.For cognition there is a statistically significant improvement for both 5 and 10 mg/day of donepezil at 24 weeks compared with placebo on the ADAS-Cog scale (-2.01 points MD, 95%CI -2.69 to -1.34, p<0.00001); -2.80 points, MD 95% CI -3.74 to -2.10, p<0.00001) and for 10 mg/day donepezil compared with placebo at 52 weeks (1.84 MMSE points, 95% CI, 0.53 to 3.15, p=0.006).The results show some improvement in global clinical state (assessed by a clinician) in people treated with 5 and 10 mg/day of donepezil compared with placebo at 24 weeks for the number of patients showing improvement or no change (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.53 to 3.11, p=<0.0001, OR 2.38, 95% CI 1.78 to 3.19, p<0.00001). Benefits of treatment were also seen on measures of activities of daily living and behaviour, but not on the quality of life score .There were significantly more withdrawals before the end of treatment from the 10 mg/day (but not the 5 mg/day) donepezil group compared with placebo which may have resulted in some overestimation of beneficial changes at 10 mg/day. Benefits on the 10 mg/day dose were marginally larger than on the 5 mg/day dose. Two studies presented results for health resource use, and the associated costs. There were no significant differences between treatment and placebo for any item, the cost of any item, and for the total costs, and total costs including the informal carer costs. A variety of adverse effects were recorded, with more incidents of nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, muscle cramps, dizziness, fatigue and anorexia (significant risk associated with treatment) in the 10 mg/day group compared with placebo but very few patients left a trial as a direct result of the intervention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: People with mild, moderate or severe dementia due to Alzheimer's disease treated for periods of 12, 24 or 52 weeks with donepezil experienced benefits in cognitive function, activities of daily living and behaviour. Study clinicians rated global clinical state more positively in treated patients, and measured less decline in measures of global disease severity. There is some evidence that use of donepezil is neither more nor less expensive compared with placebo when assessing total health care resource costs. Benefits on the 10 mg/day dose were marginally larger than on the 5 mg/day dose. Taking into consideration the better tolerability of the 5 mg/day donepezil compared with the 10 mg/day dose, together with the lower cost, the lower dose may be the better option. The debate on whether donepezil is effective continues despite the evidence of efficacy from the clinical studies because the treatment effects are small and are not always apparent in practice.

    Publication Types:

        * Meta-Analysis
        * Review


    PMID: 16437430 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


We would also have reason to suspect Donzepil might have also such effects in healthy subjects -- first, we have data from a VERY well respected researcher from Standford University, (Jerome Yesavage) and at least three other randomized, placebo controlled trials that seems to confirm these effects in healthy subjects. It is a scientific assumption to assume these four research findings are sufficient evidence to confirm donezepil can significantly improve the memory function in patients with normal working memories in advanced simulator aviation tasks. It's long term safety is still in question.

Ref1:

Neurology. 2002 Jul 9;59(1):123-5. 

Comment in:

* Neurology. 2003 Sep 9;61(5):721; author reply 721.

Donepezil and flight simulator performance: effects on retention of complex skills.

Yesavage JA, Mumenthaler MS, Taylor JL, Friedman L, O'Hara R, Sheikh J, Tinklenberg J, Whitehouse PJ.

Palo Alto Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305-5550, USA. yesavage@stanford.edu
We report a randomized, double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled study to test the effects of the acetylcholinesterase inhibitor, donepezil (5 mg/d for 30 days), on aircraft pilot performance in 18 licensed pilots with mean age of 52 years. After 30 days of treatment, the donepezil group showed greater ability to retain the capacity to perform a set of complex simulator tasks than the placebo group, p < 0.05. Donepezil appears to have beneficial effects on retention of training on complex aviation tasks in nondemented older adults.

Publication Types:

* Clinical Trial
* Randomized Controlled Trial

PMID: 12105320 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


Ref 2:

Neuropsychopharmacology. 2003 Jul;28(7):1366-73. Epub 2003 May 14. 

Psychoactive drugs and pilot performance: a comparison of nicotine, donepezil, and alcohol effects.

Mumenthaler MS, Yesavage JA, Taylor JL, O'Hara R, Friedman L, Lee H, Kraemer HC.

Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. msm@stanford.edu

The cholinergic system plays a major role in cognitive abilities that are essential to piloting an aircraft: attention, learning, and memory. In previous studies, drugs that enhance the cholinergic system through different pharmacologic mechanisms have shown beneficial effects on cognition; but dissimilar cognitive measures were used and samples were not comparable. A comparison within the same cognitive tasks, within comparable samples appears desirable. Toward this aim, we compared effect sizes (ES) of performance-enhancing doses of nicotine (a nicotinic receptor agonist) and donepezil (an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor) as found in our prior work on pilot performance. We also compared cholinergic ES to those of performance-impairing doses of alcohol. In three randomized, placebo-controlled trials, we assessed the flight performance of aircraft pilots in a Frasca 141 simulator, testing I: the acute effects of nicotine gum 2 mg; II: the effects of administration of 5 mg donepezil/day for 30 days; and III: the acute and 8 h-carryover effects of alcohol after a target peak BAC of 0.10%. We calculated the ES of nicotine, donepezil, and alcohol on a flight summary score and on four flight component scores. Compared to placebo, nicotine and donepezil significantly improved, while alcohol significantly impaired overall flight performance: ES (nicotine)=0.80; ES (donepezil)=1.02; ES (alcohol acute)=-3.66; ES (alcohol 8 h)=-0.82. Both cholinergic drugs showed the largest effects on flight tasks requiring sustained visual attention. Although the two tested cholinergic drugs have different pharmacologic mechanisms, their effects on flight performance were similar in kind and size. The beneficial effects of the cholinergic drugs on overall flight performance were large and the absolute (ie nondirectional) sizes were about one-fourth of the absolute ES of acute alcohol intoxication and roughly the same as the absolute 8 h-carryover ES of alcohol.

Publication Types:

* Clinical Trial
* Randomized Controlled Trial


    PMID: 12784106 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


Most people I know are looking for acute effect. They want a drug to function specifically to enhance their learning and/or memory for specific tasks (ie school). The military also is investigating drugs to lower possibility of error in advanced tasks.

The rest of the issues I will try to get to later...I need to get going...

Peace.

#19 dopamine

  • Guest
  • 210 posts
  • 7

Posted 15 June 2006 - 12:29 AM

Simply because a drug is effective at treating a specific disorder does not mean it will enhance that particular aspect of any given person's health. In terms of stimulants, aricept, etc. it has been empirically studied, but in only 3 or 4 studies - a suggestive and helpful guide but certainly not solid proof of an effect. The entire concept of "enhancement" is riddled with both specific and broad questions - one which psychiatry doesn't necessarily have the answer for.

#20 xanadu

  • Guest
  • 1,917 posts
  • 8

Posted 15 June 2006 - 12:32 AM

Adam (nootropikamil) kindly stop your incessant attempts to stir up strife with me. Piracetam has been around for decades and the research has been presented here over and over. Likewise with fish oil. If you have any evidence to show these are not helpful, you have ample opportunity to present it

#21 doug123

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,424 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Nowhere

Posted 15 June 2006 - 01:15 AM

Adam (nootropikamil) kindly stop your incessant attempts to stir up strife with me. Piracetam has been around for decades and the research has been presented here over and over. Likewise with fish oil. If you have any evidence to show these are not helpful, you have ample opportunity to present it



Let's stick to the topic, xanadu (screen name). All I ask if for you to substantiate your anecdotes with scientific evidence rather than pollute an otherwise productive scientific discussion with nonscientific babble.

I don't want to bring up your infamous "past" here...but I have to in this case to demonstrate your arguments are usually based on ignorance. You are the one well known to be issuing baseless attacks. My attack is against nonscientific argumenatation, while your attacks have been personal -- against me. My reasoning is usually based on evidence.

I am still awaiting your rebuttal to the topic linked above...please learn some day how to use evidence to support your reasoning.

Peace out.

#22 doug123

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,424 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Nowhere

Posted 15 June 2006 - 01:42 AM

Simply because a drug is effective at treating a specific disorder does not mean it will enhance that particular aspect of any given person's health. In terms of stimulants, aricept, etc. it has been empirically studied, but in only 3 or 4 studies - a suggestive and helpful guide but certainly not solid proof of an effect. The entire concept of "enhancement" is riddled with both specific and broad questions - one which psychiatry doesn't necessarily have the answer for.


Dopamine: I agree with most of your comments -- and have always respected your attention to detail most folks tend not to pick up...however...

Four studies in healthy subjects is certainly stronger evidence than one, two, three...or zero.

How many individuals take Piracetam and its family of compounds expecting an improvement in memory when there isn't a single scientific study demonstrating a real effect in healthy subjects to support its use? Furthermore, is data from elderly or demented individuals proof of anything in a healthy subject? Considering how marginal the benefits are from the racetams compared to acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, it is shocking to see how much money individuals spend on these compounds. That same money could be much better spent FIRST on an appointment with a licenced Medical practitioner to determine whether or not one may have an attention or depressive (or maybe just addictive) "disorder", wouldn't you agree?

That said, I do happen take Aniracetam and Oxiracetam and several other purported cognitive enhancers hoping that the effects demonstrated in elderly and demented subjects can translate across to me. I am reasonably sure of their quality and they do not cost me too much.

The beneficial effects of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors on the learning and memory of demented and healthy subjects has been demonstrated in mixed models and I would consider the results I posted earlier today to be substantial proof that they can work for a healthy individual and several licenced psychiatrists I know happen to agree.

Should a student already earning straight A's without the use of any drug or supplement be taking Aricept? Certainly not. But a student struggling to pass his or her courses no matter how much he or she tries...is a decision to be made by the patient and his or her doctor. There are certainly some risks in taking pharmaceutical compounds; and these risks increase exponentially if an individual is ordering drugs online from international sources without the counsel of a licenced medical practitioner.

Peace.

Edited by nootropikamil, 15 June 2006 - 02:09 AM.


#23 Ghostrider

  • Guest
  • 1,996 posts
  • 56
  • Location:USA

Posted 15 June 2006 - 05:56 AM

There's one aspect of this which makes me cautiously optimistic. It may be evidence of an increasing willingness to see oneself as something other than a static, unchanging, and unimprovable form. I see a huge amount of distaste within the general public for the idea that their nature or identity can be altered. Which is something of a shame given that the nature of our species is to grow old, wither, and die. But many people accept that fact because they believe it to be a part of who they are, and as a result neither can or should be changed. But it's just possible that these kids, with their willingness to temporarily change the natural inbuilt limits of their bodies, may be the first step to a public who will push for life extension related research.

On the other hand, I know how history usually turns out. We've already seen one generation of potheads grow up to be the most draconian and cruel legislators of the drug war. Temptation to conform, age, culture shock from progressing technologies, and most especially having kids can turn the strongest supporters of any radical cause into someone equally scared of them. So I know it's a bit foolish to take any of this for something more than face value. Still, being an optimistic fool every now and again is one of the more enjoyable things in life, so I think I'm going to indulge myself in that for a bit.


Emerson, I appreciate and share your viewpoint. I wonder why so many people cling to this idea of being natural and unaltered. I am not supporting cosmetic surgery or asserting that people should change themselves just for the sake of it. But it is obvious how mass media tries to advocate acceptance of natural plagues as just part of life. I saw the primary article above in my local newspaper. A few weeks ago, it published an article from the viewpoint of some medical professional has observed many people die of terminal illness. I find it entirely hypocritical how some individual can claim that dying is natural and should be accepted as part of life when that person has not had to experience it him/herself. Death really sucks, there is no easy way to die. The same fool should have written an editorial in the business section arguing that Chapter 11 bankruptcy is a natural event of any healthy business. Anyway, I don't mean to sidetrack this conversation, I just wanted to highlight emerson's observation.

#24 patch

  • Guest
  • 17 posts
  • -1

Posted 15 June 2006 - 09:04 AM

Some students were born with a biochemical advantage. What's the difference between natural ability and supplemented ability?


There should be no difference. Yet supplementation is considered unethical, particularly in sports. This is ironic since the sporting achievements of elite athletes have more to do with their genetic makeup than any other factor and the only way that some athletes can compete is by using supplements to compensate for relative genetic deficiencies. The advent of broadly available self-enhancement genetic modification should even out the playing field.


The reason supplementation needs to be banned in sports is that, if steroids were allowed, then drug-free athletes would not be able to compete with steroid users. Look at baseball in the US—the best players are on steroids, and the others need to take steroids (and suffer the side effects) just to keep their place on the team.
It would be a shame if the same thing happened to academics/law/medicine/finance. These fields are intensely competitive, and if more people start using stimulants to get an edge, then anyone who wants to compete will have to do the same, and jeopardize their long-term mental and physical health.
It would not be a problem if people were taking fish oil etc., but Ritalin and amphetamine (and modafinil, though not quite as bad) are very bad for you over time. Unfortunately, it seems to be the bad ones that actually work. There was a study quoted in Scientific American last year (which I can’t find online) saying that Ritalin boosts SAT scores. Personally I’ve found that stimulants definitely do improve my performance on some kinds of tests (and make it easy to study for hours on end).

I can’t resist chiming in on the piracetam debate…There are a lot of highly technical studies on Piracetam that show that it does something—increasing brain metabolism in rats, reducing reaction time in Alzheimer’s patients etc. But are there any real scientific placebo-controlled trials that show piracetam improving anyone’s ability to do anything at all? Or personal accounts of people taking piracetam then doing a GMAT-type test and seeing a huge improvement? Anything to indicate that its effects are not just a combination of wishful thinking and the placebo effect?
People keep saying that there are ‘hundreds of studies’ on piracetam, but I’ve never seen a convincing one. Most of the piracetam information on the internet is recycled—much of it from the book Smart Drugs by Ward Dean and John Morgenthaller. Ward Dean is an M.D.—impressive, but he is not a neuroscientist. Also, he was convicted of tax evasion last year. Morgenthaler is a supplement vendor, with no medical training at all.
Dean and Morgenthaller say that piracetam protects the brain, repairs damage, and improves communication between the hemispheres of the brain. People believe this and keep repeating it. Do any of the thousands of neuroscientists in the world agree with this? D&M also say that it has been in use in Europe for decades as a cognitive enhancer, but the fact is that it is just as obscure over there as it is in North America.

#25 doug123

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,424 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Nowhere

Posted 15 June 2006 - 07:21 PM

Patch: do you have any evidence suggesting Modafinil, Ritalin or any other amphetamine derivatives are unsafe? Any drug can be dangerous for any patient -- but under care of a competent MD...I know of a lot of highly successful folks who have been taking amphetamine compounds for years under care of a physician and they seem to be fine.

I have experienced no significant side effects from modafinil.

Here are some cases where amphetamine can be dangerous (but note, most of the problems are caused by folks with poor heart function in Adderall):

http://nootropics.ip...p?showtopic=712
http://nootropics.ip...p?showtopic=710
http://nootropics.ip...p?showtopic=520

Do you have any evidence suggesting fish oil improves cognition in healthy subjects?

Thank you.

#26 xanadu

  • Guest
  • 1,917 posts
  • 8

Posted 15 June 2006 - 09:35 PM

Adam wrote:

"Let's stick to the topic, xanadu (screen name). All I ask if for you to substantiate your anecdotes with scientific evidence rather than pollute an otherwise productive scientific discussion with nonscientific babble."

Then why not do the same yourself? The evidence for piracetam has been presented over and over. You do know how to use the search function don't you? Same with bacopa, fish oil and many other things.

"My attack is against nonscientific argumenatation, while your attacks have been personal -- against me."

Not so. I have never made a personal attack against you while that is about all you do when you "argue" with me. You never tire of bringing up the LM affair as though that established your credentials in some way.

"My reasoning is usually based on evidence."

If you have any evidence to refute the many studies that have shown great benefit from the substances I mentioned, then lets see it. All I've seen from you is talk and abuse. Piracetam, bacopa, fish oil and many others have established benefits. If you think stimulants are better, then prove it.

#27 patch

  • Guest
  • 17 posts
  • -1

Posted 15 June 2006 - 11:13 PM

Nootropikamil: When I said that stimulants were dangerous I didn't mean that you'll drop dead all of a sudden, I just meant that they can undermine your long term health (especially mental health). I don't have any studies to quote, but if you search 'long term amphetamine use' on google you'll find a lot. Here is part of wikipedia's entry for amphetamine.
Physiological effects
Short-term physiological effects include decreased appetite, increased stamina and physical energy, increased sexual drive/response, involuntary bodily movements, increased perspiration, hyperactivity, jitteriness, nausea, itchy, blotchy or greasy skin, increased heart rate, irregular heart rate, increased blood pressure, and headaches. Fatigue can often follow the dose's period of effectiveness. Overdose can be treated with chlorpromazine. [1]
Long-term abuse or overdose effects can include tremor, restlessness, changed sleep patterns, poor skin condition, hyperreflexia, tachypnea, gastrointestinal narrowing, and weakened immune system. Fatigue and depression can follow the excitement stage. Erectile dysfunction, heart problems, stroke, and liver, kidney and lung damage can result from prolonged use. When snorted, amphetamine can lead to a deterioration of the lining of the nostrils.
[edit]
Psychological effects
Short-term psychological effects can include alertness, euphoria, increased concentration, rapid talking, increased confidence, increased social responsiveness, nystagmus (eye wiggles), hallucinations, and loss of REM sleep the night after use.
Long-term psychological effects can include insomnia, mental states resembling schizophrenia, aggressiveness (not associated with schizophrenia), addiction or dependence with accompanying withdrawal symptoms, irritability, confusion, and panic. Chronic and/or extensively-continuous use can lead to amphetamine psychosis, which causes delusions and paranoia, but this is uncommon when taken as prescribed. Amphetamine is highly-psychologically addictive, and, with chronic use, tolerance develops very quickly. Withdrawal is, although not physiologically threatening, an unpleasant experience (including paranoia, depression, difficult breathing, dysphoria, gastric fluctuations and/or pain, and lethargia). This commonly leads chronic users to re-dose amphetamine frequently, explaining tolerance and increasing the possibility of addiction.

Ritalin is very similar to amphetamine so probably has the same effects. Personally I think modafinil is more amphetamine-like than people realize. That's my impression of it anyway...
As for fish oil, I don't have any specific studies, just the buzz from the media etc. There was an article in the economist a few months ago (I think it was called 'Take more fish oil') which said people whose parents ate lots of fish had higher IQ's than those that didn't. I'm sure the study was controlled for other factors such as income and education etc. Of course this study doesn't mean fish oil does anything for you once you're out of the womb. Other than that all I have is the stuff you'll find on google, and the rumour I heard somewhere that university students in japan routinely take fish oil pills before exams.
Fish oil could well be placebo, but I take it anyway as it's cheap, natural and probably good for something.

Unlike piracetam...
"The evidence for piracetam has been presented over and over" Extremely weak evidence has been presented over and over. Here are my comments for the studies quoted below:

1) This means that the complexity of the brain's electrical signals decreased after taking piracetam, which they conclude as 'increased cooperativity of brain functional processes'. This means that the different areas of the brain (the visual, auditory, motor etc. centres) are operating at the same frequency. That does not mean that they are working better, or that they are sharing information between one another. Notice that the scientists who conducted the study do not make any such claims, and they apparently did not follow up with further research.

2) I can't see how these results can be interpreted to mean anything remotely beneficial. The best neuroscientists in the world don't know enough about the brain to draw any reasonable conclusions from this study. The stated conclusion of this study is that "The mode of action of piractem is almost unkown..." Then it talks about its known uses as an anti-twitching drug and as a nootropic agent.

3) This one shows that piracetam counters the effects of oxygen depletion. That's great. It may help people with problems alzheimers. But it means absolutely nothing for normal people.

So I'll ask again....Does anyone have a good piracetam study? And don't say that there are no studies because pharmaceutical companies have no incentive because the drug is off-patent. If it worked, they would find a way to make money off it. Besides, there are scientists actively studying vitamin C--which has been off-patent for some time.

[quote name='dopamine' date='-->
QUOTE (dopamine)
<!--QuoteEBegin']Single-dose piracetam effects on global complexity measures of human spontaneous multichannel EEG.

Kondakor I, Michel CM, Wackermann J, Koenig T, Tanaka H, Peuvot J, Lehmann D.

The KEY Institute for Brain-Mind Research, University Hospital of Psychiatry, Zurich, Switzerland.

Global complexity of 47-channel resting electroencephalogram (EEG) of healthy young volunteers was studied after intake of a single dose of a nootropic drug (piracetam, Nootropil UCB Pharma) in 12 healthy volunteers. Four treatment levels were used: 2.4, 4.8, 9.6 g piracetam and placebo. Brain electric activity was assessed through Global Dimensional Complexity and Global Omega-Complexity as quantitative measures of the complexity of the trajectory of multichannel EEG in state space. After oral ingestion (1-1.5 h), both measures showed significant decreases from placebo to 2.4 g piracetam. In addition, Global Dimensional Complexity showed a significant return to placebo values at 9.6 g piracetam. The results indicate that a single dose of piracetam dose-dependently affects the spontaneous EEG in normal volunteers, showing effects at the lowest treatment level. The decreased EEG complexity is interpreted as increased cooperativity of brain functional processes.[/quote]


[quote]Piracetam affects facilitatory I-wave interaction in the human motor cortex.

Wischer S, Paulus W, Sommer M, Tergau F.

Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, University of Goettingen, Robert-Koch-Strasse 40, D-37075, Goettingen, Germany.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate by means of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) the effect of a single oral dose of the GABA derivate piracetam on intracortical facilitatory I-wave interaction. METHODS: The study was performed in 8 healthy volunteers. Before, 1, 3, 6, and 24 h after intake of 4000 mg piracetam, MEPs in the relaxed abductor digiti minimi muscle were elicited by a recently introduced double pulse TMS technique with a suprathreshold first and a subthreshold second stimulus. From interstimulus intervals of 0.5-5.1 ms 3 periods were observed in which MEP facilitation showed maxima - so-called peaks of I-wave interaction - and which were separated by two troughs with no facilitation. We studied the changes in timing and size of the peaks over time. RESULTS: With piracetam, I-wave peaks showed a reduction in size as well as a shortening of the latencies at which the peaks occurred. Both changes were significant at 6 h after drug intake compared to baseline. The effects were partially reversible after 24 h. CONCLUSIONS: The mode of action of piracetam within the nervous system is almost unknown. The peak size reduction was similar to effects that were seen under GABAergic drugs, although GABAergic properties of piracetam have not been observed so far. Shortening of the I-wave peak latencies is a new phenomenon. The results are discussed on the basis of the known therapeutic effects of piracetam in cortical myoclonus and as nootropic agent.[/quote]


[quote]Randomized placebo-controlled double-blind cross-over study on antihypoxidotic effects of piracetam using psychophysiological measures in healthy volunteers.

Schaffler K, Klausnitzer W.

Institute for Pharmacodynamic Research, Munich, Fed. Rep. of Germany.

The effects of two acute doses (1600 mg, 2400 mg) of 2-oxo-pyrrolidine-1-acetamide (piracetam, Normabrain) on hypoxia resistance were screened vs placebo in a randomized, double-blind 3-way change-over design in 9 healthy male volunteers (mean age: 26.4 +/- 3.5 years; mean body weight: 74.9 +/- 8.4 kg). Psychophysiological measurements were done with the oculodynamic test (ODT) for oculomotor, performatory and additional cardiorespiratory parameters. Intradiurnal assessments were done under normoxia (prevalue) and hypoxic hypoxidosis (1 hypoxic prevalue, 3 postdose values: 1.0, 2.5 and 4.0 h) with a content of 10.5% O2 and 89.5% N2 in inspired air (hypoxic hypoxidosis)--as a model of brain dysfunctions, related with several types of senile dementia (Primary Degenerative Dementia = Alzheimer type; Multi Infarct Dementia). The results indicate that piracetam especially in its higher dose (2400 mg) displays antihypoxidotic effects already after a single administration in oculomotor, performatory and cardiorespiratory parameters.[/quote]

So Piracetam has shown some efficacy in healthy volunteers, but a few studies don't substantiate a solid conclusion.[/quote]

Edited by patch, 15 June 2006 - 11:24 PM.


#28 doug123

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,424 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Nowhere

Posted 16 June 2006 - 12:12 AM

No, Piracetam has never demonstrated any particularly significant effects in any human trials I am aware of; though I bet there is a dedicated troll pushing pseudo-scientific nonsense in most forums on the Internet. It's best to just ignore non scientific arguments as they are not taken seriously anyways.

The benefits from the other racetam compounds, pyritinol, idebenone, centrophenoxine, sulbutiamine seem to be marginal -- at best. What is particularly interesting is how ineffective idebenone is at treating Alzheimer's disease and how many people take that stuff expecting some kind of boost when the improvements some patients were reported to be about 2%. And that's not a particularly consistent nor a clinically significant result. What bothers me about idebenone are concerns with:

a) No studies in healthy subjects
b) Three months or more to achieve effects in elderly subjects
c) It's mighty expensive
d) Might be unsafe due to increased MtROS
e) Quality if it is a dietary supplement

A quality study from UCSD dept of Neuroscience::

Neurology. 2003 Dec 9;61(11):1498-502. 
   
Idebenone treatment fails to slow cognitive decline in Alzheimer's disease.

Thal LJ, Grundman M, Berg J, Ernstrom K, Margolin R, Pfeiffer E, Weiner MF, Zamrini E, Thomas RG.

Department of Neurosciences, University of California San Diego School of Medicine , La Jolla 92093-0624, USA. lthal@ucsd.edu

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of idebenone on the rate of decline in Alzheimer's disease (AD). METHODS: A 1-year, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial was conducted. Subjects were over age 50 with a diagnosis of probable AD and had Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores between 12 and 25. Subjects were treated with idebenone 120, 240, or 360 mg tid, each of which was compared with placebo. Primary outcome measures were the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subcomponent (ADAS-Cog) and a Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC). Secondary outcome measures included measurements of activities of daily living, the Behavioral Pathology in Alzheimer's Disease Rating Scale, and the MMSE. RESULTS: Five hundred thirty-six subjects were enrolled and randomized to the four groups. Except for a slight difference in age, there were no differences in patient characteristics at baseline. For the primary outcome measures, there were no significant overall differences between the treatment groups in the prespecified four-group design. In an exploratory two-group analysis comparing all three treated groups combined with placebo, drug-treated patients performed better on the ADAS-Cog in both the intent-to-treat (ITT) and completers analyses. There were no differences in the CGIC scores for the ITT or completers analyses in either the four-group or the two-group analyses. There were no overall differences on any of the secondary outcome measures in any of the analyses. CONCLUSION: Idebenone failed to slow cognitive decline in AD that was of sufficient magnitude to be clinically significant.


    Publication Types:
* Clinical Trial
* Multicenter Study
* Randomized Controlled Trial



PMID: 14663031 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


However, this double blind, randomized, placebo controlled of 360 mg/day idebenone in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's did find idebenone to be more effective than Tacrine; one of the first cholinesterase inhibitors that seemed to be hepatoxic for many patients.

Pharmacopsychiatry. 2002 Jan;35(1):12-8. 

Safety and efficacy of idebenone versus tacrine in patients with Alzheimer's disease: results of a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group multicenter study.

Gutzmann H, Kuhl KP, Hadler D, Rapp MA.

Wilhelm Griesinger Hospital, Department of Gerontopsychiatry, Retzdorffpromenade 3, 12161 Berlin, Germany. gutzmann@zedat.fu-berlin.de

This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of idebenone vs. tacrine in a prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group multicenter study in patients suffering from dementia of the Alzheimer type (DAT) of mild to moderate degree. Diagnosis was based on DSM-III-R (primary degenerative dementia) and NINCDS-ADRDA criteria (probable Alzheimer's disease). A total of 203 patients of both sexes aged between 40 and 90 years were randomized to either idebenone 360 mg/day (n = 104) or tacrine up to 160 mg/day (n = 99) and treated for 60 weeks. The primary outcome measure was the Efficacy Index Score (EIS). The EIS combines dropout as well as the relevant improvements individually across the three levels of assessment (cognitive function, activities of daily living, global function). Secondary outcome measures were the ADAS-Cog score, the NOSGER-IADL score and the clinical global response (CGI-Improvement). After 60 weeks of treatment, 28.8 % of the patients randomized to idebenone, but only 9.1 % of the patients randomized to tacrine were still on the drug. In the LOCF analysis, 50 % of the patients randomized to idebenone but only 39.4 % of the patients randomized to tacrine showed an improvement in the Efficacy Index Score or at least one of the secondary outcome variables. The primary efficacy measurement was the change of the Efficacy Index Score from baseline to the assessment after 60 weeks treatment. The analysis was done on intention-to-treat (ITT) in a before-and-after test design. Patients randomized to idebenone showed a higher benefit from treatment than patients randomized to tacrine. We conclude that the benefit-risk ratio is favorable for idebenone compared to tacrine, and furthermore, that this ratio is likely to be similar when comparing idebenone to other cholinesterase inhibitors.

Publication Types:

        * Clinical Trial
        * Multicenter Study
        * Randomized Controlled Trial


PMID: 11819153 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


J Neural Transm Suppl. 1998;54:301-10. 

Sustained efficacy and safety of idebenone in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease: update on a 2-year double-blind multicentre study.

H, Hadler D. Gutzmann

Krankenhaus Hellersdorf, o.B. Wilhelm-Griesinger-Krankenhaus, Abteilung fur Gerontopsychiatrie, Berlin, Federal Republic of Germany.

The 2-year efficacy and safety of idebenone were studied in a prospective, randomized, double-blind multicentre study in 3 parallel groups of patients with dementia of the Alzheimer type (DAT) of mild to moderate degree. A total of 450 patients were randomized to either placebo for 12 months, followed by idebenone 90 mg tid for another 12 months (n = 153) or idebenone 90 mg tid for 24 months (n = 148) or 120 mg tid for 24 months (n = 149). The primary outcome measure was the total score of the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-Total) at month 6. Secondary outcome measures were the ADAS cognitive (ADAS-Cog) and noncognitive score (ADAS-Noncog), the clinical global response (CGI-Improvement), the SKT neuropsychological test battery, and the Nurses' Observation Scale for Geriatric Patients (NOSGER-Total and IADL subscale). Safety parameters were adverse events, vital signs, ECG and clinical laboratory parameters. During the placebo controlled period (the first year of treatment), idebenone showed statistically significant dose-dependent improvement in the primary efficacy variable ADAS-Total and in all the secondary efficacy variables. There was no evidence for a loss of efficacy during the second year of treatment, as a further improvement of most efficacy variables was found in the second year in comparison to the results at the 12 months visit. Also, a clear dose effect relationship (placebo/90 mg < idebenone 90 mg < idebenone 120 mg) was maintained throughout the second year of treatment. This suggests that idebenone exerts its beneficial therapeutic effects on the course of the disease by slowing down its progression. Safety and tolerability of idebenone were good and similar to placebo during the first year of treatment and did not change during the second year.

Publication Types:

        * Clinical Trial
        * Multicenter Study
        * Randomized Controlled Trial


PMID: 9850939 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


Neuropsychobiology. 1997;36(2):73-82. 

A controlled study of 2 doses of idebenone in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease.

Weyer G, Babej-Dolle RM, Hadler D, Hofmann S, Herrmann WM.

Institute of Psychology, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, Frankfurt/Main, Germany.

Two doses of idebenone were studied in a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicentre study in patients suffering from dementia of the Alzheimer type (DAT) of mild to moderate degree. Diagnosis was based on DSM-III-R (primary degenerative dementia) and NINCDS-ADRDA criteria (probable Alzheimer's disease). A total of 300 patients were randomized to either placebo, idebenone 30 mg t.i.d. or 90 mg t.i.d. (n = 100, each) and treated for 6 months. The primary outcome measure was the total score of the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-Total) at month 6. Secondary outcome measures were the ADAS cognitive (ADAS-Cog) and noncognitive scores (ADAS-Noncog), the clinical global response (CGI-Improvement), the MMSE, the Digit Symbol Substitution test (DSS) and several scales for the assessment of daily activities (the self- and observer-rating scales NAA and NAB of the Nuremberg Age Inventory NAI and Greene's Assessment). Safety parameters were adverse events, vital signs, ECG and clinical laboratory parameters. Clinical and psychometric evaluations were performed at baseline, and after 1, 3 and 6 months of treatment. After month 6 idebenone 90 mg t.i.d. showed statistically significant improvement in the primary efficacy variable ADAS-Total and in ADAS-Cog. An analysis of therapy responders performed for 3 outcome measures (CGI-global improvement, ADAS-Cog, ADAS-Noncog), selected to represent different domains of assessment, revealed significant superiority of idebenone 90 mg t.i.d. with respect to placebo in each of the 3 variables and in the concordance of responses across the 3 measures. Exploratory results for a subgroup of patients (ADAS-Total > or = 20) showed dose-related superiority of idebenone additionally on ADAS-Noncog and the CGI-Improvement scale. Safety results were inconspicuous for all assessments. The study results demonstrate the efficacy and safety of idebenone in the treatment of DAT patients.

Publication Types:

        * Clinical Trial
        * Multicenter Study
        * Randomized Controlled Trial


Idebenone, however, might be dangerous; so considering there is some conflicting information, even in demented or healthy subjects I don't see any sense in breaking the bank to get it -- especially if one is on a limited budget and has not been tested for ADD or ADHD.

Most of the other nootropics appear to be pretty safe. However, I would advice caution purchasing deregulated food products imported from China sold as nootropics in the USA unless you get it from a real pharmaceutical company or buy from a supplier whom implements real quality control protocol.

I have seen Chinese food imported centrophenoxine around that assayed as low as 87%, so I would be EXTRA careful buying stuff that has not been independently tested to be high in quality AND free of contaminants...

Posted Image


Consumer Reports (May 2004) and the “Dirty Dozen” unsafe herbs still readily available

· “CONSUMER REPORTS has identified a dozen (supplements) that … are too dangerous to be on the market. Yet they are.” Introductory paragraph in red ink.

· Factors contributing to unsafe supplements on the market.

· “ ‘The standards for demonstrating a supplement is hazardous are so high that it can take the FDA years to build a case,’ said Bruce Silverglade, legal director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Washington D.C., consumer advocacy group”(pg. 12).

· “The FDA’s supplement division is understaffed and underfunded, with about 60 people and a budget of only 10 million “dollars)…” (pp. 12-13).

· “…Overwhelming opposition from Congress and industry forced it to back down” when the FDA first tried to regulate ephedra in 1997 (pg. 13).

· The public assumes a greater degree of government regulation than exists – in a 2002 Harris Poll of 1010 adults, 59% of respondents believed that supplements must be approved by a government agency before they can be sold to the public, 68% thought the government requires warning labels on supplements with regard to potential dangers, and 55% thought that supplement manufacturers could not make safety claims without solid scientific support.


My usual favorite references from scientific research on dietary supplements available on store shelves in the USA:

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.

Edited by nootropikamil, 16 June 2006 - 12:57 AM.


#29 Ghostrider

  • Guest
  • 1,996 posts
  • 56
  • Location:USA

Posted 16 June 2006 - 03:01 AM

The reason supplementation needs to be banned in sports is that, if steroids were allowed, then drug-free athletes would not be able to compete with steroid users.  Look at baseball in the US—the best players are on steroids, and the others need to take steroids (and suffer the side effects) just to keep their place on the team. 
It would be a shame if the same thing happened to academics/law/medicine/finance.  These fields are intensely competitive, and if more people start using stimulants to get an edge, then anyone who wants to compete will have to do the same, and jeopardize their long-term mental and physical health.
It would not be a problem if people were taking fish oil etc., but Ritalin and amphetamine (and modafinil, though not quite as bad) are very bad for you over time.  Unfortunately, it seems to be the bad ones that actually work.  There was a study quoted in Scientific American last year (which I can’t find online) saying that Ritalin boosts SAT scores.  Personally I’ve found that stimulants definitely do improve my performance on some kinds of tests (and make it easy to study for hours on end).


Patch, I agree with your viewpoint, but would like to point out the difference between risking one's health to become a better athlete and risking one's health for academic accomplishment. The difference is that nothing of significant lasting value can come from athletics. And by significant lasting value I mean a product to enhance the well-being of other humans. Sports, I assume, are viewed to inspire. I don't see any other benefit they can provide. Personally, I consider watching professional sports to be a waste of time that would be better spent actually playing the sport. In regards to academics, however, we do want students to be competative -- the most significant research happens under these conditions. However, I am in no way advocating the use of chemical mental enhancements for this purpose as there are other and more important objectives, although to some, this is understandably debatable. If your goal is to maximize your life, you would be better off staying away from all stimulants...as you pointed out. I can definitely understand using stimulants or other mental enhancing drugs in the short term, given that the ultimate cost is no greater than maybe one night of drinking. And by short term, I mean in cases where the benefit far outweighs the cost -- such as on standardized testing...which is the reason I came to this forum in the first place. How can three hours affect the rest of your life? I think it's pretty easy to see why students get so stressed out over exams such as the GRE, GMAT, and most notably, the MCAT. The MCAT can determine far more than the next 4 years of your life...determined in only a few hours. As you can tell, I am not in support of standardized testing and I can see why some people resort to any form of mental edge they can get. I am not saying it is a good idea, especially if the benefit is moot or even negative, but I understand.

Does anyone have any evidence of longevity benefits from taking stimulants? Are there any studies showing how drugs like Adderall and Ritalin affect mental performance and longevity? The last study seems impossible to measure because longevity is not constant over humans (no baseline) and it would take a few lifetimes to carry out such research. Ultimitely, we have no idea how the most effective mental stimulants will affect longevity and mental performance decades from now. But I think that it is safe to say that the most effective treatments are affecting the body most significantly -- in terms of longevity, for better or worse.

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for BRAIN HEALTH to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#30 doug123

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,424 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Nowhere

Posted 16 June 2006 - 07:58 AM

Some students were born with a biochemical advantage. What's the difference between natural ability and supplemented ability?


There should be no difference. Yet supplementation is considered unethical, particularly in sports. This is ironic since the sporting achievements of elite athletes have more to do with their genetic makeup than any other factor and the only way that some athletes can compete is by using supplements to compensate for relative genetic deficiencies. The advent of broadly available self-enhancement genetic modification should even out the playing field.


I don't play sport anymore, mostly because I was not all that good at the few I tried. When I was a teenager, I tried to compete in All Star soccer (our team name was "Impact") competitions; I earned the nickname "Barkley" because I'd literally run straight at the dude with the ball -- rather than at the ball itself. It would usually scare the forward dribbling, but he usually could make it past me if he was any good...I was the first defender who stays around mid-field, or the "sweeper."

Sports are not really my thing. Neither is school, normally. Put me in most classrooms full of normal students and I quickly lose focus. The academic world we live in is tighter than a cage. If you want to compete at the top, you better have some kind of strategy. Going to school is a challenge for me because the process of learning for most of the classes I have taken is mostly mechanical. Learn this first. Then be tested on it tomorrow. You don't really need to remember it past tomorrow, though, for most stuff you learn...however, there may be something one finds particularly interesting...

For me to compete at the top of my class, I need cognitive enhancers. That might be because I might have damaged part of my brain as a youth ingesting neurotoxic compounds recreationally...I'm not sure...

Outside of school, I would not take many of the prescription drugs or supplements I currently take. I just find it much easier to pay attention to certain topics and retain the information with the aid of certain medicines...that I mostly discovered myself through my own research. I remember clearly several courses I took without the aid of certain medicines and I could not keep up with some of the students. I don't like getting an A- if I work my ass off. If I want an A in certain classes...the inclusion of a certain medicine can make or break me...I was a teaching assistant (okay, it was a minor role) aceing several classes of my classes with the help of one medicine. I would have to study my ass off with all of my free time, however...then I added another drug and it seemed I didn't have to worry anymore, I'd get the A I wanted or even set the curve in certain courses if I tried my best.

However, once I saw this pattern, I thought I could add as many pills as I wanted...and once I crossed a certain threshold, my grades started dropping. Everyone has a different neurochemistry, and taking several mind altering compounds without proper research and counsel can be counterproductive to ones goals...it's best to be as careful as possible and realize we've potentially reached a plateau. I try to reach out to people who are trying their best, but are unable to achieve the results they want. There may be a medicine that can help these individuals. However, in my experience, many individuals don't need any drug or supplement to function in school, work, or anywhere else.

In the realm of physical competition, I would worry some individuals would take compounds with serious potential side effects. The reason the use of anabolic steroids is frowned upon is primarily due to unfair advantage in competition and deleterious side effects. Is it dangerous to take modafinil before working out? At this point, for me, it seems to be pretty safe, and I can compete on a level I usually could not, and beyond. I never worked out (aka bodybuilding) before modafinil; I suppose it would be wise for me to try to work out without it. I don't compete with anyone else except for the other males trying to assert their alpha male status at the gym.. :)

Good night.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users