25 replies to this topic

[turbo]

I am thoroughly convinced that noots help rats, and people with alzheimer's.

I have been using them for roughly 6 months, and *think* they're working for me.

I read this boards, and know tons of you *know/think* they work for you.



is there real, respected studies showing that there is a boost in cognitive measures when noots are tested on healthy, normal people, trying to gain an increase in cognitive performance ABOVE normal levels? I know we're all satisfied they help with boosting sub-normal intelligence, but that's not why most of us are using them.

when i first looked into creatine to see if it was effective, there were tons of studies on people just like me, people that the product had a great market for. if studies show that a normal person can use (relatively) inexpensive supplements to become just a little smarter, i'd imagine they woudl sell like hotcakes, so where are these studies?

[mitkat]

Look on pubmed for tests. I *know/think* you can find some information.

Do you think you have "normal" intelligence? Or do you know you have optimum neurotransmitter levels? If you do, discontinue taking nootropics, imo.

edit: I'm not saying everyone should take nootropics, or that anyone should. Those subtle imperfections we ALL have might benefit, or they might not. It depends on so many things, too many variables for any pharmaceutical company to test for. Most people would benefit from a simple exercise routine, a good quality multi-vitamin, and a pat on the head - but not all.

Edited by mitkat, 25 March 2006 - 08:04 AM.

[Brainbox]

There's a third point that could be added. And I take the liberty to do so.

3) There is a very strong movement by several national, regional and global governmental authorities to investigate and initiate measures that will limit the use of supplements in general. My first impression of this development about a year ago was that this was an undesirable one. After discovering discussion forums on the internet, I did develop a slight feeling that maybe there could be some sense in this regulatory urge of our governments. After I became aware of the way commercialism is influencing and even controlling the advice that is given to naïve users of these forums, I’m beginning to believe that regulatory interventions are inevitable and that they make a lot of sense. Unfortunately.

Individuals like me, who want to have some educated control over their health by taking FOOD supplements like vitamins, minerals and other food related substances, will likely be very limited in making such choices in the near future.

The unethical exploit by commercial interest is a very important cause of this development. The unheardof promotion of nootropics, aids for dieting (ephedrine usage that actually did cause death in several occasions) and hormone abuse by minors is just to bad. Period.

I'm sorry, but that's the way it is and going to be in my opinion.

[scottl]

Promethius,

Opales and quackwatch would deem a number the alternative methods I work with and refer people to as quackery. Fortunately no one has died and left them in charge.

One can affect neurotransmitter levels e.g.

Acetyl choline: CDP choline, Alpha GPC choline, ACHe inhibitors (Yes, I know, caution need to be exercised).

not everyone is in the same place with respect to neurotransmitter levels. Some healthy people would benefit, many would not. There is a questionairre (see Braverman that I posted links to on avant...maybe it's here too I do not remember) that many have found helpful along these lines. Totally "non-scientific" as in based on someone's clinical experience, but that I know of, no more.

Two fairly sucessful commercial products biotests powerdrive and scivation's neurostim work and work very well for either pre-workout stimulation, or staying up late for work or studying (for most people). THey are both made of nootropics.

Edited by scottl, 25 March 2006 - 10:53 AM.

[Brainbox]

Look on pubmed for tests. I *know/think* you can find some information.

Please be warned that as far as I know, PUBMED is just a database that gives an overview of existing publications in the medical literature without any quality control of the content that is provided. Furthermore, reading just abstracts of publications could lead to distorted views.

Could anyone with a better scientific background compared to mine also shed some light on this? Is my opinion on this correct?

[scottl]

Scott, you're a doctor?

Yes I have an MD (heh and BSE for what it's worth). I thought you were joking in the PM.

My standard comment is that "medicine is an art, not a science, get over it"

I"m talking about the practice of sselecting e.g. what remedy to give someone, or to know when "tincture of time" is the best. Anyway too long a discussion for now.

Edit: I have an MD and am a practicing doc (almost forgot where I was). Though the alternative stuff is part of a seperate practice, not my regular practice.

[scottl]

I do agree with you on medicine being far too much art than science but evidence based medicine principles have gone a long way towards reducing the "art" component.

The art part is not a bad thing, but you'd have to be either a practitioner yourself, or have some hobby or craft where you could see the role of booklearning vs real world practice to understand.

[scottl]

There's a third point that could be added. And I take the liberty to do so.

3) There is a very strong movement by several national, regional and global governmental authorities to investigate and initiate measures that will limit the use of supplements in general. My first impression of this development about a year ago was that this was an undesirable one. After discovering discussion forums on the internet, I did develop a slight feeling that maybe there could be some sense in this regulatory urge of our governments. After I became aware of the way commercialism is influencing and even controlling the advice that is given to naïve users of these forums, I’m beginning to believe that regulatory interventions are inevitable and that they make a lot of sense. Unfortunately.

Individuals like me, who want to have some educated control over their health by taking FOOD supplements like vitamins, minerals and other food related substances, will likely be very limited in making such choices in the near future.

The unethical exploit by commercial interest is a very important cause of this development. The unheardof promotion of nootropics, aids for dieting (ephedrine usage that actually did cause death in several occasions) and hormone abuse by minors is just to bad. Period.

I'm sorry, but that's the way it is and going to be in my opinion.

Thank god I"m a doc and when the elite who know better then everyone what is best for them regulate supps I'll still be able to get stuff.

This country was founded on iindividualism. Grow up and learn what is best for yourself. It is your body, and your responsibility what you put in it. We are getting there, but ain't totally socialist yet. If you are uncomfortable what the evils of capitalism produce there are plenty of places e.g. canada (I"m assuming you're in the US) where you can go to have the gov't protect you.

[mitkat]

Please be warned that as far as I know, PUBMED is just a database that gives an overview of existing publications in the medical literature without any quality control of the content that is provided. Furthermore, reading just abstracts of publications could lead to distorted views.

Could anyone with a better scientific background compared to mine also shed some light on this? Is my opinion on this correct?

Yes, I'm well aware of that, and you are correct in that regard. Pubmed is just a information clearing house, and as any stats student can tell you, reading nothing but abstracts is a great source of misinformaton. But if one was looking for "medical literature" opposed to raw subjectivity, then there you go, and that's what he was asking for.

[xanadu]

Very well said, scott! I for one do not trust the government to make all decisions for me on what vitamins or supplements I should take. Political regulatory bodies are far too slow moving and conservative for one thing, for another thing, they tend to be heavily influenced by political considerations and money indirectly and directly. I think we have all seen enough examples of that already that no one will ask me to document government incompentence or corruption.

In some countries it's illegal to buy vitamins at higher than the RDA. Unfortunately, that trend seems to be spreading and I'm sure some beaurocracy will exist here soon to tell you what you can not consume. We may be reduced to buying vitamins and supplements from some shady person on the corner if people like prometheus get their way.

[mitkat]

If you are uncomfortable what the evils of capitalism produce there are plenty of places e.g. canada (I"m assuming you're in the US) where you can go to have the gov't protect you.

[lol] Ahhh, what can I say? *Nestles comfortably in huge gov't sponsered blanket*

[Brainbox]

Thank god I"m a doc and when the elite who know better then everyone what is best for them regulate supps I'll still be able to get stuff.

This country was founded on iindividualism.  Grow up and learn what is best for yourself.  It is your body, and your responsibility what you put in it.  We are getting there, but ain't totally socialist yet.  If you are uncomfortable what the evils of capitalism produce there are plenty of places e.g. canada (I"m assuming you're in the US) where you can go to have the gov't protect you.

Well, don't shoot the messenger please.

It’s hard to explain my thoughts on this because they are quite subtle. I did not succeed in that. My fault.

What I was trying to explain:

Individuals should have the right to make their own choices regarding the use of supplementation and even medication. But then, it’s also their responsibility to know what they are doing.

In case advisors with a major commercial agenda are giving biased advice, supplement users think they are doing the right thing although they could very well do not. Still, it’s their own responsibility, but they are trusting the wrong person. How could they know that. E.g. the LM farce was carried out on this forum that has a quite serious and caring background. Even I trusted LM partly because of that. And I happen to think there are LM’s all over this place called “earth”.

Now I ask you, what would you do in case you were responsible for government policy on this issue?

To put it very bluntly, I think “we” are getting the regulations we deserve. Although I really do not like that. But I can very well understand that regulatory interventions are developed and possibly (very likely) executed. “We” are apparently not able to handle this level of freedom. Let’s change that.

The next issue is: how do we structure this forum so that it can continue in an ethic fashion, addressing the above issue’s and still leave sufficient freedom for their users? Hopefully winning this race against regulation. But I fear honestly we already lost it. Although this forum is not able to change the world. Bummer.

The whole LM issue should be a wake-up call!

Btw., I’m Dutch ……

Edit: And, I'm not a socialist ...... although the political situation is not comparable, I would be somewhere in between the US republicans and democrats. I hope you can trust me again in my opinions .....

Edited by brainbox, 25 March 2006 - 10:35 PM.

[Shepard]

I don't think you understood what he meant.

[scottl]

You are correct shepard, but he is beyond reasoning so I will not put any more energy into it.

[opales]

Here is a critical review of nootropics, I am not sure whether I have already posted this before but seemed relevant to this thread:

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

As already stated in the introduction, a variety of drugs with different pharmacological activities are all listed under the nonspecific term smart drugs. In the strict sense, smart drugs are the classical nootropics. Many of these drugs are on the market in Europe, South America, Asia and the eastern European countries. The safety profile of these drugs is widely known and in general does not pose a threat. Drugs such as hydergine and piracetam have been used since the 1970s. The efficacy of these drugs is most probably only marginal (if there is efficacy at all), in patients suffering from Alzheimer's disease and only few well controlled trials have been published using state of the art methodology13. Most of these drugs were evaluated in the 70s and 80s without proper neuropsychological tools, and only sparse positive information has been published. Most probably, many of the negative trials have not been published thus far, due to the publication bias for such trials. The efficacy of these drugs in patients is already debatable. The use of nootropics in healthy individuals as suggested on the Net has never been proven to be of any use. No double blind, placebo controlled trials in healthy volunteers of enough power have been published assessing the safety and efficacy of these 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.

A more worrying class being used as smart drugs are the psychotropic drugs. Especially if these drugs are used in combination with psychiatric medications, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions are to be expected.

The third group of drugs are hormones. Some of these hormones, such as dihydroxyepiandosterone and pregnenolone, are precursors for the synthesis of testosterone and oestrogens. Endocrinologists would be horrified if they knew that these potent steroids, as well as potent hormones such as vasopressin, are being used as smart drugs and are freely available via the Net.

The fourth group of drugs is a waste basket containing drugs such as metformine or propranolol together with vitamins, minerals and herbal products. The table lists these 4 classes with a few examples from each class.

Comparable to another smart drug, widely promoted to boost memory, phenytoin, selegiline has high protein binding. This is the basis for potential pharmacokinetic interactions with compounds such as digitoxin and coumarin derivatives.

Combined with serotoninergic compounds, the potentially dangerous serotoninergic syndrome can occur15. This syndrome is characterised by agitation, confusion, nausea, diarrhoea, hyperreflexia, tremor, rigidity, autonomic dysregulation, and coma, leading to massive rhabdomyolysis and death. This syndrome can be provoked if the patient takes a smart drug like selegiline and is treated with a serotoninergic drug such as a serotonin uptake inhibitor, tricyclic antidepressant, tetracyclic antidepressant, tryptophan, amphetamine, dextromethorphan, meperidine, or S-adenosylmethionine. A variety of these drugs belong to the class of smart drugs, which increases the likelihood of interactions, since experiments with cocktails of these drugs is recommended at various sites on the Net.

Smart drugs: stupid drugs, a problem inventory
As we have seen, there are many potential problems if one uses smart drugs.

  1. A variety of drugs are characterised by a small therapeutic window, for instance phenytoin or gamma-hydroxybutyrate. Thus there is a considerable risk of overdosing and toxicity may emerge.
  2. Their purity is not guaranteed, uncharacterised by-products of the production process may contaminate the formulations on offer, and these by-products may be toxic23.
  3. Their quality is not guaranteed, as a result insufficient biological availability (phenytoin is infamous) and there is a risk of overdose if one starts to take more if the expected effect does not occur immediately.
  4. The risk of abuse, overdosing and dependency (selegiline, gamma-hydroxybutyrate)24.
  5. Many of the drugs will be delivered to the customer in packages with insufficient information or no package inserts, and the drugs may already have expired.
6. Consumers may not realise that they are using a drug with pharmacological activity which might interact with Rx drugs and might thus not inform their treating physician about their recreational use.
  7. The safety and tolerability of many smart drugs has not been demonstrated and has not been peer-reviewed.
  8. Especially its long term use has not been demonstrated to be safe.
  9. The benefit-risk ratio of many of the smart drugs is negative: If they are to be taken by healthy individuals, the drugs need to be very safe, especially since the benefits are debatable and still insufficiently proven.
  10. If adverse effects occur, the consumer is not protected, since the manufacturer will claim no liability and will often not be resident in the consumer's home country.

Note a few of other commentaries regarding this subject in the references. Could anyone get these, perhaps through their university subscription and provide them here? I am especially interested in these:

Baker LS "Smart drugs": a caution to everybody. Am J Psychiatry. 1996 Jun 1; 153(6): 844-845

Carson WH, Markowitz JS. "Smart drugs"? Ann Clin Psychiatry. 1996 Mar 1; 8(1): 41-42

Edited by opales, 26 March 2006 - 08:37 AM.

[opales]

Opales and quackwatch would deem a number  the alternative methods I work with and refer people to as quackery.  Fortunately no one has died and left them in charge.

[thumb]

[turbo]

opales, not to be argumentative, but he doesn't really seem to say why he doesn't think that smart drugs work, then he uses 2 examples, and i know right off the bat that one of them i have taken at a party before (ghb). if he is lumping that in with piracetam i don't see why i should even read that article

[opales]

opales, not to be argumentative, but he doesn't really seem to say why he doesn't think that smart drugs work, then he uses 2 examples, and i know right off the bat that one of them i have taken at a party before (ghb).  if he is lumping that in with piracetam i don't see why i should even read that article

Well, he explicitly referred to smart drugs in a more wide sense, which was the reason GHB was included (for similar reasons say 5-htp is discussed in the noots sections here). Most likely GHB was more "hip" when the article was published 10years ago, as illustrated by the fact that the authors behind "Smart Drugs" and "Smart Drugs 2" also did a book called:

GHB: The Natural Mood Enhancer
by Ward Dean, M.D., John Morgenthaler and Steven Wm. Fowkes

Regarding why they don't work, it's more like that the evidence was them doing so is very weak/nonexistent, so there is no reason to assume that they would, especially given that they are psychoactive substances with unknown but likely interactions and possibly lethal consequences when used more recreationally.

Why he thinks they have not been proven to work is illustrated by this passage I already posted:

The efficacy of these drugs is most probably only marginal (if there is efficacy at all), in patients suffering from Alzheimer's disease and only few well controlled trials have been published using state of the art methodology13. Most of these drugs were evaluated in the 70s and 80s without proper neuropsychological tools, and only sparse positive information has been published. Most probably, many of the negative trials have not been published thus far, due to the publication bias for such trials. The efficacy of these drugs in patients is already debatable. The use of nootropics in healthy individuals as suggested on the Net has never been proven to be of any use. No double blind, placebo controlled trials in healthy volunteers of enough power have been published assessing the safety and efficacy of these 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.

This sentence being in my view the important one (but not that the other one's do not contain also useful information)

No double blind, placebo controlled trials in healthy volunteers of enough power have been published assessing the safety and efficacy of these drugs using modern, validated neuropsychological test batteries.

That one sentence contains critique on multiple levels.

The parts on deprenyl and GHB were just to illustrate that these substances are not inherently benign but possibly very dangerous.

Can anyone get the two other commentaries I referred to in my previous post?

Note a few of other commentaries regarding this subject in the references. Could anyone get these, perhaps through their university subscription and provide them here? I am especially interested in these:

Baker LS "Smart drugs": a caution to everybody. Am J Psychiatry. 1996 Jun 1; 153(6): 844-845

Carson WH, Markowitz JS. "Smart drugs"? Ann Clin Psychiatry. 1996 Mar 1; 8(1): 41-42

[turbo]

i have since found many reports of increased cognitive performance in healthy adults, nootropikreations has a ton of info over there, lots of cited studies on healthy individuals

[Bluejay1]

EXCELLENT THREAD TURBO! THANKS!

I am thoroughly convinced that noots help rats, and people with alzheimer's.

I have been using them for roughly 6 months, and *think* they're working for me.

I read this boards, and know tons of you *know/think* they work for you.



is there real, respected studies showing that there is a boost in cognitive measures when noots are tested on healthy, normal people, trying to gain an increase in cognitive performance ABOVE normal levels? I know we're all satisfied they help with boosting sub-normal intelligence, but that's not why most of us are using them.

when i first looked into creatine to see if it was effective, there were tons of studies on people just like me, people that the product had a great market for. if studies show that a normal person can use (relatively) inexpensive supplements to become just a little smarter, i'd imagine they woudl sell like hotcakes, so where are these studies?

[Bluejay1]

NO!! GOVERNMENT CONTROL IS NEVER GOOD!

There's a third point that could be added. And I take the liberty to do so.

3) There is a very strong movement by several national, regional and global governmental authorities to investigate and initiate measures that will limit the use of supplements in general. My first impression of this development about a year ago was that this was an undesirable one. After discovering discussion forums on the internet, I did develop a slight feeling that maybe there could be some sense in this regulatory urge of our governments. After I became aware of the way commercialism is influencing and even controlling the advice that is given to naïve users of these forums, I’m beginning to believe that regulatory interventions are inevitable and that they make a lot of sense. Unfortunately.

Individuals like me, who want to have some educated control over their health by taking FOOD supplements like vitamins, minerals and other food related substances, will likely be very limited in making such choices in the near future.

The unethical exploit by commercial interest is a very important cause of this development. The unheardof promotion of nootropics, aids for dieting (ephedrine usage that actually did cause death in several occasions) and hormone abuse by minors is just to bad. Period.

I'm sorry, but that's the way it is and going to be in my opinion.

Edited by Bluejay1, 27 November 2009 - 06:29 PM.