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

Photo
* * * * * 8 votes

Spreadsheet of info on Common Nootropics / Productivity Enhancers


  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#1 Lallante

  • Guest
  • 197 posts
  • 3

Posted 14 April 2010 - 11:40 AM


Hi

I've been putting together a spreadsheet on Googledocs detailing basic information (dose, benefits, side-effects, ROA etc) of the more common Nootropics and productivity enhancers. Its in the very early stages, and doubtless I've got some stuff wrong, but I wanted to share it for you lot to edit / add to as you see fit. If this gets fleshed out it would be a useful reference guide for a lot of people.

Click here to view/edit:
Google Docs Nootropics / Productivity Enhancers Spreadsheet

Areas that might provoke debate in particular are side-effects and dosage. Please only put what a significant minority (25%+ say) of people, in your experience, would agree with.

The "low dosage" and "high dosage" columns are for the bounds of 'normal' usage, not the micro/hyperdoses some people use (eg Piracetam - I've put 6000mg as a high daily dose even though I know a fair few people take more). Please abide by this.

The "Negatives" column, for side-effects or bad reactions should likewise only include those effects a significant portion of users experience.

Finally, though I have put in some preliminary categories (eg Racetams, Choline Sources, Amino Acids, Stimulants) and a fair few nootropics/drugs, many more could be added - please feel free to add more or re-arrange into better categories. I am also missing tonnes of info, and some of the things I have put may need adjusting.

I hope many of you will contribute into making this a useful resource.

Thanks

Edited by Matthias, 06 December 2010 - 10:41 AM.
link updated at request of the author

  • like x 6
  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1

#2 425runner

  • Guest
  • 158 posts
  • 1

Posted 14 April 2010 - 12:22 PM

Looks good! I've been trying to put a spreadsheet together as well but never got around to it. Thanks for taking the initative ;)


Hi

I've been putting together a spreadsheet on Googledocs detailing basic information (dose, benefits, side-effects, ROA etc) of the more common Nootropics and productivity enhancers. Its in the very early stages, and doubtless I've got some stuff wrong, but I wanted to share it for you lot to edit / add to as you see fit. If this gets fleshed out it would be a useful reference guide for a lot of people.

Click here to view/edit:
Google Docs Nootropics / Productivity Enhancers Spreadsheet

Areas that might provoke debate in particular are side-effects and dosage. Please only put what a significant minority (25%+ say) of people, in your experience, would agree with.

The "low dosage" and "high dosage" columns are for the bounds of 'normal' usage, not the micro/hyperdoses some people use (eg Piracetam - I've put 6000mg as a high daily dose even though I know a fair few people take more). Please abide by this.

The "Negatives" column, for side-effects or bad reactions should likewise only include those effects a significant portion of users experience.

Finally, though I have put in some preliminary categories (eg Racetams, Choline Sources, Amino Acids, Stimulants) and a fair few nootropics/drugs, many more could be added - please feel free to add more or re-arrange into better categories. I am also missing tonnes of info, and some of the things I have put may need adjusting.

I hope many of you will contribute into making this a useful resource.

Thanks


  • Disagree x 1

sponsored ad

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

#3 Lallante

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 197 posts
  • 3

Posted 14 April 2010 - 02:09 PM

Thanks to those who have contributed so far - I am keeping periodic backups to enable fixing of vandalism (possibly unintentional) from time to time - be careful of those sort by column buttons as they will really disorganise things!

Keep it coming - add substances you've had success with if nothing else.

#4 LabRat84

  • Guest
  • 116 posts
  • 45

Posted 14 April 2010 - 03:08 PM

This is great. I have a good deal to add when I have the time.

#5 Lallante

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 197 posts
  • 3

Posted 14 April 2010 - 08:04 PM

Huge HUGE amount has been added in the last 6 hours - now well over 100 substances listed (large amounts of detail still needed - get involved!).

Thanks to everyone who has contributed so far - this is already an awesome resource and with open editting will be very easy to keep up-to-date.

In theory we could expand the scope to include a column for links to scientific studies on the effects or harms, or even to threads discussing use in these (or other forums).

UPDATE: We are now excluding 'recreational'/'street' drugs, even if they arguably (or even definitely) come within the scope of Productivity Enhancers or can, in rare instances, be prescribed thereputically - if their main use is as an illegal narcotic please don't add. Many people are not comfortable with the discussion of such substances and there are other forums dedicated to such things (Bluelight or Drugs-forum for example).

Edited by Lallante, 14 April 2010 - 08:31 PM.


#6 Lallante

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 197 posts
  • 3

Posted 15 April 2010 - 07:28 AM

This is going wonderfully, thanks for all contributions. Anyone who can fill in the remaining blanks (or add new substances) very welcome.

#7 Sebastian

  • Guest
  • 45 posts
  • 0

Posted 15 April 2010 - 08:20 AM

Now this is GREAT!
Will definitely contribute as I go along!!

#8 polybi

  • Guest
  • 51 posts
  • 0

Posted 15 April 2010 - 12:18 PM

Huge HUGE amount has been added in the last 6 hours - now well over 100 substances listed (large amounts of detail still needed - get involved!).

Thanks to everyone who has contributed so far - this is already an awesome resource and with open editting will be very easy to keep up-to-date.

In theory we could expand the scope to include a column for links to scientific studies on the effects or harms, or even to threads discussing use in these (or other forums).

UPDATE: We are now excluding 'recreational'/'street' drugs, even if they arguably (or even definitely) come within the scope of Productivity Enhancers or can, in rare instances, be prescribed thereputically - if their main use is as an illegal narcotic please don't add. Many people are not comfortable with the discussion of such substances and there are other forums dedicated to such things (Bluelight or Drugs-forum for example).


ok fair enough and good work. but why is phenibut allowed ghb not ? i would say the major reason for phenibut is recreational and its never(?) prescribed where as ghb is prescribed + its been shown to be neuroprotective, they both produce similar effects

#9 Lallante

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 197 posts
  • 3

Posted 15 April 2010 - 02:11 PM

I'm open to discussion on this. Its literally impossible to draw any clear lines. Lots of people, for example, swear by small doses of cocaine for studying. Thoughts?

#10 Jurence

  • Guest
  • 137 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 15 April 2010 - 04:20 PM

This is great, you guys. Please don't add "bad drugs"- we all know what they are ;).

Edited by Jurence, 15 April 2010 - 04:44 PM.


#11 polybi

  • Guest
  • 51 posts
  • 0

Posted 15 April 2010 - 07:26 PM

This is great, you guys. Please don't add "bad drugs"- we all know what they are ;) .


no, however i would take a guess and say you meant drugs that are class A, B or C that arnt prescribed for add or other "brain stuff" then i think that would be fair but i would prefer that Lallante said it since its his spreadsheet. but i agree we dont want the spread sheet to be full of stims.

#12 kismet

  • Guest
  • 2,984 posts
  • 424
  • Location:Austria, Vienna

Posted 15 April 2010 - 08:19 PM

 

UPDATE: We are now excluding 'recreational'/'street' drugs, even if they arguably (or even definitely) come within the scope of Productivity Enhancers or can, in rare instances, be prescribed thereputically - if their main use is as an illegal narcotic please don't add. Many people are not comfortable with the discussion of such substances and there are other forums dedicated to such things (Bluelight or Drugs-forum for example).

Personally, I oppose that sort of (self-)censorship strongly. Effective is effective, researchers should leave the judgment to others. Your spreadsheet cannot be useful if you hide good information from others. But YMMV.

Edited by kismet, 15 April 2010 - 08:26 PM.


#13 Lallante

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 197 posts
  • 3

Posted 16 April 2010 - 08:41 AM

 

UPDATE: We are now excluding 'recreational'/'street' drugs, even if they arguably (or even definitely) come within the scope of Productivity Enhancers or can, in rare instances, be prescribed thereputically - if their main use is as an illegal narcotic please don't add. Many people are not comfortable with the discussion of such substances and there are other forums dedicated to such things (Bluelight or Drugs-forum for example).

Personally, I oppose that sort of (self-)censorship strongly. Effective is effective, researchers should leave the judgment to others. Your spreadsheet cannot be useful if you hide good information from others. But YMMV.


While you do have a point, it is drawing a line that is difficult. I suppose we could include those 'street drugs' that are prescribed in the US or UK for productivity enhancement purposes (I can't think of any!).

#14 polybi

  • Guest
  • 51 posts
  • 0

Posted 16 April 2010 - 08:46 AM

UPDATE: We are now excluding 'recreational'/'street' drugs, even if they arguably (or even definitely) come within the scope of Productivity Enhancers or can, in rare instances, be prescribed thereputically - if their main use is as an illegal narcotic please don't add. Many people are not comfortable with the discussion of such substances and there are other forums dedicated to such things (Bluelight or Drugs-forum for example).

Personally, I oppose that sort of (self-)censorship strongly. Effective is effective, researchers should leave the judgment to others. Your spreadsheet cannot be useful if you hide good information from others. But YMMV.


While you do have a point, it is drawing a line that is difficult. I suppose we could include those 'street drugs' that are prescribed in the US or UK for productivity enhancement purposes (I can't think of any!).


the only ones i can think of are amphetamines, Methylphenidate and if your in the usa then methamphetamines

Edited by polybi, 16 April 2010 - 08:47 AM.


#15 Jurence

  • Guest
  • 137 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 16 April 2010 - 05:31 PM

This is great, you guys. Please don't add "bad drugs"- we all know what they are ;) .


no, however i would take a guess and say you meant drugs that are class A, B or C that arnt prescribed for add or other "brain stuff" then i think that would be fair but i would prefer that Lallante said it since its his spreadsheet. but i agree we dont want the spread sheet to be full of stims.



He *did* say it. Read his posts above.

#16 polybi

  • Guest
  • 51 posts
  • 0

Posted 16 April 2010 - 05:57 PM

This is great, you guys. Please don't add "bad drugs"- we all know what they are ;) .


no, however i would take a guess and say you meant drugs that are class A, B or C that arnt prescribed for add or other "brain stuff" then i think that would be fair but i would prefer that Lallante said it since its his spreadsheet. but i agree we dont want the spread sheet to be full of stims.



He *did* say it. Read his posts above.


he said

" if their main use is as an illegal narcotic please don't add." main is vague, so i gave a suggestion for a new rule but obviously it shouldn't be enforced unless Lallante agreed

#17 LabRat84

  • Guest
  • 116 posts
  • 45

Posted 17 April 2010 - 04:04 AM

I think we should make an exception for LSD in honor of Bicycle Day on Monday!

But does than mean an exception for cannabis on Tuesday?

#18 chrono

  • Member, Moderator
  • 2,444 posts
  • 801
  • Location:New England

Posted 17 April 2010 - 05:27 PM

ok fair enough and good work. but why is phenibut allowed ghb not ? i would say the major reason for phenibut is recreational and its never(?) prescribed where as ghb is prescribed + its been shown to be neuroprotective, they both produce similar effects

GHB is illegal in lots of places and has a long history of "abuse" and social consequences. Phenibut gets discussed here more openly because it's a psychoactive that is carried by several of the companies we use, and doesn't have these issues. Honestly I don't think either of these fit the definition of nootropic.

The distinction here doesn't need to be objective, but may be a practical one. This sheet isn't going to be a comprehensive list of everything that's good for the brain in any conceivable way, or has any effect which allows you to function better as a human. Rather, it's an easy reference for the things that get discussed here most. Morphine has been shown to play a neuroprotective role in certain instances, too...how about that? Even though it may be neuroprotective, including these things on a list of nootropics and productivity enhancers seems a little...out of place.

#19 Lallante

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 197 posts
  • 3

Posted 18 April 2010 - 03:19 PM

I had to revert some fairly extensive vandalism by ***@*****.com (deletion of all 'negative effects' of all substances). This means we lost any changes made in the last 12 hours. I couldnt see anything too extensive, but if you have made a good revision in that time, please could you re-enter it. I apologise for the inconvenience.

I would rather not limit editing rights to signed in users (to enable a blacklist) or a whitelist, so hopefully there will not be any further major vandalism.

Please do not delete large tracts of information without first discussing in this thread your reasons, even if you disagree with the information's inclusion in the table.

(edited by Matthias: email address removed as requested by Lallante)

Edited by Matthias, 19 April 2010 - 03:32 PM.


#20 DairyProducts

  • Guest
  • 207 posts
  • 27
  • Location:Chicago, IL

Posted 20 April 2010 - 04:48 PM

Wow great idea Lallante! I'll be sure to add to this. The only issue I see here is that it doesn't cite sources too much. Maybe add a column for that (or is that the link/info column?) After every claim, put a number (1) and in the sources column put the number and the source - (1) - New England Journal of medicine volume 218, (web address.)

#21 Lallante

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 197 posts
  • 3

Posted 20 April 2010 - 05:18 PM

Wow great idea Lallante! I'll be sure to add to this. The only issue I see here is that it doesn't cite sources too much. Maybe add a column for that (or is that the link/info column?) After every claim, put a number (1) and in the sources column put the number and the source - (1) - New England Journal of medicine volume 218, (web address.)


Its currently a quick reference guide based on consensus rather than proven scientific fact. We could add two more columns (feel free to do so on the far right if you like) for "effects shown in double-blind tests" and "source", but the current benefits and drawbacks are based on the consensus of subjective user experiences rather than the science.

Open to the suggestion though

#22 gamesguru

  • Guest
  • 3,273 posts
  • 395
  • Location:coffeelake.intel.int

Posted 22 April 2010 - 03:58 AM

Wow great idea Lallante! I'll be sure to add to this. The only issue I see here is that it doesn't cite sources too much. Maybe add a column for that (or is that the link/info column?) After every claim, put a number (1) and in the sources column put the number and the source - (1) - New England Journal of medicine volume 218, (web address.)


Its currently a quick reference guide based on consensus rather than proven scientific fact. We could add two more columns (feel free to do so on the far right if you like) for "effects shown in double-blind tests" and "source", but the current benefits and drawbacks are based on the consensus of subjective user experiences rather than the science.

Open to the suggestion though

I see Acetyl-L-Carnitine is listed as "pro-oxidant". Not to pick on anyone, but that is totally OPPOSITE of what it does (at least in the brain).

"Large doses require supplementation with an antioxidant (usually Alpha Lipoic Acid) to counteract pro-oxidant effects"

Everyone please double, even triple, verify your information before posting it. I can see why someone would be easily and wrongly scared away from a supplement as grand as ALCAR based on one incorrect statement in this spreadsheet.

Other than that, I must give credit where it is due. This was a brilliant, much appreciated idea to start, and I appreciate the continued efforts by other members to refine, improve, and add to this wealth of knowledge.


http://www.sciencedi...93d0f4b4a668d26
"The present study was therefore aimed at investigating the potential of acetyl-l-carnitine (ALCAR), a known antioxidant that has been reported to augment neurotrophin-mediated survival mechanisms, in ameliorating hypoxia-induced neurodegeneration and memory impairment"

Edited by dasheenster, 22 April 2010 - 04:10 AM.


#23 polybi

  • Guest
  • 51 posts
  • 0

Posted 22 April 2010 - 08:19 AM

Wow great idea Lallante! I'll be sure to add to this. The only issue I see here is that it doesn't cite sources too much. Maybe add a column for that (or is that the link/info column?) After every claim, put a number (1) and in the sources column put the number and the source - (1) - New England Journal of medicine volume 218, (web address.)


Its currently a quick reference guide based on consensus rather than proven scientific fact. We could add two more columns (feel free to do so on the far right if you like) for "effects shown in double-blind tests" and "source", but the current benefits and drawbacks are based on the consensus of subjective user experiences rather than the science.

Open to the suggestion though

I see Acetyl-L-Carnitine is listed as "pro-oxidant". Not to pick on anyone, but that is totally OPPOSITE of what it does (at least in the brain).

"Large doses require supplementation with an antioxidant (usually Alpha Lipoic Acid) to counteract pro-oxidant effects"

Everyone please double, even triple, verify your information before posting it. I can see why someone would be easily and wrongly scared away from a supplement as grand as ALCAR based on one incorrect statement in this spreadsheet.

Other than that, I must give credit where it is due. This was a brilliant, much appreciated idea to start, and I appreciate the continued efforts by other members to refine, improve, and add to this wealth of knowledge.


http://www.sciencedi...93d0f4b4a668d26
"The present study was therefore aimed at investigating the potential of acetyl-l-carnitine (ALCAR), a known antioxidant that has been reported to augment neurotrophin-mediated survival mechanisms, in ameliorating hypoxia-induced neurodegeneration and memory impairment"


i dont know if its an pro-oxidant but i believe its always recomend to take it with an antioxident because Bruce Ames' group found that very high doses of ALCAR resulted in free radical production

#24 chrono

  • Member, Moderator
  • 2,444 posts
  • 801
  • Location:New England

Posted 22 April 2010 - 01:50 PM

I see Acetyl-L-Carnitine is listed as "pro-oxidant". Not to pick on anyone, but that is totally OPPOSITE of what it does (at least in the brain).

"Large doses require supplementation with an antioxidant (usually Alpha Lipoic Acid) to counteract pro-oxidant effects"

Everyone please double, even triple, verify your information before posting it. I can see why someone would be easily and wrongly scared away from a supplement as grand as ALCAR based on one incorrect statement in this spreadsheet.

See this paper: Acetyl-l-carnitine fed to old rats partially restores mitochondrial function and ambulatory activity. In the results section they demonstrate that ALCAR increased oxidant production, and decreased levels of anti-oxidants. This is not the "opposite" of what ALCAR does, which is improve some aspects of mitochondrial function.

This follow-up paper showed that adding R-ALA obviates these concerns about oxidation.

#25 gamesguru

  • Guest
  • 3,273 posts
  • 395
  • Location:coffeelake.intel.int

Posted 22 April 2010 - 07:15 PM

I see Acetyl-L-Carnitine is listed as "pro-oxidant". Not to pick on anyone, but that is totally OPPOSITE of what it does (at least in the brain).

"Large doses require supplementation with an antioxidant (usually Alpha Lipoic Acid) to counteract pro-oxidant effects"

Everyone please double, even triple, verify your information before posting it. I can see why someone would be easily and wrongly scared away from a supplement as grand as ALCAR based on one incorrect statement in this spreadsheet.

See this paper: Acetyl-l-carnitine fed to old rats partially restores mitochondrial function and ambulatory activity. In the results section they demonstrate that ALCAR increased oxidant production, and decreased levels of anti-oxidants. This is not the "opposite" of what ALCAR does, which is improve some aspects of mitochondrial function.

This follow-up paper showed that adding R-ALA obviates these concerns about oxidation.

1.5% wt/volume in drinking water correlates to about 45 grams if one consumes 3 liters of water daily (if my math is right). Also this was done with rats. I'm not saying this study is invalid, I'm just saying the doses were ridiculous and it was non-human.

Therefore, I feel a lot of new readers will be mistakenly shocked and intimidated by a statement like, "Large doses require supplementation with an antioxidant (usually Alpha Lipoic Acid) to counteract pro-oxidant effects".

Edited by dasheenster, 22 April 2010 - 07:16 PM.


#26 polybi

  • Guest
  • 51 posts
  • 0

Posted 22 April 2010 - 07:19 PM

I see Acetyl-L-Carnitine is listed as "pro-oxidant". Not to pick on anyone, but that is totally OPPOSITE of what it does (at least in the brain).

"Large doses require supplementation with an antioxidant (usually Alpha Lipoic Acid) to counteract pro-oxidant effects"

Everyone please double, even triple, verify your information before posting it. I can see why someone would be easily and wrongly scared away from a supplement as grand as ALCAR based on one incorrect statement in this spreadsheet.

See this paper: Acetyl-l-carnitine fed to old rats partially restores mitochondrial function and ambulatory activity. In the results section they demonstrate that ALCAR increased oxidant production, and decreased levels of anti-oxidants. This is not the "opposite" of what ALCAR does, which is improve some aspects of mitochondrial function.

This follow-up paper showed that adding R-ALA obviates these concerns about oxidation.

1.5% wt/volume in drinking water correlates to about 45 grams if one consumes 3 liters of water daily (if my math is right). Also this was done with rats. I'm not saying this study is invalid, I'm just saying the doses were ridiculous and it was non-human.

Therefore, I feel a lot of new readers will be mistakenly shocked and intimidated by a statement like, "Large doses require supplementation with an antioxidant (usually Alpha Lipoic Acid) to counteract pro-oxidant effects".


the dose for rats and the dose for humans are different even using mg/kg. as rats have higher doses for almost every drug if you use mg per kg. if that makes sense. but even if its not the case "every" one recomends taking an anti oxident with it, im supprised you didnt know what. it could be all those people are scarred for no reason but...

Edited by polybi, 22 April 2010 - 07:24 PM.


#27 chrono

  • Member, Moderator
  • 2,444 posts
  • 801
  • Location:New England

Posted 22 April 2010 - 08:07 PM

1.5% wt/volume in drinking water correlates to about 45 grams if one consumes 3 liters of water daily (if my math is right). Also this was done with rats. I'm not saying this study is invalid, I'm just saying the doses were ridiculous and it was non-human.

Therefore, I feel a lot of new readers will be mistakenly shocked and intimidated by a statement like, "Large doses require supplementation with an antioxidant (usually Alpha Lipoic Acid) to counteract pro-oxidant effects".

The study was a proof of mechanism with no demonstration of a lower cut-off dose. But this thread doesn't need to turn into a debate about ALCAR/ALA, as the issue has been discussed in several places. My point was you should at least single-check before claiming that a generally accepted concern is completely baseless.

The purpose of this spreadsheet (as I understand it) isn't to encourage people to use certain supplements by sweeping scary-sounding concerns (which are entirely circumventable in this case) under the carpet. If someone can't handle even a sentence of explanation about the pharmaceuticals they're taking, they shouldn't be selecting them from this list.

#28 Lallante

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 197 posts
  • 3

Posted 23 April 2010 - 04:03 PM

Sticky Please

#29 Lallante

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 197 posts
  • 3

Posted 23 April 2010 - 04:06 PM

There is currently a 'suppliers' column in the spreadsheet. I was hoping we could get some discussion about this:

I think we may see issues with competitors deleting each others links, or scams with fake companies using the sheet to advertise. I am not sure we should note suppliers.

What do others think?

sponsored ad

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

#30 polybi

  • Guest
  • 51 posts
  • 0

Posted 23 April 2010 - 04:10 PM

There is currently a 'suppliers' column in the spreadsheet. I was hoping we could get some discussion about this:

I think we may see issues with competitors deleting each others links, or scams with fake companies using the sheet to advertise. I am not sure we should note suppliers.

What do others think?


i agree, theres always going to be more than one supplier and would be arguments/ spamming over which to link too and it would be too cluttered to list every supplier




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users