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

Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Validity of Attack Dose/Loading Phase for Piracetam


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 chrono

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

Posted 26 August 2010 - 04:53 PM


When an IRL friend of mine recently started piracetam and told me they were doing an "attack dose," it occurred to me to wonder why this idea is so prevalently attached to piracetam usage.

I suspect the dubiously-researched Erowid Piracetam FAQ may have something to do with spreading this around:

Dosages form 400mg to 4800mg are considered safe. Some literature recommend an 'attack dose' in the range of 1600mg to 2400mg for the first few days to initiate a response in people seeking cognitive enhancing effects. Start with a normal dose like 800mg. It is likely that you will feel the effects at this level. Then try and attack dose if you feel it necessary.

Some individuals report that they could feel strong effects at 800mg on the first day. On subsequent days at the same dosage the effects were not as noticeable. It is unclear whether maximum benefits are obtained from daily use over time or if occasional use has benefits. If possible work with your doctor.


The only reference I could find in a brief pubmed/google scholar search was in this paper on electroshock therapy, in which 7.2g was used for two weeks before lowering to 4.8g. Obviously not the most applicable context, though the full paper might have an explanation, if someone has ready access.

I'd like to get to the bottom of this, as it comes up pretty frequently here. I'm wondering if there is any human or animal data with a comparison of loading vs. non-loading, that gave birth to this notion. I haven't got around to doing a review of piracetam literature yet; since there's already so much information about it here, it wouldn't be that useful to me. But maybe someone more familiar with the studies remembers something?

Edited by chrono, 26 August 2010 - 05:04 PM.

  • like x 2

#2 medievil

  • Guest Guest
  • 3,750 posts
  • 20
  • Location:Belguim

Posted 26 August 2010 - 04:56 PM

Good thread, i would say myself its just nonesense so some sources on this would be nice.

sponsored ad

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

#3 babcock

  • Guest
  • 299 posts
  • 73
  • Location:USA

Posted 26 August 2010 - 06:40 PM

To throw in my two cents, I definitely didn't notice a difference between when I was on the attack dose and when I was just dosing normally. Although I never really noticed much effect from less than a few grams (2-4g) for a dosage.

#4 kilgoretrout

  • Guest
  • 245 posts
  • 27
  • Location:Cincinnati, OH

Posted 26 August 2010 - 07:36 PM

I bet its more anecdotal than anything. People would try it at "standard" doses and not notice anything, Possibly because they did not really know what to expect. So after trying very large doses for a few days they would hypersaturate themselves with it and start noticing effects, and in effect train themselves for what sort of effects to look for at the normal dose.
  • like x 1

#5 chrono

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Moderator
  • 2,444 posts
  • 801
  • Location:New England

Posted 26 August 2010 - 07:50 PM

So after trying very large doses for a few days they would hypersaturate themselves with it and start noticing effects, and in effect train themselves for what sort of effects to look for at the normal dose.

The way you've phrased this makes a lot more sense to me than most explanations; that an attack dose isn't actually 'sensitizing' your receptors in some way, but a higher-than-necessary dose (which for me, seems to produce more subjective indications without much increase in cognitive benefits) gives you more confidence that something is happening, and makes the effects somewhat easier to discern.

Though I'm still wondering what 'literature' the erowid document is referring to; the formatting of their references is absolutely miserable, but maybe I'll work through them.

#6 kilgoretrout

  • Guest
  • 245 posts
  • 27
  • Location:Cincinnati, OH

Posted 26 August 2010 - 09:05 PM

Yea I use piracetam and other noots periodically, and first time on P. I followed the advice and thats what it seemed like to me was happening... more a NOTICING thing than anything else. Consistent with this, after stopping for a year I could restart without a new "loading" phase and feel it pretty much first dose, now knowing what to notice.

#7 recitative

  • Guest
  • 33 posts
  • 5

Posted 26 August 2010 - 09:25 PM

In 1990 Ward Dean and John Morgenthaler published a book called Smart Drugs and Nutrients. In case you're not familiar with it, it was a somewhat popular book at the time. I bought a copy just a few years after it came out.

On page 48 they wrote, "Some literature recommends a high 'attack' dose be taken for the first two days. We have noticed that often when people first take piracetam they do not notice any effect at all until they take a high dose (approximately 4,000 to 8,000 mg). Thereafter they may notice that a lower dosage is sufficient."

The end of the chapter has about two and a half pages of references but they do not say which reference, if any, mentions the 'attack' dose theory.

But, this tells us that the attack dose myth goes back at least as far as 1990 and that it did not originate on the web.
  • like x 2

#8 chrono

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Moderator
  • 2,444 posts
  • 801
  • Location:New England

Posted 26 August 2010 - 09:40 PM

^^ Very nice, and helpful in narrowing down the references.

That book is on my reference list, but I haven't been to any libraries that carry it, or had enough money to order it. Is it a good read?

#9 recitative

  • Guest
  • 33 posts
  • 5

Posted 26 August 2010 - 10:05 PM

^^ Very nice, and helpful in narrowing down the references.

That book is on my reference list, but I haven't been to any libraries that carry it, or had enough money to order it. Is it a good read?



I think it's worth it. When I read it, it was really the only source of information I could find. It was written for a popular audience, but it does list many references. If for no other reason, it is worth reading at least to see what was written about nootropics 20 years ago, as per this discussion. It is interesting to see what's in it and what's not.

#10 kilgoretrout

  • Guest
  • 245 posts
  • 27
  • Location:Cincinnati, OH

Posted 26 August 2010 - 11:28 PM

Yep, I read that when it first came out, and I'm sure that's how the "attack dose" for Piracetam became such undocumented Gospel.

#11 debu

  • Guest
  • 108 posts
  • 1

Posted 30 August 2010 - 04:08 AM

^^ Very nice, and helpful in narrowing down the references.

That book is on my reference list, but I haven't been to any libraries that carry it, or had enough money to order it. Is it a good read?


I read this book when it first came out, I was just entering high school and naively followed the protocol in it for a few months. Developed photophobia during those months and nearly 20 years later my eyes still aren't the same. I remember there being some VERY high recommendations.

I'd like to get my hands on it again now that I'm more knowledgeable about things.

#12 Temp

  • Guest
  • 34 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Earth

Posted 30 August 2010 - 10:38 AM

In 1990 Ward Dean and John Morgenthaler published a book called Smart Drugs and Nutrients. In case you're not familiar with it, it was a somewhat popular book at the time. I bought a copy just a few years after it came out.

On page 48 they wrote, "Some literature recommends a high 'attack' dose be taken for the first two days. We have noticed that often when people first take piracetam they do not notice any effect at all until they take a high dose (approximately 4,000 to 8,000 mg). Thereafter they may notice that a lower dosage is sufficient."

The end of the chapter has about two and a half pages of references but they do not say which reference, if any, mentions the 'attack' dose theory.

But, this tells us that the attack dose myth goes back at least as far as 1990 and that it did not originate on the web.

Yes the book is a great read. I read it back in 94. oh and holly shiat 1990 been 20 years ago!!!!

sponsored ad

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

#13 Pike

  • Guest
  • 517 posts
  • 6

Posted 31 August 2010 - 09:57 AM

there is no validity behind the statement.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users