4019 replies to this topic

[sunshinefrost]

It's clear that your mitos are enhanced! Your posts take longer to read than any other thread. Lol !

[lostfalco]

It's clear that your mitos are enhanced! Your posts take longer to read than any other thread. Lol !

haha I'm sorry man. This is NZT. I never get tired and I have access to every facet of my brain. I honestly don't know what to do with myself. I really hope my brain doesn't explode in 6 months.

[lostfalco]

Not to brow beat you guys with study after study...but there is decent evidence (not certainty) that one reason that exercise is such a panacea is that it builds mitochondria. That's part of the explanation as to why it helps so many people with depression, neurological dysfunction, etc.

http://well.blogs.ny...the-brain/?_r=0

"This is the first report to show that, in mice at least, two months of exercise training “is sufficient stimulus to increase mitochondrial biogenesis,” Dr. Davis and his co-authors write in the study."

"Of course, this experiment was conducted with animals, and “mouse brains are not human brains,” Dr. Davis says. “But,” he continues, “since mitochondrial biogenesis has been shown to occur in human muscles, just as it does in animal muscles, it is a reasonable supposition that it occurs in human brains.”

Edited by lostfalco, 19 August 2013 - 04:32 PM.

[Nattzor]

Not to brow beat you guys with study after study...but there is decent evidence (not certainty) that the reason that exercise is such a panacea is that it builds mitochondria. That's why it helps so many people with depression, neurological dysfunction, etc.

http://well.blogs.ny...the-brain/?_r=0

"This is the first report to show that, in mice at least, two months of exercise training “is sufficient stimulus to increase mitochondrial biogenesis,” Dr. Davis and his co-authors write in the study."

I kinda think you're starting to over-play the role of the mitochondria now. :P Exercise has so many more benefits (BDNF-increase (atleast if you don't train in polluted areas), endorphin release, etc) which probably plays bigger roles for depression and such.

[lostfalco]

Not to brow beat you guys with study after study...but there is decent evidence (not certainty) that the reason that exercise is such a panacea is that it builds mitochondria. That's why it helps so many people with depression, neurological dysfunction, etc.

http://well.blogs.ny...the-brain/?_r=0

"This is the first report to show that, in mice at least, two months of exercise training “is sufficient stimulus to increase mitochondrial biogenesis,” Dr. Davis and his co-authors write in the study."

I kinda think you're starting to over-play the role of the mitochondria now. :P Exercise has so many more benefits (BDNF-increase (atleast if you don't train in polluted areas), endorphin release, etc) which probably plays bigger roles for depression and such.

Excellent point! I'll edit my post to read 'one' reason instead of 'the' reason and also add 'part of the explanation'. Exercise does have many more benefits. I overplayed/overstated. Agreed. =)

Edited by lostfalco, 19 August 2013 - 05:00 PM.

[NFP]

Just bought a vetrolaser for 400 on ebay! Im anxiously waiting for it to arrive.. So what exactly should I do when I have it in hand? Point it to my head and shoot?

[lostfalco]

Just bought a vetrolaser for 400 on ebay! Im anxiously waiting for it to arrive.. So what exactly should I do when I have it in hand? Point it to my head and shoot?

Hey NFP, that's very cool. The Vetro is excellent and will totally work.

With that said however, I would suggest canceling the order if you can. The two LED arrays that I mentioned are much cheaper and seem to work pretty damn well (in my experience, at least). You could use the extra funds to purchase supplements.

If you can't cancel it, then no worries. It'll still be great. Just a friendly suggestion. =)

[NFP]

Thanks for the quick response and suggestion lostfalco.. The buyer clearly stated there are no returns on the laser so looks like im stuck with it! Its fine though, as long as it works its totally worth it to me.

[sunshinefrost]

Someone way talking about alzheimers earlier today. Maybe LLLT has something to do with "degummung" some neurons. Check this new study;

Study suggests that gummed-up synapses -- not plaque -- may be at the root of aging brain diseases

TUESDAY, Aug. 13 (HealthDay News) -- A protein that accumulates in healthy aging brains could prove to be the culprit behind the natural forgetfulness that comes with growing old as well as advanced neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's, according to a new study.

The protein, known as C1q, accumulates on the brain's synapses as people age, potentially gumming up the works, said Dr. Ben Barres, professor and chair of neurobiology at the Stanford University School of Medicine and senior author of the study, published Aug. 14 in the Journal of Neuroscience.

A post-mortem review of mouse and human brains found that the amount of C1q in the brain increases as much as 300-fold with aging.

By comparing brain tissue from mice of varying ages as well as postmortem samples from a 2-month-old infant and an older person, the researchers found that the growing C1q deposits weren't randomly distributed along nerve cells.

Instead, they heavily concentrate at synapses (the junctions between nerve cells), where they could hamper the conduction of electrical and chemical signals in the brain.

"Synapses are not being lost," Barres said. "However, we see the synapses aren't working so good with all that C1q stuck to them. It's detrimental."

But C1q is known to play an important part in the developing brain during childhood, and Barres suspects that this function could lead the protein to attack the synapses if triggered. Such an attack could be the cause of Alzheimer's disease and other neurodegenerative disorders.

This hypothesis runs counter to prevailing theories about Alzheimer's, which have focused on the accumulation of amyloid plaques in the brain as a cause of the disease.

In a normal developing brain, synapses are both created and destroyed -- a process Barres likens to "pruning" the brain by preserving necessary synapses and eliminating the excess.

"What wasn't clear is what the molecular basis of the synapse pruning was," Barres said. "It involves a normal immune protein that people didn't even realize was in the brain -- C1q."

C1q is capable of clinging to the surface of foreign bodies such as bacteria or to bits of dead or dying human cells. This initiates a molecular chain reaction known as the complement cascade. One by one, the system's other proteins glom on, coating the offending cell or piece of debris. This in turn draws the attention of omnivorous immune cells that gobble up the target.

Barres now hypothesizes that diseases such as Alzheimer's might develop if the C1q that has accumulated on the synapses triggers an immune system attack against them.

"The first regions of the brain to show a dramatic increase in C1q are places like the hippocampus and substantia nigra, the precise brain regions most vulnerable to neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, respectively," Barres said. Another region affected early on, the piriform cortex, is associated with the sense of smell, whose loss often heralds the onset of neurodegenerative disease.

"Our findings may well explain the long-mysterious vulnerability specifically of the aging brain to neurodegenerative disease," he said. "Kids don't get Alzheimer's or Parkinson's," Barres pointed out.

"Profound activation of the complement cascade, associated with massive synapse loss, is the cardinal feature of Alzheimer's disease and many other neurodegenerative disorders. People have thought this was because synapse loss triggers inflammation. But our findings here suggest that activation of the complement cascade is driving synapse loss, not the other way around," Barres explained.

Heather Snyder, director of medical and scientific operations for the Alzheimer's Association, said the new study "adds to the body of information that looks at how the immune system might work in Alzheimer's disease." She added that there are many hypotheses that need to be explored about what may be happening in Alzheimer's.

Noting that much of the research in the current study involved mice, Snyder said future studies need to focus on how C1q affects human brains.

"This is really opening the door that this should be explored further," she said. "It needs to be replicated in the laboratory and also correlated to what it may mean in human beings."

More than 5 million Americans have Alzheimer's disease, and that number is expected to rise significantly as the baby boom generation ages.

SOURCES: Ben Barres, M.D., Ph.D., professor and chair, neurobiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif.; Heather Snyder, director, medical and scientific operations, Alzheimer's Association; Aug. 14, 2013, Journal of Neuroscience

http://www.nlm.nih.g...ory_139723.html

[Plasticperson]

Is a 300 mW 230 nm module too strong of a laser??

[lostfalco]

Is a 300 mW 230 nm module too strong of a laser??

Wavelength is very important. I currently recommend 808/810nm, 830nm, or 850nm....primarily 850 (though I've had good results with 808nm and 660nm). Of course, this is a work in progress. =)

Gonzalez-Lima says this:

"Wavelength is a major LLLT parameter as it greatly determines the molecular target
of light [17-19]. Cytochrome oxidase shows four major light absorption peaks within the red-to-
near-infrared band. These are determined by CuA and CuB, two of the four metal centers within
the enzyme. These peaks of absorption are 620 nm (CuA reduced), 680 nm (CuB oxidized), 760
nm (CuB reduced) and 825 nm (CuA oxidized). In vitro, these absorption peaks correspond to
peaks in DNA synthesis and cell attachment [17]." http://pdfcast.org/pdf/suck-it-trebek

Scott Roberts also has a very interesting discussion of wavelengths on his website. http://heelspurs.com/led.html#opti He likes 850nm due to deeper penetration and a greater number of photons per mW/cm^2. i.e. CCO is activated by photon number NOT photon energy. If greater number, then greater effect. 850 > 808 > 660. Right or wrong? Not sure.

"I don't know if one is better than the other, but I currently have a preference for 850 nm over all others. I am in the process of testing other wavelengths to see if I can find anything better than my best 850 device (shown below). 660 nm has a much weaker observed response on CCO, but experiments indicate it works. If 850 nm is better, it might be simply because 850 nm has 23% more photons per mW/cm^2 and CCO is activated on a per-photon basis. (Longer wavelengths have less energy per photon, so equal energy from 850 means more photons). I have not confirmed it, but it appears 850 LEDs are more efficient at emitting light energy than 660 nm and 630 nm, so from a practical viewpoint, circuits of a given style (such as no fan) using 850 nm are simply ABLE to emit more light energy..."

Edited by lostfalco, 20 August 2013 - 12:32 AM.

[MasterHerb]

Is a 300 mW 230 nm module too strong of a laser??

Wavelength is very important. I currently recommend 808/810nm, 830nm, or 850nm....primarily 850 (though I've had good results with 808nm and 660nm). Of course, this is a work in progress. =)

Gonzalez-Lima says this:

"Wavelength is a major LLLT parameter as it greatly determines the molecular target
of light [17-19]. Cytochrome oxidase shows four major light absorption peaks within the red-to-
near-infrared band. These are determined by CuA and CuB, two of the four metal centers within
the enzyme. These peaks of absorption are 620 nm (CuA reduced), 680 nm (CuB oxidized), 760
nm (CuB reduced) and 825 nm (CuA oxidized). In vitro, these absorption peaks correspond to
peaks in DNA synthesis and cell attachment [17]." http://pdfcast.org/pdf/suck-it-trebek

Scott Roberts also has a very interesting discussion of wavelengths on his website. http://heelspurs.com/led.html#opti He likes 850nm due to deeper penetration and a greater number of photons per mW/cm^2. i.e. CCO is activated by photon number NOT photon energy. If greater number, then greater effect. 850 > 808 > 660. Right or wrong? Not sure.

"I don't know if one is better than the other, but I currently have a preference for 850 nm over all others. I am in the process of testing other wavelengths to see if I can find anything better than my best 850 device (shown below). 660 nm has a much weaker observed response on CCO, but experiments indicate it works. If 850 nm is better, it might be simply because 850 nm has 23% more photons per mW/cm^2 and CCO is activated on a per-photon basis. (Longer wavelengths have less energy per photon, so equal energy from 850 means more photons). I have not confirmed it, but it appears 850 LEDs are more efficient at emitting light energy than 660 nm and 630 nm, so from a practical viewpoint, circuits of a given style (such as no fan) using 850 nm are simply ABLE to emit more light energy..."

Can you please link the laser that you recommend?

[typ3z3r0]

So, I tried this out today and it seems to work. Let me reiterate...I've only used it once. It's kinda small compared to the 96 LED array and it heats up a little more but it seems like it should work. And...it's only $8.69!!! Just unscrew the glass part and put the LEDs right on your skin. http://www.ebay.com/...=item48548ab808

It's most likely 850nm light even though it doesn't say it directly on the page. If you are really worried about getting 850nm light then you can splurge and buy the $12.49 one that actually says it on the page. Here it is. http://www.ebay.com/...=item3a80a68672

I just ordered one. Do you target each spot of your forehead for 10 minutes? Also, are goggles still recommended with this device, and if so, are there any cheap ones I could buy?

Thanks!

Edited by typ3z3r0, 20 August 2013 - 01:51 AM.

[lostfalco]

Is a 300 mW 230 nm module too strong of a laser??

Wavelength is very important. I currently recommend 808/810nm, 830nm, or 850nm....primarily 850 (though I've had good results with 808nm and 660nm). Of course, this is a work in progress. =)

Gonzalez-Lima says this:

"Wavelength is a major LLLT parameter as it greatly determines the molecular target
of light [17-19]. Cytochrome oxidase shows four major light absorption peaks within the red-to-
near-infrared band. These are determined by CuA and CuB, two of the four metal centers within
the enzyme. These peaks of absorption are 620 nm (CuA reduced), 680 nm (CuB oxidized), 760
nm (CuB reduced) and 825 nm (CuA oxidized). In vitro, these absorption peaks correspond to
peaks in DNA synthesis and cell attachment [17]." http://pdfcast.org/pdf/suck-it-trebek

Scott Roberts also has a very interesting discussion of wavelengths on his website. http://heelspurs.com/led.html#opti He likes 850nm due to deeper penetration and a greater number of photons per mW/cm^2. i.e. CCO is activated by photon number NOT photon energy. If greater number, then greater effect. 850 > 808 > 660. Right or wrong? Not sure.

"I don't know if one is better than the other, but I currently have a preference for 850 nm over all others. I am in the process of testing other wavelengths to see if I can find anything better than my best 850 device (shown below). 660 nm has a much weaker observed response on CCO, but experiments indicate it works. If 850 nm is better, it might be simply because 850 nm has 23% more photons per mW/cm^2 and CCO is activated on a per-photon basis. (Longer wavelengths have less energy per photon, so equal energy from 850 means more photons). I have not confirmed it, but it appears 850 LEDs are more efficient at emitting light energy than 660 nm and 630 nm, so from a practical viewpoint, circuits of a given style (such as no fan) using 850 nm are simply ABLE to emit more light energy..."

Can you please link the laser that you recommend?

Get both if you can. If only one, get 96. =)

http://www.ebay.com/...=item232c0ac99b

http://www.ebay.com/...=item48548ab808

[MasterHerb]

Is a 300 mW 230 nm module too strong of a laser??

Wavelength is very important. I currently recommend 808/810nm, 830nm, or 850nm....primarily 850 (though I've had good results with 808nm and 660nm). Of course, this is a work in progress. =)

Gonzalez-Lima says this:

"Wavelength is a major LLLT parameter as it greatly determines the molecular target
of light [17-19]. Cytochrome oxidase shows four major light absorption peaks within the red-to-
near-infrared band. These are determined by CuA and CuB, two of the four metal centers within
the enzyme. These peaks of absorption are 620 nm (CuA reduced), 680 nm (CuB oxidized), 760
nm (CuB reduced) and 825 nm (CuA oxidized). In vitro, these absorption peaks correspond to
peaks in DNA synthesis and cell attachment [17]." http://pdfcast.org/pdf/suck-it-trebek

Scott Roberts also has a very interesting discussion of wavelengths on his website. http://heelspurs.com/led.html#opti He likes 850nm due to deeper penetration and a greater number of photons per mW/cm^2. i.e. CCO is activated by photon number NOT photon energy. If greater number, then greater effect. 850 > 808 > 660. Right or wrong? Not sure.

"I don't know if one is better than the other, but I currently have a preference for 850 nm over all others. I am in the process of testing other wavelengths to see if I can find anything better than my best 850 device (shown below). 660 nm has a much weaker observed response on CCO, but experiments indicate it works. If 850 nm is better, it might be simply because 850 nm has 23% more photons per mW/cm^2 and CCO is activated on a per-photon basis. (Longer wavelengths have less energy per photon, so equal energy from 850 means more photons). I have not confirmed it, but it appears 850 LEDs are more efficient at emitting light energy than 660 nm and 630 nm, so from a practical viewpoint, circuits of a given style (such as no fan) using 850 nm are simply ABLE to emit more light energy..."

Can you please link the laser that you recommend?

Get both if you can. If only one, get 96. =)

http://www.ebay.com/...=item232c0ac99b

http://www.ebay.com/...=item48548ab808

10 minute per spot with the 96?

[lostfalco]

So, I tried this out today and it seems to work. Let me reiterate...I've only used it once. It's kinda small compared to the 96 LED array and it heats up a little more but it seems like it should work. And...it's only $8.69!!! Just unscrew the glass part and put the LEDs right on your skin. http://www.ebay.com/...=item48548ab808

It's most likely 850nm light even though it doesn't say it directly on the page. If you are really worried about getting 850nm light then you can splurge and buy the $12.49 one that actually says it on the page. Here it is. http://www.ebay.com/...=item3a80a68672

I just ordered one. :) Do you target each spot of your forehead for 10 minutes? Also, are goggles still recommended with this device, and if so, are there any cheap ones I could buy?

Thanks!

I've been using the 48 LED on my forehead (it's more convenient) and the 96 LED everywhere else...the 96 is a little unwieldy on the forehead since it's not flexible but it will still work. I (currently) recommend getting both but if you can only get one go with the 96. Minimum effective dosing applies.

Remove glass covers and place LEDs directly on skin...gets a little warm, nothing serious. No goggles required, but don't stare at the thing, just to be safe. Stimulate whole brain (facilitates interconnectivity in my VERY subjective anecdotal experience =)).

Start very low...2 minutes per region. Try that for a while and see if it works for you. Make subsequent adjustments if necessary. Think of 10 minutes per region as a tentative upper limit (even though that's still very low compared to the studies). 2 days on, 1 day off per region OR every other day...I don't currently recommend every day even at these low doses. But who the hell am I? ha Please use your reasoning/critical thought and read the studies. I'm just a dude. =) Pay attention to your body's response and be safe. Expect to make a few adjustments along the way and for it to take a little time (though, not long). Less is more with lllt.

Edited by lostfalco, 20 August 2013 - 03:15 AM.

[lostfalco]

Is a 300 mW 230 nm module too strong of a laser??

Wavelength is very important. I currently recommend 808/810nm, 830nm, or 850nm....primarily 850 (though I've had good results with 808nm and 660nm). Of course, this is a work in progress. =)

Gonzalez-Lima says this:

"Wavelength is a major LLLT parameter as it greatly determines the molecular target
of light [17-19]. Cytochrome oxidase shows four major light absorption peaks within the red-to-
near-infrared band. These are determined by CuA and CuB, two of the four metal centers within
the enzyme. These peaks of absorption are 620 nm (CuA reduced), 680 nm (CuB oxidized), 760
nm (CuB reduced) and 825 nm (CuA oxidized). In vitro, these absorption peaks correspond to
peaks in DNA synthesis and cell attachment [17]." http://pdfcast.org/pdf/suck-it-trebek

Scott Roberts also has a very interesting discussion of wavelengths on his website. http://heelspurs.com/led.html#opti He likes 850nm due to deeper penetration and a greater number of photons per mW/cm^2. i.e. CCO is activated by photon number NOT photon energy. If greater number, then greater effect. 850 > 808 > 660. Right or wrong? Not sure.

"I don't know if one is better than the other, but I currently have a preference for 850 nm over all others. I am in the process of testing other wavelengths to see if I can find anything better than my best 850 device (shown below). 660 nm has a much weaker observed response on CCO, but experiments indicate it works. If 850 nm is better, it might be simply because 850 nm has 23% more photons per mW/cm^2 and CCO is activated on a per-photon basis. (Longer wavelengths have less energy per photon, so equal energy from 850 means more photons). I have not confirmed it, but it appears 850 LEDs are more efficient at emitting light energy than 660 nm and 630 nm, so from a practical viewpoint, circuits of a given style (such as no fan) using 850 nm are simply ABLE to emit more light energy..."

Can you please link the laser that you recommend?

Get both if you can. If only one, get 96. =)

http://www.ebay.com/...=item232c0ac99b

http://www.ebay.com/...=item48548ab808

10 minute per spot with the 96?

Start with 2 per region, in my humble opinion. That's still quite a few photons even though it's a very low dose. Adjust up or down if necessary.

[MasterHerb]

Is a 300 mW 230 nm module too strong of a laser??

Wavelength is very important. I currently recommend 808/810nm, 830nm, or 850nm....primarily 850 (though I've had good results with 808nm and 660nm). Of course, this is a work in progress. =)

Gonzalez-Lima says this:

"Wavelength is a major LLLT parameter as it greatly determines the molecular target
of light [17-19]. Cytochrome oxidase shows four major light absorption peaks within the red-to-
near-infrared band. These are determined by CuA and CuB, two of the four metal centers within
the enzyme. These peaks of absorption are 620 nm (CuA reduced), 680 nm (CuB oxidized), 760
nm (CuB reduced) and 825 nm (CuA oxidized). In vitro, these absorption peaks correspond to
peaks in DNA synthesis and cell attachment [17]." http://pdfcast.org/pdf/suck-it-trebek

Scott Roberts also has a very interesting discussion of wavelengths on his website. http://heelspurs.com/led.html#opti He likes 850nm due to deeper penetration and a greater number of photons per mW/cm^2. i.e. CCO is activated by photon number NOT photon energy. If greater number, then greater effect. 850 > 808 > 660. Right or wrong? Not sure.

"I don't know if one is better than the other, but I currently have a preference for 850 nm over all others. I am in the process of testing other wavelengths to see if I can find anything better than my best 850 device (shown below). 660 nm has a much weaker observed response on CCO, but experiments indicate it works. If 850 nm is better, it might be simply because 850 nm has 23% more photons per mW/cm^2 and CCO is activated on a per-photon basis. (Longer wavelengths have less energy per photon, so equal energy from 850 means more photons). I have not confirmed it, but it appears 850 LEDs are more efficient at emitting light energy than 660 nm and 630 nm, so from a practical viewpoint, circuits of a given style (such as no fan) using 850 nm are simply ABLE to emit more light energy..."

Can you please link the laser that you recommend?

Get both if you can. If only one, get 96. =)

http://www.ebay.com/...=item232c0ac99b

http://www.ebay.com/...=item48548ab808

10 minute per spot with the 96?

Start with 2 per region, in my humble opinion. That's still quite a few photons even though it's a very low dose. Adjust up or down if necessary.

Ok I will cancel my laser and give this a shot. This should come in quicker anyways.

[typ3z3r0]

So, I tried this out today and it seems to work. Let me reiterate...I've only used it once. It's kinda small compared to the 96 LED array and it heats up a little more but it seems like it should work. And...it's only $8.69!!! Just unscrew the glass part and put the LEDs right on your skin. http://www.ebay.com/...=item48548ab808

It's most likely 850nm light even though it doesn't say it directly on the page. If you are really worried about getting 850nm light then you can splurge and buy the $12.49 one that actually says it on the page. Here it is. http://www.ebay.com/...=item3a80a68672

I just ordered one. Do you target each spot of your forehead for 10 minutes? Also, are goggles still recommended with this device, and if so, are there any cheap ones I could buy?

Thanks!

I've been using the 48 LED on my forehead (it's more convenient) and the 96 LED everywhere else...the 96 is a little unwieldy on the forehead since it's not flexible but it will still work. I (currently) recommend getting both but if you can only get one go with the 96. Minimum effective dosing applies.

Remove glass covers and place LEDs directly on skin...gets a little warm, nothing serious. No goggles required, but don't stare at the thing, just to be safe. Stimulate whole brain (facilitates interconnectivity in my VERY subjective anecdotal experience =)).

Start very low...2 minutes per region. Try that for a while and see if it works for you. Make subsequent adjustments if necessary. Think of 10 minutes per region as a tentative upper limit (even though that's still very low compared to the studies). 2 days on, 1 day off per region OR every other day...I don't currently recommend every day even at these low doses. But who the hell am I? ha Please use your reasoning/critical thought and read the studies. I'm just a dude. =) Pay attention to your body's response and be safe. Expect to make a few adjustments along the way and for it to take a little time (though, not long). Less is more with lllt.

Sounds good! Thanks for the info. When the 48 eventually arrives, I'll trial it for a bit and then decide whether to buy the 96.

[neopersonageguy@gmail.com]

Has anybody tried d-cycloserine + tDCS? Know anyone who has? 24 straight hours of accelerated learning sounds intriguing.

D-CYC is a partial agonist at the glycine site of NMDA receptors. D-serine is a full agonist at the same site and might work too. However, official human studies have only been done with 50 and 100mg of D-CYC. Safety profile was good at these doses but they limited stimulation plus med to once per week for five weeks. Pubmed d-cycloserine + tDCS for more info.

If you're going to try cycloserine with tDCS I would keep something like PQQ on hand (PQQ protects against excitotoxicity by modifying NMDA receptors) in case you end up needing it.

[lostfalco]

Has anybody tried d-cycloserine + tDCS? Know anyone who has? 24 straight hours of accelerated learning sounds intriguing.

D-CYC is a partial agonist at the glycine site of NMDA receptors. D-serine is a full agonist at the same site and might work too. However, official human studies have only been done with 50 and 100mg of D-CYC. Safety profile was good at these doses but they limited stimulation plus med to once per week for five weeks. Pubmed d-cycloserine + tDCS for more info.

If you're going to try cycloserine with tDCS I would keep something like PQQ on hand (PQQ protects against excitotoxicity by modifying NMDA receptors) in case you end up needing it.

Hey, thanks for the suggestion! I've pretty much shelved that experiment for the foreseeable future...risk too high, benefits too unknown.

[neopersonageguy@gmail.com]

Has anybody tried d-cycloserine + tDCS? Know anyone who has? 24 straight hours of accelerated learning sounds intriguing.

D-CYC is a partial agonist at the glycine site of NMDA receptors. D-serine is a full agonist at the same site and might work too. However, official human studies have only been done with 50 and 100mg of D-CYC. Safety profile was good at these doses but they limited stimulation plus med to once per week for five weeks. Pubmed d-cycloserine + tDCS for more info.

If you're going to try cycloserine with tDCS I would keep something like PQQ on hand (PQQ protects against excitotoxicity by modifying NMDA receptors) in case you end up needing it.

Hey, thanks for the suggestion! I've pretty much shelved that experiment for the foreseeable future...risk too high, benefits too unknown.

I can see why you're worried about it.

[Godof Smallthings]

All these eBay sellers that don't ship outside the US... *grumble grumble*.

What's the difference to these people, since I would obviously pay them for the extra expense on postage, anyway? It's the same type of box, same trip to the post office or courier...

Edited by Godof Smallthings, 20 August 2013 - 11:25 AM.

[Keynes]

All these eBay sellers that don't ship outside the US... *grumble grumble*.

What's the difference to these people, since I would obviously pay them for the extra expense on postage, anyway? It's the same type of box, same trip to the post office or courier...

Simply send them a message and ask if they can ship to you.

[Joe Cohen]

LF and readers,

I used IR LED's last night for the first time. It definitely had an impact. Unfortunately I used oxygen as well, which may have corrupted the results. I used oxygen from an oxygen tank using a nasal cannula. I used it twice. First time I used it for 3 minutes and didn't notice much and the second time-an hour later- I used it for 1 and a half minutes. I doubt this affected the results by much. I used this http://www.amazon.co...d pain reliever because I visited my mother, who already had it. I don't even know the specs of this, but I figure it isn't much different than the other devices. I'm going to receive the 12 dollar LED's in the mail soon. I used it for a total of about 10 minutes all around my head, switching to different locations. Anyway, I woke up in middle of the night, which never happens, though falling asleep wasn't a problem. Today, I find my cognition somewhat impaired and I attribute this to the LED's. I feel zoned out. Verbal, reasoning and creative abilities are down. I subjectively know my verbal abilities are down because reading and writing are harder for me. Reasoning is down based on tests from cambridge sciences - namely odd one out. The past couple times I took the test I scored a 17 and now I'm scoring a 12. My brain is very sensitive to slight changes and over 95% of interventions cause more harm than good for me. My brain is wired in such a way that there's a balanced symphony and changes to this symphony throw the whole thing out of whack. Most other people are not wired this way. It's part of the reason why my thinking style is completely different than other people. This negative result doesn't mean I'm closing the book on LLLT. I think part of the reason why it caused more harm than good is because I stimulated all parts of the brain. If my right hemisphere is using more energy that can have an effect on the more analytical left hemisphere. That's actually what I subjectively feel. As if my whole brain is working more, but that's not a good thing in my case. It has a similar effect to methylene blue, and the research seems to verify that, though methylene blue doesn't have a negative effect on me. I do feel that this definitely has an impact and can improve brain mitochondrial function.

Future experimentation:
-What happens when I laser only specific parts of my brain
-Use a lower dosage and without oxygen

I first need to recover, however.

Edited by Joe Cohen, 20 August 2013 - 07:29 PM.

[lostfalco]

LF and readers,

I used IR LED's last night for the first time. It definitely had an impact. Unfortunately I used oxygen as well, which may have corrupted the results. I used oxygen from an oxygen tank using a nasal cannula. I used it twice. First time I used it for 3 minutes and didn't notice much and the second time-an hour later- I used it for 1 and a half minutes. I doubt this affected the results by much. I used this http://www.amazon.co...d pain reliever because I visited my mother, who already had it. I don't even know the specs of this, but I figure it isn't much different than the other devices. I'm going to receive the 12 dollar LED's in the mail soon. I used it for a total of about 10 minutes all around my head, switching to different locations. Anyway, I woke up in middle of the night, which never happens, though falling asleep wasn't a problem. Today, I find my cognition somewhat impaired and I attribute this to the LED's. I feel zoned out. Verbal, reasoning and creative abilities are down. I subjectively know my verbal abilities are down because reading and writing are harder for me. Reasoning is down based on tests from cambridge sciences - namely odd one out. The past couple times I took the test I scored a 17 and now I'm scoring a 12. My brain is very sensitive to slight changes and over 95% of interventions cause more harm than good for me. My brain is wired in such a way that there's a balanced symphony and changes to this symphony throw the whole thing out of whack. Most other people are not wired this way. It's part of the reason why my thinking style is completely different than other people. This negative result doesn't mean I'm closing the book on LLLT. I think part of the reason why it caused more harm than good is because I stimulated all parts of the brain. If my right hemisphere is using more energy that can have an effect on the more analytical left hemisphere. That's actually what I subjectively feel. As if my whole brain is working more, but that's not a good thing in my case. It has a similar effect to methylene blue, and the research seems to verify that, though methylene blue doesn't have a negative effect on me. I do feel that this definitely has an impact and can improve brain mitochondrial function.

Future experimentation:
-What happens when I laser only specific parts of my brain
-Use a lower dosage and without oxygen

I first need to recover, however.

Hey Joe, thanks for reporting back man. I'm sorry you had a bad experience...it's def powerful stuff and you have to be careful.

Just a couple of quick suggestions (most of which you already know and already mentioned). =)

First, I can't find the wavelengths of that device anywhere and you mentioned that you were unsure what they were. I wouldn't feel comfortable using something just because it says infrared. Sorry, I hope I don't sound like your dad or something.

Second, the laser affects cellular respiration (ie. glucose/oxygen) and is a vasodilator...using it along with oxygen presents a fairly strong confounding factor.

Thirdly, and I'm not sure if I've made this point clear enough...the results accrue over time. You are not going to laser on day one and have enhanced cognition on day two. There is evidence that multiple genes are upregulated, bdnf is produced, neurogenesis occurs, dendritic branching is enhanced, etc. We are dealing with physical structures that are built over time. From the Naeser Pilot Study http://dspace.mit.ed...58#files-area

"LLLT has been effective in stimulating repair of neurons (both peripheral and in spinal cord) and could increase neurogenesis in TBI. Byrnes and colleagues [59] showed that adult rats that underwent a T9 dorsal hemisection, followed by treatment with an 810 nm, 150 mW diode laser showed significant improvement in axonal regeneration and functional recovery. "

"LLLT increases expression (and activation) of growth factors such as transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) that may contribute to positive brain remodeling after TBI. "

Fourthly, here's another set of quotes from the Naeser Study talking about day one reactions to LLLT.
Patient One
Day One: "The patient's reaction was as follows: She drove herself home (30 minutes), then slept through dinner and most of the next day. On day 3 post- the 1st LED treatment, she had improved concentration and focus. She was able to work at her computer for 40 minutes. For the preceding 7 years post-MVA, she was able to work at her computer for only 20 minutes. "

Her reaction during weeks 3-8: "She had no return of excess sleepiness and she continued to have improved concentration and focus. After 8 weeks, she was able to work at her computer for 3 hours at a time."

Patient Two
Day One: "The duration of treatment for each LED placement was gradually increased over a 4-week period. During the first week, the LED cluster heads were applied daily for 7 min per local placement (7 min = 9.3 J/cm2 at scalp, estimated 0.279 J/cm2 to brain cortex). Following the first treatment (performed in the afternoon) she was sleepy for the next several hours. "

Overall Results: "On the Stroop test, a color-word interference test [68], there was significant improvement on condition 3, showing improved inhibition (this task requires naming the ink color in which discrepant color words are printed). There was a change of +2 SDs from a score of -1.5 SD below the mean for this test (9th percentile, March 2009) to a score of +0.5 SD above the mean (63rd percentile, December 2009). There was also a significant improvement on condition 4, showing improved inhibition accuracy (this task requires switching back and forth between naming the ink colors and reading the words). There was also a change of +2 SDs from a score of -1.5 SD below the mean for this test (9th percentile, March 2009) to a score of +0.5 SD above the mean (63rd percentile, December 2009). These scores reflect significant improvement (+2 SDs) in the area of executive functioning, inhibition and inhibition accuracy.

On the Wechsler Memory Scale - Revised [69] there was significant improvement on logical memory passages, where the examinee repeats two paragraphs (one at a time) read aloud by the examiner, both immediately, and after a 30-minute delay. Inquiry regarding recognition of facts within each story follows the delayed recall. In March 2009, immediate recall was in the 83rd percentile, and in December 2009, the 95th percentile, reflecting a +1 SD improvement. In March 2009, delayed recall was in the 83rd percentile, and in December 2009, the 99th percentile, reflecting a +2 SD improvement. These scores show a +1 SD and a +2 SD improvement in the area of memory.

There were no significant changes on the following tests: 1) The Hooper Visual Organization Test [70]; she continued to score in the high-average range (92nd percentile) for this. 2) The Boston Naming Test [71]; she scored in the 84th percentile (59/60) for this test at both times. 3) The Lafayette Grooved Pegboard test [72]."

Stroke Patients: "The significant, beneficial effect after only one, transcranial LLLT treatment was present at 5 days post-treatment, and this continued out to 90 days post-treatment in the stroke patients [51]. The increase in ATP would have had many beneficial effects, including an increase in cellular respiration and oxygenation."

I sincerely apologize for pretty much quoting the entire article. =) I would humbly request that everyone read this entire study before beginning to help set proper expectations. I just want to make sure that we increase our chances of helping as many people as possible (I wish we could help them all). It's very important to remember that we are self-medicating here. http://dspace.mit.ed...58#files-area

Yeah Joe, I think your future experimental directions are good ones. Take some time off, wait for the 850nm LED to arrive and try again. Of course, as you said, you know your unique physiological responses better than anyone. Listen to your body and stop immediately if something doesn't feel right. The goal is health, not shooting a laser at your head. =) Please keep us updated!

Edited by lostfalco, 20 August 2013 - 08:53 PM.

[Joe Cohen]

LF and readers,
Brain function is pretty much back to baseline after some meditation. To verify I took the odd one out test and scored an 18. Oddly, I did slightly better on a different reasoning test called double trouble. Before I was scoring about 72 and now I'm scoring about 68. Not a huge difference, but still significant. Reaction times haven't changed. I think LLLT has a lot of value for many if not most, I just need to figure out if I'm part of that segment and how to use it for maximum gain.

Over the coming weeks I will be testing LLLT without any other confounding variables and seeing if I can hack the results for maximum gain. Oxygen tank is next up. After that I will revisit my resveratrol+leucine stack.

Edit: Took double trouble again and got a 73. Seems like that score didn't change much. I invite people to try that test, as well as odd one out as those tests are most important and have the highest correlation with general fluidity. I would be curious about before and after scores with regard to all interventions discussed here. I feel we need to be more rigorous about self-experimentation.
http://www.cambridge...ces.com/browse/

Edited by Joe Cohen, 20 August 2013 - 11:39 PM.

[lostfalco]

LF and readers,
Brain function is pretty much back to baseline after some meditation. To verify I took the odd one out test and scored an 18. Oddly, I did slightly better on a different reasoning test called double trouble. Before I was scoring about 72 and now I'm scoring about 68. Not a huge difference, but still significant. Reaction times haven't changed. I think LLLT has a lot of value for many if not most, I just need to figure out if I'm part of that segment and how to use it for maximum gain.

Over the coming weeks I will be testing LLLT without any other confounding variables and seeing if I can hack the results for maximum gain. Oxygen tank is next up. After that I will revisit my resveratrol+leucine stack.

Whew! That's great news. Sorry I didn't explain expectations better.

All those future directions sound good...looking forward to hearing about 'em.

[Joe Cohen]

My cognition seems be a bit above baseline now. That temporary dip was probably hormesis at play. I definitely need to lower the dosage next time, though. LLLT's future is looking bright! People probably experience dips post usage but don't realize it. That's the nature of hormesis. When my brain dips, I feel it. Much tinkering to come!

[kobokok]

All these eBay sellers that don't ship outside the US... *grumble grumble*.

What's the difference to these people, since I would obviously pay them for the extra expense on postage, anyway? It's the same type of box, same trip to the post office or courier...

These two ship outside US.

http://www.ebay.com/...s-/321152807274

http://www.ebay.com/...a-/200771349265