Hi I've been taking Piracetam at 4-10g and Sulbutiamine at 1-2g with 750mg of CDP choline for a week. So far, I haven't had any response and I was wondering what I should do.
Are there better alternatives?
Posted 03 April 2010 - 01:47 AM
Posted 03 April 2010 - 02:03 AM
Hi I've been taking Piracetam at 4-10g and Sulbutiamine at 1-2g with 750mg of CDP choline for a week. So far, I haven't had any response and I was wondering what I should do.
Are there better alternatives?
Posted 03 April 2010 - 02:07 AM
Hi I've been taking Piracetam at 4-10g and Sulbutiamine at 1-2g with 750mg of CDP choline for a week. So far, I haven't had any response and I was wondering what I should do.
Are there better alternatives?
For the sulbutiamine not sure about the piracetam, are you taking a fat source with it? It is fat soluble so requires a decent fat source in order to be absorbed a decent amount I believe. I take mine with a tablespoon or two of olive oil.
Posted 03 April 2010 - 02:28 AM
Hi I've been taking Piracetam at 4-10g and Sulbutiamine at 1-2g with 750mg of CDP choline for a week. So far, I haven't had any response and I was wondering what I should do.
Are there better alternatives?
For the sulbutiamine not sure about the piracetam, are you taking a fat source with it? It is fat soluble so requires a decent fat source in order to be absorbed a decent amount I believe. I take mine with a tablespoon or two of olive oil.
Yes, I take all of them after I eat, sometimes with fish oil.
Posted 04 April 2010 - 06:48 PM
Hi I've been taking Piracetam at 4-10g and Sulbutiamine at 1-2g with 750mg of CDP choline for a week. So far, I haven't had any response and I was wondering what I should do.
Are there better alternatives?
For the sulbutiamine not sure about the piracetam, are you taking a fat source with it? It is fat soluble so requires a decent fat source in order to be absorbed a decent amount I believe. I take mine with a tablespoon or two of olive oil.
Yes, I take all of them after I eat, sometimes with fish oil.
Well all I can say is try to experiment with doses. You could be taking too little, too much. It's really all down to your own body chemistry. Piracetam I believe is a cumulative effect so give it at least another week or two before you stop it. Some people are just general non-responders to piracetam and find aniracetam or oxiracetam to be much better. I use aniracetam and sulbutiamine and both work great after I figured out how to properly dose and take them.
Posted 06 April 2010 - 01:51 AM
Hi I've been taking Piracetam at 4-10g and Sulbutiamine at 1-2g with 750mg of CDP choline for a week. So far, I haven't had any response and I was wondering what I should do.
Are there better alternatives?
For the sulbutiamine not sure about the piracetam, are you taking a fat source with it? It is fat soluble so requires a decent fat source in order to be absorbed a decent amount I believe. I take mine with a tablespoon or two of olive oil.
Yes, I take all of them after I eat, sometimes with fish oil.
Well all I can say is try to experiment with doses. You could be taking too little, too much. It's really all down to your own body chemistry. Piracetam I believe is a cumulative effect so give it at least another week or two before you stop it. Some people are just general non-responders to piracetam and find aniracetam or oxiracetam to be much better. I use aniracetam and sulbutiamine and both work great after I figured out how to properly dose and take them.
I guess I'll keep trying...is there a way to get rid of the bitterness of piracetam? and are sulbutiamine's effects cumulative as well?
Posted 06 April 2010 - 11:20 PM
Hi I've been taking Piracetam at 4-10g and Sulbutiamine at 1-2g with 750mg of CDP choline for a week. So far, I haven't had any response and I was wondering what I should do.
Posted 07 April 2010 - 01:24 AM
Starting a bunch of useful things at once is the natural tendency, but makes it much harder to tell if/how each is working.
Posted 07 April 2010 - 02:33 AM
For real? You don't think that's much harder than trying each one separately, or adding one at a time and getting used to it?Starting a bunch of useful things at once is the natural tendency, but makes it much harder to tell if/how each is working.
Not if you start with all, and then you keep subtracting from the set, to see if you can maintain the good results without the subtracted element. Eventually, the two methods would converge on the ideal mix equally well.
Posted 07 April 2010 - 02:21 PM
What you say makes some sort of sense if you jump into a combo you're sure will work, and you aren't interested in knowing each individual substance's type and magnitude of effect. But as these things cost money and have potential downsides, and most people start with a few things and add more as they do more research, it hardly seems feasible.
Posted 07 April 2010 - 08:29 PM
If you're referring to bmud's ten months of research condensed thread, you've got the wrong end of the stick. He definitely isn't recommending a "universal nootropic stack." Read through the first two posts; he's recommending what works for him based on his subjective experience. He mentions several things that have no effect for him (including adderall) which many derive benefit from. A cursory read through this forum will show that people have vastly different reactions to almost every substance.I have in mind the universal nootropic stack proposed by Bmud...If I were new to this forum and need some cognitive boost in the next few months I would assume that the Bayesian priors apply to me and therefore start with the full stack he proposed.
It's a huge logical leap from this to the conclusion that piling on more substances with largely unknown pharmacology, interactions and personal variability will necessarily increase IQ. In fact, I think it's problematic to assume that traits measured by IQ are the ones that nootropics might improve.The logic to start with several things is based, in addition to Bayesian reasoning, on systemic thinking...it's unlikely that one element alone will boost your IQ significantly, for the simple fact that IQ is a polygenetic complex trait (read Plomin).
Edited by chrono, 07 April 2010 - 08:33 PM.
Posted 07 April 2010 - 08:35 PM
Posted 07 April 2010 - 09:37 PM
This is very reductionist. As I've already said, your method assumes that nootropics stack in a perfectly linear way. What if X also interacts with Y and/or Z, in different ways and magnitudes? What if X is the wrong thing to subtract first? What if the difference is also influenced by many other factors, like stomach contents, nutrient levels, sleep, mood, surroundings, dosage, time of day, times taken per day, and expected outcome? What if you're talking about 5 or 10 supplements, and not 3?It's methodologically sound...read J.S.Mill - the method of difference for detecting causality. You have situation A (supps x, y, z), you keep everything the same except for one thing (subtract x, for example), and the difference you detect is likely caused by the subtraction of X. This is studied in any decent graduate level course in causal reasoning or the history of philosophical induction.
Posted 08 April 2010 - 12:57 AM
This is very reductionist. As I've already said, your method assumes that nootropics stack in a perfectly linear way. What if X also interacts with Y and/or Z, in different ways and magnitudes? What if X is the wrong thing to subtract first? What if the difference is also influenced by many other factors, like stomach contents, nutrient levels, sleep, mood, surroundings, dosage, time of day, times taken per day, and expected outcome? What if you're talking about 5 or 10 supplements, and not 3?It's methodologically sound...read J.S.Mill - the method of difference for detecting causality. You have situation A (supps x, y, z), you keep everything the same except for one thing (subtract x, for example), and the difference you detect is likely caused by the subtraction of X. This is studied in any decent graduate level course in causal reasoning or the history of philosophical induction.
All of these variables are easier to measure if you have a baseline idea of what a substance does to you by itself, or with a limited number of the other substances involved. While it is technically possible to arrive at the ideal combination the way you're proposing, it is absolutely the most difficult way, requiring the greatest amount of time, money, effort, and experimentation to assure good results. It assumes that one person's recommendations will start you at close to the ideal solution, and any small changes will be easy to make from there. The first post in this thread demonstrates how incorrect that assumption can be.
I feel like I've explained this pretty cogently at this point. These ideas are based on personal experience and research into anecdotal evidence and scientific literature, not designing a stack based entirely on philosophical principles. And since you seem intent on logic, I'll mention that you're only bothering to respond tangentially to the weakest parts of my argument, which suggests you're more interested in being right than arriving at a useful conclusion. But to each his/her own, I suppose.
Posted 09 April 2010 - 03:17 AM
Posted 09 April 2010 - 05:56 AM
Sure, if you're trying different elements blindly, having no idea what they might do together. But we're not designing a theoretical system for novel drugs here. Odds are someone on this (or another) forum has noted this as a possibility. It's still useful to see which reaction you'll exhibit, but if you've done your research it's unlikely you'd make such an obvious mistake if you've decided to take this in the first place.you begin with supplement x -- it doesn't work; you eliminate it. Then you move on to supplement y. It works, but you don't know that, had you kept x in the stack, it would have amplified the beneficial effects of y significantly.
If you first step down to x alone (and feel nothing, apparently), how would you have any idea that it amplifies y? It would be much more natural to assume it does nothing, and the effects of x+y are due entirely to y. You would need an idea of what y does by itself to realize that its effects are stronger when taken with x.If you follow my approach, however, as you move from (x, y) to either x alone or to y alone, you would quickly detect that they are both needed and reintroduce the subtracted one in the stack.
Some of them do, though not the one in your problematic example. See all of my previous comments for why deriving effects by subtraction is more difficult and complicated. And there are special concerns which apply only to a subtractive process. You've ignored several already, but here's more:Why the problems (e.g. missing on synergies) that allegedly beset my backward subtractive reasoning (from many to fewer supplements) do not beset your forward reasoning?
Because there are many drawbacks to your approach, and no apparent benefits. I've yet to hear why you would do this in the first place, besides quicker start-up if there are absolutely no problems.I just do not seem to get why you don't realize the different constellations of gains and losses of the two approaches
Sorry if I was a little out of line in guessing at your motive, but my point about your argument still stands. You're not bothering to acknowledge or respond to most of my objections, when I've spent a lot of time responding to yours. This makes a theoretical discussion both useless and frustrating, so I think I'm done here.The fact of the matter is that i do write a lot on these topics in the abstract and I'm genuinely interested in exploring their potential & limitations. So, claiming that I do it to prove myself right, no matter what, is unfair.
Edited by chrono, 09 April 2010 - 06:13 AM.
Posted 09 April 2010 - 05:59 AM
I can't begin to imagine why you think this is a good idea. Piracetam is generally considered to have no known lethal dose, but this is beyond megadosing, and higher than I've ever heard of anyone taking. Taking 50x the generally useful dose of something is not a good idea, and I strongly recommend that you do not do this.I am going to try to dose it at 50g and see if I get any of the adverse side effects to make sure I actually respond to the compound and that it is legit.
Edited by chrono, 09 April 2010 - 06:14 AM.
Posted 12 April 2010 - 10:02 PM
Not to mention that piracetam has a bell-shaped response curve; taking way more is unlikely to produce the effects you want. You're looking for the "sweet spot" that most people find somewhere between 800-2400mg or so.
Telling us where you got it might be a better idea to find out if it's what you think it is. If it's not "legit," then 50g of it could hurt you. And at that dose, no one can say what the side effects are like, so it's not going to help you identify this substance.
Posted 12 April 2010 - 11:26 PM
Edited by chrono, 12 April 2010 - 11:27 PM.
Posted 18 April 2010 - 06:42 AM
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users