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

Photo
- - - - -

Do "brain-enhancers" work?


  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#1 John Schloendorn

  • Guest, Advisor, Guardian
  • 2,542 posts
  • 157
  • Location:Mountain View, CA

Posted 05 April 2005 - 12:35 AM


Sorry if this is a newbish question, but I don't have much time to do my own literature research right now, so I guess it can't hurt to just ask:

If I was looking for bona fide experimental evidence that some pharmacological intervention can considerably improve cognitive task performance in healthy humans, to which study would you point me? Please provide a reference to the peer-reviewed literature or upload a pdf if you have one. Please do not post responses of the "it worked for me"-type here.

Thanks, John.

#2 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 05 April 2005 - 08:12 AM

I suggest the following threads by LifeMirage as a start. Try pubmed as well

http://www.imminst.o...ST&f=6&t=387&s=
http://www.imminst.o...ST&f=6&t=388&s=
http://www.imminst.o...ST&f=6&t=177&s=
http://www.imminst.o...ST&f=6&t=562&s=
http://www.imminst.o...T&f=6&t=2266&s=
http://www.imminst.o...ST&f=6&t=383&s=
http://www.imminst.o...ST&f=6&t=447&s=
http://www.imminst.o...ST&f=6&t=176&s=
http://www.imminst.o...ST&f=6&t=328&s=
http://www.imminst.o...ST&f=6&t=237&s=
http://www.imminst.o...ST&f=6&t=251&s=
http://www.imminst.o...ST&f=6&t=286&s=
http://www.imminst.o...ST&f=6&t=386&s=
http://www.imminst.o...ST&f=6&t=385&s=
http://www.imminst.o...ST&f=6&t=384&s=
http://www.imminst.o...T&f=6&t=3645&s=

sponsored ad

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

#3 John Schloendorn

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Advisor, Guardian
  • 2,542 posts
  • 157
  • Location:Mountain View, CA

Posted 05 April 2005 - 10:17 AM

Thanks, Elrond. The problem with many of these threads (all I read actually) is that the participants in the studies are either demented or animals, or both. That's why I was specifically asking for healthy (i.e. also young, with an average, efficient diet) humans like me.
I would run my own pubmed searches if my waking time was not absolutely stuffed with stem cell stuff and other research that hopefully helps more people than me. I was hoping that someone here with the right reference already in their head could save me some time and energy, by providing one or two distinct effects that are tailored to my situation.
But thanks for taking the time to put these together, I really appreciate that and it is already some help. I will go through them all, if more concise answers are not provided.

#4 Karomesis

  • Guest
  • 1,010 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Massachusetts, USA

Posted 05 April 2005 - 12:44 PM

john, I understand your quandry. My case is as follows; I am a very, very, healthy young male in my mid 20s who can communicate with extreme efficiency in the verbal sense, it was not always thus. I was not able to correlate my verbal and typed methods of communication prior to taking alpha lipoic acid/acetyl l carnitine and benfotiamine, which was only recently implemented. I know it is not a controlled study but I know it was effective for me, at least in the brain enhancement sense. [thumb]

#5 Mark Hamalainen

  • Guest
  • 564 posts
  • 0
  • Location:San Francisco Bay Area
  • NO

Posted 05 April 2005 - 07:11 PM

I am in the same predicament. There's such a massive pile of pseudo-science around supplements that its not worth my time to dig through the haystack looking for the needle of actual fact. I wouldn't hesitate to take something if I was convinced it would work...

#6 DJS

  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 05 April 2005 - 07:32 PM

My perspective on nootropics.

(1) Are they safe?

After question one is answered I have no problem with trying a particular nootropic and seeing if its works.

#7 wraith

  • Guest
  • 182 posts
  • 0

Posted 05 April 2005 - 08:52 PM

The book 'Brain Candy' summarizes the published literature. I borrowed a copy from the library.

I think the authors mention the "the participants in the studies are either demented or animals, or both." problem quite frequently. I can only conclude that for many nootropics (or supplements touted as having nootropic-like effects), there just aren't that many reliable published studies. The authors seem to 'approve' of piracetam and some of the others in that class.

#8 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 05 April 2005 - 09:37 PM

My perspective on nootropics.

(1)  Are they safe?

After question one is answered I have no problem with trying a particular nootropic and seeing if its works.


Well, the safty data for something like piractam is overwhelming, for others, not so. Some have had lots of studies, some haven't.

That's why I was specifically asking for healthy (i.e. also young, with an average, efficient diet) humans like me.


Now as far as bona fide placebo controlled studies done on healthy people. There are some. I've seen them. But they are by far the rarity. This kind of research just isn't done. Modern medicine is concerned with making sick people healthy. Not with making healthy people better.

#9 scottl

  • Guest
  • 2,177 posts
  • 2

Posted 06 April 2005 - 01:29 AM

Lifemirage just posted this on another thread:

Huperzine A In Healthy Young Adults


Zhongguo Yao Li Xue Bao. 1999 Jul;20(7):601-3.
Huperzine-A capsules enhance memory and learning performance in 34 pairs of matched adolescent students.

Sun QQ, Xu SS, Pan JL, Guo HM, Cao WQ. Xiaoshan Mental Hospital, Zhejiang, China.

AIM: To study the efficacy of huperzine-A capsules (Hup) on memory and learning performance of adolescent students. METHODS: Using double-blind and matched pair method, 34 pairs of junior middle school students complaining of memory inadequacy were divided into two groups by normal psychological health inventory (PHI), similar memory quotient (MQ), same sex and class. The Hup group was administrated orally 2 capsules of Hup (each contains Hup 50 micrograms) b.i.d., and the placebo group was given 2 capsules of placebo (starch and lactose inside) b.i.d. for 4 wk. RESULTS: At the end of trial, the Hup group's MQ (115 +/- 6) was more than that of the placebo group (104 +/- 9, P < 0.01), and the scores of Chinese language lesson in the Hup group were elevated markedly too. CONCLUSION: The Hup capsules enhance the memory and learning performance of adolescent students.



"This kind of research just isn't done. Modern medicine is concerned with making sick people healthy. Not with making healthy people better. "

This is one of the problems with conventional medicine and why I like e.g. traditional chnese medicine and tonics..

#10 chelovd

  • Guest
  • 44 posts
  • 0

Posted 06 April 2005 - 01:45 AM

Hi,

I was looking for serious studies on what you are looking for quite some time. The reality seems to be that there is not much for healthy humans. The lack of "experimental evidence" however does not negate the possibility that some work in improving cognitive task performance. Just as a double expresso in any given target population has not been documented half hour later, it does not mean there aren't any who are more awakened as a result of drinking it. Keep searching.
Good luck.

#11 velocidex

  • Guest
  • 75 posts
  • 2

Posted 06 April 2005 - 02:14 AM

Look at the range on those groups though. 115 +/- 6 and 104 +/ 9. The groups substantially overlap. There's been a significant improvement in a statistical sense, but I wonder how much that translates into clinical improvement....

#12

  • Lurker
  • 0

Posted 06 April 2005 - 02:51 AM

"This kind of research just isn't done. Modern medicine is concerned with making sick people healthy. Not with making healthy people better. "


That about sums it up. Even if such research was done in greater frequency, alot of doctors are not eager to make healthy people better either.

#13 LifeMirage

  • Life Member
  • 1,085 posts
  • 3

Posted 06 April 2005 - 03:21 AM

Smart Drugs In Young Healthy People & Healthy Adults


Vasopressin In Memory & Learning

Peptides 1995;16(2):179-86
Effect of acute and chronic treatment with desglycinamide-[Arg8]vasopressin in young male and female volunteers.


Bruins J, Hijman R, Van Ree JM. Department of Pharmacology, Rudolf Magnus Institute, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

A single dose of DGAVP (2 mg) and a chronic treatment of 2 weeks (1 mg/day) were given to male and female volunteers by the intranasal route. Memory, mood, vigilance, and attention were tested starting 60 min after treatment. Initial storage of abstract words was improved in the males but not in the females after chronic treatment with DGAVP. This effect persisted after discontinuation of treatment. Initial storage and learning of concrete words were not affected by treatment with DGAVP. Chronic, but not acute, treatment with DGAVP reduced the reaction time for scanning of digits in a memory comparison task (Sternberg paradigm) in both sexes. No treatment effects were found for visual memory, vigilance, attention, mood, or blood pressure. The present study indicates a sexual dimorphism in the effect of DGAVP on certain memory processes.

Peptides 1992 May-Jun;13(3):461-8
Effect of a single dose of des-glycinamide-[Arg8]vasopressin or oxytocin on cognitive processes in young healthy subjects.


Bruins J, Hijman R, Van Ree JM. Department of Psychiatry, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

A single dose of des-glycinamide-[Arg8]vasopressin (DGAVP, 2 mg intranasal) or oxytocin (OXT, 20 IU intranasal) was given to female and male volunteers, respectively, in a placebo-controlled double-blind trial. Memory, vigilance, attention, and mood were tested starting 10 minutes after treatment. The DGAVP dose improved delayed recognition of abstract words when measured 1 week after treatment and reduced the intercept of a memory comparison task (Sternberg paradigm). A trend was present for DGAVP and OXT to affect learning, i.e., storage processes of verbal memory in an opposite way; DGAVP improved, while OXT attenuated initial storage and the rate of storage. No treatment effects on visual memory and vigilance were found. Of the mood measures, vigor was reduced immediately after treatment with OXT.

Neuropsychobiology 1990;23(2):82-8
Influence of desglycinamide-(arg8) vasopressin on memory in healthy subjects.


Bruins J, Kumar A, Schneider-Helmert D. Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

In 12 healthy student volunteers the influence on memory, attention and mood of a single dose of 2 mg of the vasopressin analog, desglycinamide-(arg8) vasopressin (DGAVP), given by the nasal route was investigated. On day 1 all subjects received placebo (single-blind), 1 week later they were given either DGAVP or placebo (double-blind). Memory effects were measured with the Buschke restrictive reminding method. DGAVP significantly improved storage processes, with retrieval processes less affected. Attention and mood processes were not influenced. It is suggested that DGAVP has an influence on memory processes.

Peptides 1988 Nov-Dec;9(6):1361-6
Effects of DGAVP on verbal memory.


Pietrowsky R, Fehm-Wolfsdorf G, Born J, Fehm HL. Angewandte Physiologie and Innere Medizin I, Universitat Ulm, FRG.

Effects of DGAVP (desglycinamide-arginine-vasopressin, a synthetic vasopressin analog) on verbal memory were investigated in 13 healthy male volunteers. Ten word lists, each consisting of 15 words, were presented to the subjects who had to recall them according to a free recall paradigm. The total number of recalled words was not different between DGAVP and placebo treatment; but DGAVP had an effect on memory performance depending on the serial position of the words. It attenuated the primacy effect and enhanced the recency effect of memory performance. The pattern of changes after DGAVP may be consistent with an effect of the peptide on general arousal. Since the experiment was not designed to test influences of DGAVP on arousal, these considerations remain tentative.

Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1987;92(2):224-8
Does DGAVP influence memory, attention and mood in young healthy men?


Snel J, Taylor J, Wegman M.

The influence of an increasing dose of the vasopressin-like peptide DGAVP (desglycinamide-arginine-vasopressin) on memory was investigated in 2 groups of 10 healthy male volunteers to provide information about the hypothesis of improvement of memory by vasopressin. At the same time we evaluated the effect of DGAVP on mood, alertness or sleepiness in a double-blind placebo-control design. The treatment group received at 9.15 a.m. intranasally a daily increasing dose from 0.1 mg at day 1 to 10.0 mg at day 5. DGAVP did not significantly affect any measure of memory or alertness. DGAVP did, however, produce a significant increase in concentration level and mood. The results of the present study provide no support for the vasopressin theory of memory improvement; rather, the results direct the attention-to-attention modulating effects.

Peptides 1984 Jul-Aug;5(4):819-22
Vasopressin analog (DDAVP) improves memory in human males.


Beckwith BE, Till RE, Schneider V.

One specific analog of arginine vasopressin, 1-desamine-8-D-arginine vasopressin (DDAVP), has been shown to improve learning and memory in humans. Healthy young male adult subjects treated with DDAVP demonstrated better memory for implicational sentences than did control subjects. The same treatment had no influence on women given the same memory task. These results suggest that DDAVP may have a sexually dimorphic effect on learning and memory.

Huperzine A In Healthy Young Adults


Zhongguo Yao Li Xue Bao. 1999 Jul;20(7):601-3.
Huperzine-A capsules enhance memory and learning performance in 34 pairs of matched adolescent students.


Sun QQ, Xu SS, Pan JL, Guo HM, Cao WQ. Xiaoshan Mental Hospital, Zhejiang, China.

AIM: To study the efficacy of huperzine-A capsules (Hup) on memory and learning performance of adolescent students. METHODS: Using double-blind and matched pair method, 34 pairs of junior middle school students complaining of memory inadequacy were divided into two groups by normal psychological health inventory (PHI), similar memory quotient (MQ), same sex and class. The Hup group was administrated orally 2 capsules of Hup (each contains Hup 50 micrograms) b.i.d., and the placebo group was given 2 capsules of placebo (starch and lactose inside) b.i.d. for 4 wk. RESULTS: At the end of trial, the Hup group's MQ (115 +/- 6) was more than that of the placebo group (104 +/- 9, P < 0.01), and the scores of Chinese language lesson in the Hup group were elevated markedly too. CONCLUSION: The Hup capsules enhance the memory and learning performance of adolescent students.

Vinpocetine In Healthy People

Drug Develop Res 1988; 14: 191-3
Possible Memory-Enhancing Properties of Vinpocetine


Donna M. Coleston and Ian Hindrnarch - Human Psychopharmacology Research Unit, Department of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds, England.

Critical flicker fusion threshold, choice reaction time, total reaction time, and Sternberg-type memory tasks of digits/words were measured in 12 volunteers after having received vinpocetine or placebo for 2 days. A significant improvement was recorded in the short-term memory test following 40 mg of the drug when compared to placebo.

Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1985;28(5):567-71
Psychopharmacological effects of vinpocetine in normal healthy volunteers.


Subhan Z, Hindmarch I

12 healthy female volunteers received pre-treatments with vinpocetine 10, 20, 40 mg and placebo (t.d.s.) for 2 days according to a randomized, double-blind crossover design. On the third day of treatment and 1 h following morning dosage, subjects completed a battery of psychological tests including Critical Flicker Fusion (CFF), Choice Reaction Time (CRT), Subjective Ratings of Drug Effects (LARS) and a Sternberg Memory Scanning Test. No statistically significant changes from placebo were observed on CFF, CRT or subjective ratings of drug effects. However, memory as assessed using the Sternberg technique was found to be significantly improved following treatment with vinpocetine 40 mg when compared to placebo and results suggested a localized effect of the drug on the serial comparison stage of the reaction process.

Glycine In Healthy Young Adults

J Clin Psychopharmacol 1999 Dec;19(6):506-12
Beneficial effects of glycine (bioglycin) on memory and attention in young and middle-aged adults.


File SE, Fluck E, Fernandes C. Psychopharmacology Research Unit, United Medical and Dental Schools of Guy's and St Thomas' Hospitals, Guy's Hospital, London, United Kingdom.

The N-methyl D-aspartate receptor complex is involved in the mechanism of long-term potentiation, which is thought to be the biological basis of learning and memory. This complex can be manipulated in a number of ways, one of which is through the strychnine-insensitive glycine receptor coagonist site. The effects of Bioglycin (Konapharma, Pratteln, Switzerland), a biologically active form of the amino acid glycine, were therefore studied in healthy students (mean age, 20.7 years) and middle-aged men (mean age, 58.9 years) with tests that measured attention, memory and mood, using a double-blind, randomized, crossover design. Compared with the young group, the middle-aged group had significantly poorer verbal episodic memory, focused, divided, and sustained attention; they also differed in their subjective responses at the end of testing. Bioglycin significantly improved retrieval from episodic memory in both the young and the middle-aged groups, but it did not affect focused or divided attention. However, the middle-aged men significantly benefited from Bioglycin in the sustained-attention task. The effects of Bioglycin differed from those of other cognitive enhancers in that it was without stimulant properties or significant effects on mood, and it primarily improved memory rather than attention. It is likely to be of benefit in young or older people in situations where high retrieval of information is needed or when performance is impaired by jet lag, shift work, or disrupted sleep. It may also benefit the impaired retrieval shown in patients with schizophrenia, Parkinson's disease, and Huntington's disease.

Piracetam In Healthy People

Clin Neurophysiol 2001 Feb;112(2):275-9
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.

Int J Psychophysiol 1999 Oct;34(1):81-7
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.

Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1993 Mar;86(3):193-8
Global dimensional complexity of multi-channel EEG indicates change of human brain functional state after a single dose of a nootropic drug.


Wackermann J, Lehmann D, Dvorak I, Michel CM. Department of Neurology, University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland.

Viewing the multi-channel EEG as a sequence of momentary field maps corresponds to the concept of a trajectory in K-dimensional state space (K = number of channels). This approach permits a quantitative, single value measure of complexity of the brain state trajectory, the global correlation dimension that describes the ensemble characteristics of all recorded channels. In 5 normal volunteers, 4 records of 16-channel resting EEG were obtained during each of 4 randomized sessions (double blind design) after a single dose of placebo or 2.9 g or 4.8 g or 9.6 g piracetam. The global correlation dimension of a 40 sec epoch from each record was estimated, using 50 computational runs with 8192 point pairs. The results were combined for the two intermediate doses and averaged over repeated records. The dimensionality decreased from placebo (median = 5.89) to low dose (median = 5.72) to high dose (median = 5.59), significant in a Friedman ANOVA at P < 0.02, with significant differences between placebo vs. high and low vs. high dose. Thus, the subtle change of brain global functional state after a single dose of piracetam is reflected by the non-linear measure of global dimensional complexity of the multi-channel EEG.

Neuropsychobiology 1993;28(4):212-21
Single doses of piracetam affect 42-channel event-related potential microstate maps in a cognitive paradigm.


Michel CM, Lehmann D. Department of Neurology, University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland.

We examined whether a single administration of piracetam produces dose-dependent effects on brain functions in healthy young men. In 6 subjects, 42-channel event-related EEG potential maps (ERP) were recorded during a task requiring subjects to watch single digits presented in a pseudorandom order on a screen and to press a button after all triplets of three consecutive odd or even digits. The ERP maps to the three digits of the correctly detected triplets were analyzed in terms of their mapped ERP field configuration (landscape). Different landscapes of the maps indicate different configuration of the activated neural population and therefore reflect different functional microstates of the brain. In order to identify these microstates, adaptive segmentation of the map series based on their landscapes was done. Nineteen time segments were found. These segments were tested for direct effects on brain function of three single doses of piracetam (2.9, 4.8 or 9.6 g) and a placebo given double-blind in balanced order. Piracetam mainly affected the map landscape of the time segments following the triplet's last digit. U-shaped dose-dependent effects were found; they were strongest after 4.8 g piracetam. Since these particular ERP segments are recognized to be strongly correlated to cognitive functions, the present findings suggest that single medium doses of piracetam selectively activate differently located or oriented neurons during cognitive steps of information processing.

Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1976 Sep 29;49(3):307-9
Increase in the power of human memory in normal man through the use of drugs.


Dimond SJ, Brouwers EM.

Nootropyl (Piracetam) a drug reported to facilitate learning in animals was tested for its effect on man by administering it to normal volunteers. The subjects were given 3x4 capsules at 400 mg per day, in a double blind study. Each subject learned series of words presented as stimuli upon a memory drum. No effects were observed after 7 days but after 14 days verbal learning had significantly increased.

Acta Psychiatr Scand 1976 Aug;54(2):150-60
Piracetam-induced improvement of mental performance. A controlled study on normally aging individuals.


Mindus P, Cronholm B, Levander SE, Schalling D.

A double-blind, intra-individual cross-over comparison of the mental performance of 18 aging, non-deteriorated individuals during two 4-week periods of piracetam (1-acetamide-2-pyrrolidone) and placebo administration was performed using conventional and computerized perceptual-motor tasks. In a majority of these tasks the subjects did significantly better when on piracetam than on placebo, a finding consistent with ratings completed by two independent observers. The findings indicate new avenues for the treatment of individuals with reduced mental performance possibly related to disturbed alertness--a neglected group of psychiatric conditions.

Pyritinol In Healthy People

Neuropsychobiology 1990-91;24(3):159-64
Psychopharmacological effects of pyritinol in normal volunteers.


Hindmarch I, Coleston DM, Kerr JS. HPRU, Robens Institute, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.

12 healthy male volunteers received pyritinol 600 or 1,200 mg or placebo for 3 days according to a randomised, double-blind crossover design. On the 1st and 3rd days of each of the 3 treatment periods subjects completed a battery of psychological tests including Critical Flicker Fusion (CFFT), Choice Reaction Time (CRT), tests of memory and subjective drug effects at 1, 2, 4 and 6 h after dosing. Significant improvements in CFFT and CRT were found after pyritinol. There were no significant differences on the other tests; however, the observed enhancement in performance could be attributed to the effect of the drug.

#14 John Schloendorn

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Advisor, Guardian
  • 2,542 posts
  • 157
  • Location:Mountain View, CA

Posted 08 April 2005 - 02:35 AM

Many thanks, LifeMirage, that looks like the info I was after. Also thanks to the others for their comments.

#15 John Schloendorn

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Advisor, Guardian
  • 2,542 posts
  • 157
  • Location:Mountain View, CA

Posted 17 April 2005 - 05:53 AM

Ok, I think it's time to get back to a discussion. So, in my opinion the piracetam class of substances seems to be interesting. However, the application in healthy subjects remains highly experimental and safety issues remain inconclusive.
In particular, in all these studies, the effect remains limited to a varying subset of behavioural tests. In this subset, confidence levels remain low (close to the 5% level) and there is no way to estimate the amount of unpublished negative data.
Phase 2 and 3 equivalent studies are urgently needed. I would guess no one was yet ready to invest in them due to fear of commercial inviability.

What do you think?

#16 LifeMirage

  • Life Member
  • 1,085 posts
  • 3

Posted 17 April 2005 - 06:51 AM

Ok, I think it's time to get back to a discussion. So, in my opinion the piracetam class of substances seems to be interesting. However, the application in healthy subjects remains highly experimental and safety issues remain inconclusive.
In particular, in all these studies, the effect remains limited to a varying subset of behavioural tests. In this subset, confidence levels remain low (close to the 5% level) and there is no way to estimate the amount of unpublished negative data.
Phase 2 and 3 equivalent studies are urgently needed. I would guess no one was yet ready to invest in them due to fear of commercial inviability.

What do you think?


For a drug thats been around for 30 years in over 1,000 studies I would not call it experimental or unsafe. Studies of those in disease or disorders states are not so different that all the data gained is meanless in healthy humans.

There is also no way to ascertain the unpublished positive data. But based on the overwhelming positive studies, as far as indicating no serious side effects, I feel confident taking it.

I plan to start clinical trials as soon as next year.

You mention Phase 2 and 3 studies which are done to determine the effectness of a drug for FDA approval, is that what you meant? As it has been in phase 2 & 3 around the world for various uses, I assume to are referring to studies for mental enhancement, perhaps for MCI it may be approved...but its patent has long expired.

No one will invest any money in a drug that can not make them money. It is a sad fact with rare exception
.

#17 John Schloendorn

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Advisor, Guardian
  • 2,542 posts
  • 157
  • Location:Mountain View, CA

Posted 17 April 2005 - 07:51 AM

Yes, I'm not questioning the utility for specific diseases. But surely I would not recommend anyone a medical intervention when they do not suffer the condition that it is supposed to solve, even if it is safe for those who do suffer the condition in comparison to not taking it. When I say safety is inconclusive that means of course for healthy persons.
The type of study I am missing is indeed similar to what is used by many administrations around the world to determine the safety and efficacy of medical treatments - multi centered trials that involve thorough examinations of hundreds to thousands of ordinary people from diverse backgrounds and attitudes towards the therapy.
I hope you can get nootropics closer to this level of acceptability. Good luck.

#18 LifeMirage

  • Life Member
  • 1,085 posts
  • 3

Posted 17 April 2005 - 08:08 AM

Yes, I'm not questioning the utility for specific diseases. But surely I would not recommend anyone a medical intervention when they do not suffer the condition that it is supposed to solve, even if it is safe for those who do suffer the condition in comparison to not taking it. When I say safety is inconclusive that means of course for healthy persons.


Based on what reasoning? Aside from few slight biochemical changes between a healthy people and someone with a "health condition" you think Piracetam would be toxic or have side effects? I would completely disagree. Piracetam passed intensive testing on animals & healthy humans before any unhealthy person took it. Even kids with dyslexia have taken it. Studies have used up to 45,000 mg daily with no problems.


The type of study I am missing is indeed similar to what is used by many administrations around the world to determine the safety and efficacy of medical treatments - multi centered trials that involve thorough examinations of hundreds to thousands of ordinary people from diverse backgrounds and attitudes towards the therapy.

That is never going to happen with any compound. You should consider a far more realistic outcome.


I hope you can get nootropics closer to this level of acceptability. Good luck.

No need or interest to. If that is what it will take for you to consider using nootropics then good luck


Side Note: I have taken Piracetam (and several other nootropics) for over 10 years with regular blood testing as well as other types of testing. I have given Piracetam to over 5,000 people personally and have never had a problem. I don't require Phase 3 studies on my food, water, air, well researched dietary supplements or drugs to know they are safe enough..but thats just me.

Edited by LifeMirage, 17 April 2005 - 08:26 AM.


#19 John Schloendorn

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Advisor, Guardian
  • 2,542 posts
  • 157
  • Location:Mountain View, CA

Posted 17 April 2005 - 09:50 AM

you think Piracetam would be toxic or have side effects?

No. That's what I expect and hope your trials on healthy humans are going to confirm.

Piracetam passed intensive testing on animals & healthy humans before any unhealthy person took it.

If these are the studies you cited -- OK, nothing new here.

I don't require Phase 3 studies on my food, water, air, well researched dietary supplements or drugs to know they are safe enough..but thats just me.

I've seen that by now. Fair enough.

That is never going to happen with any compound.

Not with any "brain-enhancer", not anytime soon. That's sad but I agree.

I hope you can get nootropics closer to this level of acceptability.
-- No need or interest to.

What, not even closer to? Where on earth would you get them then ;-)

#20 LifeMirage

  • Life Member
  • 1,085 posts
  • 3

Posted 18 April 2005 - 02:05 AM

The type of study I am missing is indeed similar to what is used by many administrations around the world to determine the safety and efficacy of medical treatments - multi centered trials that involve thorough examinations of hundreds to thousands of ordinary people from diverse backgrounds and attitudes towards the therapy.
you think Piracetam would be toxic or have side effects?

No. That's what I expect and hope your trials on healthy humans are going to confirm.


Yes, but I have no interest or the funds to have more than a 1,000 people studied (this would cost well over a million). 100-500 is more than enough in my opinion.


Piracetam passed intensive testing on animals & healthy humans before any unhealthy person took it.

If these are the studies you cited -- OK, nothing new here.


No all nootropics went through intensive testing to be approved by countries, which all of them are. As you apparently don't know most companies do not publish their phase 1 & 2 studies on healthy people, what would be the point for them to do so? You do know these are approved drugs in other countries and they have conducted far more studies that not available in the US?


I hope you can get nootropics closer to this level of acceptability.
-- No need or interest to.

What, not even closer to? Where on earth would you get them then ;-)


I am not out to convince the world to take nootropics. If you are interested and believe the research is sufficient then you will take it and try it for yourself. That’s what people currently do. But no matter how big or large a study I do the FDA will never approve or accept nootropics for healthy people and I doubt most Americans will take them because they believe what the FDA and their doctors say. The purpose of my research is to well establish the effects of several nootropics on cognition. So we have a better understanding of all of their effects, interactions, and what combinations are truly most effective.

#21 FunkOdyssey

  • Guest
  • 3,443 posts
  • 166
  • Location:Manchester, CT USA

Posted 31 December 2005 - 07:26 AM

So you show us a study that reports oxytocin has a negative effect on memory and reduces vigor, and then offer to sell it? Or did I miss something here? lol...

#22 xanadu

  • Guest
  • 1,917 posts
  • 8

Posted 31 December 2005 - 06:42 PM

Just another spambot here to peddle junk.

#23 doug123

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

Posted 28 August 2006 - 02:30 AM

Sorry if this is a newbish question, but I don't have much time to do my own literature research right now, so I guess it can't hurt to just ask:

If I was looking for bona fide experimental evidence that some pharmacological intervention can considerably improve cognitive task performance in healthy humans, to which study would you point me? Please provide a reference to the peer-reviewed literature or upload a pdf if you have one. Please do not post responses of the "it worked for me"-type here.

Thanks, John.


John, I felt a need to reply to this topic as I feel your question was not answered by anyone.

First, I will point out what opales picked from the following peer review by J. M. Keppel Hesselink: From the Department of Pharmacology, University of Witten/Herdecke, Germany. Corresponding author: Jan M.Keppel Hesselink, MD, PhD, Professor of Pharmacology:

From here: http://www.gjpsy.uni...icle-keppel.htm

drugs using modern, validated neuropsychological test batteries. The studies referred to on the Net by the smart drug advocates are mostly published in non peer-reviewed, obscure journals and in proceedings of congresses. The facts presented in those papers are over-interpreted by the advocates of smart drugs. Furthermore facts to support their use in man have been extrapolated from animal pharmacology without too much knowledge of the problems of many of the animal models used.


What we do know about the efficacy of cognitive enhancers (at least this point in time, based on scientific evidence) is addressed in the following posts:

Danila Medvedev on cognitive enhancement, practical approach
http://www.imminst.o...=0

Anders Sandberg on cognitive enhancement, social impact and current state etc. (Sandberg holds a PhD in neuroscience)
http://www.imminst.o...=169&t=12091&s=

Nick Boström on cognitive enhancement, webcast presentation at the Oxford conf.
http://streaming.oii...6/16032006-1.rm

#24 Ghostrider

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

Posted 29 August 2006 - 05:58 AM

When there is a substance that significantly (and in a healthy way) boosts mental productivity beyond placebo effect, trust me, you will know about it. It will be advertised on television and maybe even sold in coffee shops around the country. Neuroscientists will proclaim it and it will replace coffee in businesses around the country. Microsoft will offer it for free to its employees. Students at MIT and Harvard will be pawning in their valuables to afford an even better life down the road. So realize what I should have realized several months ago, when something significantly beneficial comes along, you will know about it. You won't even have to search for it.

#25 xanadu

  • Guest
  • 1,917 posts
  • 8

Posted 29 August 2006 - 08:35 PM

Ghost, that is a simplistic view of things. We know that resveratrol and many antioxidants improve health. Do you see resveratrol being touted in all the media? I don't. The medical establishment is extremely conservative. If you sit back and expect the people in authority to tell you the best things to do, you will miss out on a lot. Another example is glucosamine/chondroitin for arthritis. Doctors rarely if ever recommend it to their patients yet if the patient asks about it, turns out they know all about the stuff. There is no profit for doctors to recommend an over the counter substance. No office visit, no prescription, nothing. Likewise, there is no profit in piracetam or resveratrol.

#26 John Schloendorn

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Advisor, Guardian
  • 2,542 posts
  • 157
  • Location:Mountain View, CA

Posted 29 August 2006 - 09:07 PM

Thanks Adam, from what I learned in this thread, I would agree.

trust me, you will know about it.

Likely, but I think it is not certain, for something roughly like Xanadu's reasons. Most, but not all good things are widely known.

We know that resveratrol and many antioxidants improve health

How do we know?

Resveratrol -- can you please cite evidence of the type I initially requested for brain enhancers?
"Many antioxidants" -- there appears to be some evidence to the contrary.

#27 Ghostrider

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

Posted 30 August 2006 - 12:20 AM

Many people I know eat foods with antioxidants such as blueberries, tea and coffee because it seems likely that antioxidants are anti-aging and some mass media does promote such use. Examples of sources are health magazines as well as sources such as CNN Health.

Resveratrol I have not heard of, I'll look into it.

I would agree that the majority of people might not be completely interested in life extension, but only due to competing factors. Researching a healthy lifestyle, learning, and exercise often lose out to watching the next episode of American Idol. But I think cognitive enhancement is a bit different. Students and professionals under pressure really are interested in those substances which can improve their cognition in a healthy manner. If there is some substance which can reliably produce a 25% increase in effective mental productivity, I think there will be a lot of people who embrace it. At which point, it will get the attention of mass media and you will know about it. :-)

#28 opales

  • Guest
  • 892 posts
  • 15
  • Location:Espoo, Finland

Posted 30 August 2006 - 08:13 AM

Ghost, that is a simplistic view of things. We know that resveratrol and many antioxidants improve health. Do you see resveratrol being touted in all the media? I don't. The medical establishment is extremely conservative. If you sit back and expect the people in authority to tell you the best things to do, you will miss out on a lot. Another example is glucosamine/chondroitin for arthritis. Doctors rarely if ever recommend it to their patients yet if the patient asks about it, turns out they know all about the stuff. There is no profit for doctors to recommend an over the counter substance. No office visit, no prescription, nothing. Likewise, there is no profit in piracetam or resveratrol.


No legitimate scientist "knows" antioxidants or reseveratrol or glucosamine improve health (except in few specific conditions in case of antioxidants, most likely though unrelated to their antioxidant capcity). It is internet pseudoscientists like you that claim such things with such confidence. Unlike you say, resveratrol has been completely overhyped compared to actual results, mostly based on wild speculations about the role of sirt pathway activation in humans and in CR response in general. Yes there are some preliminary results that may be cause for optimism (most notably few simple animal model life extension results), but it is still too early. There is no certainty how much of wine's health benefits are due reseveratrol if any, most of it probably comes from alcohol but other phytochemicals may also play a role. Antioxidants especially have been rather disappointing as John pointed out. Here is a good take on glucosamine (save the anti-quackwatch rants for someone who cares)
http://www.quackwatc...lucosamine.html

I admit though that medical establishment and practisioners are perhaps too conservative in giving recommendations, that in some cases the potential risks aside from costs are so hypothetical that taking the substance would be a bet with clearly positive expected value given available information. I can't really say whether or not this is the case with reseveratrol, glucosamine and especially antioxidants though.

To the original topic, I think Ghostriders heuristic is closer to truth than most nootropics enthusiasts completely uncritical heuristics, however, I think there are reasons to be somewhat more optimistic. The problem I see with making widespread cognitive enhancement recommendations, in addition to obvious regulatory, economic etc. hurdles, is that we can't yet say that we have a substance that definitely raises at least some cognitive abilities and absolutely does not hinder any other (and is safe in long term), at least in most people. Currently existing most effective substances probably do improve some aspects, but either are *known to hinder* or *have not been really tested enough to know how they affect* other aspects of cognition. The latter explanation is IMO applicaple to for example Piracetam due few reasons (like outdated cognitive models), something you xanadu completely failed to understand even after my explicit clarification:
http://www.imminst.o...=0
http://www.imminst.o...=0

That does not mean these substances can't be even extremely useful for some people in some situations. Again as an example, Ritalin improves focus especially in "compromised but otherwise healthy subjects" but reduces divergent thinking (or something like that), I can think of many situations and some people where this would be a completely acceptable tradeoff. But I would not like goverment making a recommendation that everyone start popping Ritalin on a regular basis (even if there were not known health issues involved), we might end up with a great collective loss in creativity. I know, modanifil seems rather promising in that it improves focus without known significant tradeoffs, but I am personally still "optimistic but skeptical" about it, especially in long term use. It seems a rather good bet though if you are sleep deprived, and many people are so large fraction of their time.

The only intervention that I am almost certain to improve cognitive abilities accross the board with minimal trade offs is improving health due anally healthy diet, exercise and life management. I think this is something where probably 99% of people, including many ImmInsters, have quite a lot of room for improvement. My personal experience (warning, anecdotal evidence coming up) has been that these effects can be quite drastic, especially in form of raised mental energy, mood and concentration but even in better memory and processing capabality (all of these are subjective impressions). In addition there are host of other indirect but possibly significant benefits such as improved appearance which can be a *very important* catalyst in social interactions, and thus reducing the investment needed in such activities (freeing them for use in anyway the individual chooses, like making senescence neglible).

Other existing clearly win-win cognitive enhancement strategies are probably not related to improving "intrinsic hardware" (brain function). Danila, Anders and Nick have made some good summaries of these too (see links in previous (and every other [lol]) nootropikamil post).

#29 xanadu

  • Guest
  • 1,917 posts
  • 8

Posted 01 September 2006 - 12:07 AM

opales, thanks for the daily dose of negativity. Despite what you say, there has been lots of evidence for resveratrol, antioxidants in general and many polyphenols found in grapes and wine. Do a search on this site and you will find tons of stuff referrenced. I am not going to rehash it all here. opales, I recall a while back that you asked me for evidence to support something I said and in that same forum there were several threads with all the info you asked for and they were current. Funny how you can never find it. Glucosamine/chond has proven itself for decades. Sales of those products are growing by leaps and bounds. I guess according to you, it's all in their head and someone conned them into buying it... and buying it and buying it. Hey, if it works, people don't care if it's all in their head. The benefits of the so called mediteranean diet have been proven over and over yet you still cast negativity on that. About the only drug you seem to approve of is alcohol.

Lots of evidence has been presented in these health forums. Have you anything to counter that with?

sponsored ad

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

#30 Ghostrider

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

Posted 01 September 2006 - 04:32 AM

The reason I have lost most of my confidence in nootropics is that science can only account at a very high level or even not at all about what produces the "nootropic" effect. How does two of our most popular substances on this forum: modafinil and piracetam cause cognitive improvement? Who knows, there are only unproven theories. How did some people stumble upon this stuff? Purely by experimentation. We are in a very primitive age regarding nootropic "technology". I do believe that there are much better nootropics to come and someday there will be a better "coffee" or a safer "alcohol" with a better affect. We are not there yet. And we will not arrive until science has a better understanding of how the mind works.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users