PDA

View Full Version : Any good info on nootropics?


luchog
26th November 2008, 05:37 PM
I've been trying to find some decent, skeptical info on nootropic drugs; but am coming up with nothing. All I can find on Google is a lot of unsubstantiated claims, with the occasional mention that the research may not necessarily be sufficient to support them. Nothing at all on Quackwatch or Skepdic.

Have there been any good investigations of nootropics and their claimed effects?

Dancing David
27th November 2008, 04:53 AM
I don't see how they would work, the function of the brain is in the interaction.

THis certainly looks specious:http://nootropics.com/

This doesn't help:http://www.erowid.org/smarts/

luchog
27th November 2008, 01:55 PM
I don't see how they would work, the function of the brain is in the interaction.
Some of them, such as piracetam, have been used to treat Alzheimer's, dementia, and a number of other neurological disorders; but I can't find reliable information on the actual efficacy of such drugs in enhancing memory and congnition for neurotypical patients.

Some drugs currently included with nootropics, such as latest-generation stimulants like modafinil, do work; but only for a very narrow range of effects (eg. modafinil does effectively promote physical and mental alertness without the side effects of amphetamines, but doesn't have any other cognitive effects).

volatile
27th November 2008, 02:44 PM
I started a thread on this a long while back and not much was forthcoming. It'll be interesting to see what crops up this time; it's certainly something that interests me.

SirPhilip
28th November 2008, 03:28 AM
I've been trying to find some decent, skeptical info on nootropic drugs; but am coming up with nothing. All I can find on Google is a lot of unsubstantiated claims, with the occasional mention that the research may not necessarily be sufficient to support them. Nothing at all on Quackwatch or Skepdic. Have there been any good investigations of nootropics and their claimed effects? Racetams primarily effect language processing, and have been studied in the context of learning for that reason, there is extensive auxilliary studies on PubMed. I'm a health enthusiast with considerable interest in enhancing work performance, which involves demanding organizational and visual thinking skills, over the years. Racetams will 'overclock' your ability to retrieve and assemble information noticeably and provide an airy wakefulness throughout the day.

They must however, be taken properly.

Piracetam at strong nootropic doses must be stacked with a acetycholine precursor otherwise sleepiness will result (apparently due to receptor autocannibilization). Piracetam has a half life of six hours, DMAE slightly longer and must be taken in balanced intervals to have an optimum, strong nootropic effect.

Essentially the minimum being thus:

http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/144/piracetam6hourfz5.jpg

A typical nootropic maintenance regimen:

http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/3640/piracetam3houruj3.jpg

An optimum, strong nootropic regimen:

http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/1729/piracetamjv2.jpg


The primary effect and the most noticeable is an airy wakefulness and fluidity in reactions to cognitive tasks, typically observed by quicker language composition. Piracetam is very inexpensive in bulk as well as DMAE. Aniracetam and Oxiracetam are qualitatively similar to Piracetam, more expensive, and with shorter half lives. Nefiracetam and Pramiracetam are exotic nootropics. I personally spent over $200 on Pramiracetam for a month study, and found it too strong at levels Piracetam was normally taken. Classical musical notes rang with a pristine clarity and observing the precise coordination of several instruments at once was fascinating. Nefiracetam is not currently available anywhere except without a license. :eusa_boohoo:

SirPhilip
28th November 2008, 03:42 AM
I don't see how they would work, the function of the brain is in the interaction.

THis certainly looks specious:http://nootropics.com/

This doesn't help:http://www.erowid.org/smarts/ Racetams are a class of drugs that are actually banned (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Phenylpiracetam) for Olympic competitors due to their physical enhancement effects. As a curious aside, I've noticed that it is considerably harder to get dizzy while smoking strong Jordanian shisha on a strong racetam regimen.

SirPhilip
28th November 2008, 03:52 AM
Some of them, such as piracetam, have been used to treat Alzheimer's, dementia, and a number of other neurological disorders; but I can't find reliable information on the actual efficacy of such drugs in enhancing memory and congnition for neurotypical patients. I am actually very surprised that proper, serious studies on learning haven't been conducted, especially in regards to academic performance, considering Piracetam's safety, inexpense, and added physical health benefits in contrast to amphetamines.

Dancing David
28th November 2008, 05:03 AM
Racetams primarily effect language processing, and have been studied in the context of learning for that reason, there is extensive auxilliary studies on PubMed. I'm a health enthusiast with considerable interest in enhancing work performance, which involves demanding organizational and visual thinking skills, over the years. Racetams will 'overclock' your ability to retrieve and assemble information noticeably and provide an airy wakefulness throughout the day.

They must however, be taken properly.

Piracetam at strong nootropic doses must be stacked with a acetycholine precursor otherwise sleepiness will result (apparently due to receptor autocannibilization). Piracetam has a half life of six hours, DMAE slightly longer and must be taken in balanced intervals to have an optimum, strong nootropic effect.

Essentially the minimum being thus:

http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/144/piracetam6hourfz5.jpg

A typical nootropic maintenance regimen:

http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/3640/piracetam3houruj3.jpg

An optimum, strong nootropic regimen:

http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/1729/piracetamjv2.jpg


The primary effect and the most noticeable is an airy wakefulness and fluidity in reactions to cognitive tasks, typically observed by quicker language composition. Piracetam is very inexpensive in bulk as well as DMAE. Aniracetam and Oxiracetam are qualitatively similar to Piracetam, more expensive, and with shorter half lives. Nefiracetam and Pramiracetam are exotic nootropics. I personally spent over $200 on Pramiracetam for a month study, and found it too strong at levels Piracetam was normally taken. Classical musical notes rang with a pristine clarity and observing the precise coordination of several instruments at once was fascinating. Nefiracetam is not currently available anywhere except without a license. :eusa_boohoo:


Care to link to the studies?

The stuff on PubMed was about something other than a nootropic effect.

SirPhilip
28th November 2008, 09:49 AM
Care to link to the studies?

Sure. These two studies are particularly relevant, one here (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3110830?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=2&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed) and here (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3110830?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=2&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed).

The stuff on PubMed was about something other than a nootropic effect. This commentary (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11812254?ordinalpos=5&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum) addresses the ambiguity. The 'nootropic effect (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1794001?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=5&log$=relatedreviews&logdbfrom=pubmed)' is directly related to acetycholine bioavailability and oxygen usage.

luchog
28th November 2008, 10:28 AM
Racetams primarily effect language processing, and have been studied in the context of learning for that reason, there is extensive auxilliary studies on PubMed. I'm a health enthusiast with considerable interest in enhancing work performance, which involves demanding organizational and visual thinking skills, over the years. Racetams will 'overclock' your ability to retrieve and assemble information noticeably and provide an airy wakefulness throughout the day.

They must however, be taken properly.

I hear that a lot, but there doesn't appear to be adequate supporting evidence of efficacy. Most of the studies of Piracetam, alone or in combination with other drugs, have had mixed results; and most of the rest of the info regarding long-term effects appears to be purely subjective.
Sure. These two studies are particularly relevant, one here (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3110830?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=2&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed) and here (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3110830?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=2&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed).

These both link to the same abstract; which reports results which are mixed at best.

This commentary (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11812254?ordinalpos=5&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum) addresses the ambiguity. The 'nootropic effect (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1794001?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=5&log$=relatedreviews&logdbfrom=pubmed)' is directly related to acetycholine bioavailability and oxygen usage.
This merely outlines the difficulty of evaluation and the lack of adequate conclusive evidence, it doesn't really support the overall efficacy of such a regimen.

SirPhilip
28th November 2008, 11:56 AM
I hear that a lot, but there doesn't appear to be adequate supporting evidence of efficacy. Most of the studies of Piracetam, alone or in combination with other drugs, have had mixed results; and most of the rest of the info regarding long-term effects appears to be purely subjective. It has been marketed as an intelligence booster, which is misleading. Piracetam doesn't increase intelligence, it increases oxygen / acetylcholine utilization, which increases the rate at which you think and decreases the neurobiological noise to signal ratio.

These both link to the same abstract; which reports results which are mixed at best.

(Here is the second (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7301036?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed))

That's because an educated understanding of the context is required. Acetylcholine is directly involved in cognition. Anticholinergic agents act in the opposite manner, globally impairing everything from judgement to visual recognition - that is how the term nootropic (http://www.tocris.com/dispprod.php?ItemId=5375) validly arose. The studies strongly support efficacy involving combining racetams with an acetylcholine precursor that fortifies this mechanism, and by extension, biologically enhances cognition.

This merely outlines the difficulty of evaluation and the lack of adequate conclusive evidence, it doesn't really support the overall efficacy of such a regimen. If you combine a racetam such as Piracetam and especially Pramiracetam with an acetylcholine precursor, several things are going to happen to the point where you won't necessarily enjoy it at strong levels:

- Racing thought associations and rapid judgement calls
- Wakefulness
- Mood overstability

Piracetam is very low in contraindications and essentially physically effects everyone the same way. So is it for everyone? Well, not everyone particularly enjoys walking around with Dr.Spock's mood range and the imperative talkativeness of a valley girl. You'll be the life of the party at a Larry Niven convention though.

Dancing David
28th November 2008, 12:39 PM
Sure. These two studies are particularly relevant, one here (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3110830?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=2&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed) and here (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3110830?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=2&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed).

This commentary (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11812254?ordinalpos=5&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum) addresses the ambiguity. The 'nootropic effect (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1794001?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=5&log$=relatedreviews&logdbfrom=pubmed)' is directly related to acetycholine bioavailability and oxygen usage.

Two studies from 1987, not much, anything more recent?

:)

Dancing David
28th November 2008, 12:43 PM
It has been marketed as an intelligence booster, which is misleading. Piracetam doesn't increase intelligence, it increases oxygen / acetylcholine utilization, which increases the rate at which you think and decreases the neurobiological noise to signal ratio.

Wow, bold statement for no data, where did that come from?



(Here is the second (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7301036?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed))

Even worse, from 1981.

Do you have any recent data?


That's because an educated understanding of the context is required. Acetylcholine is directly involved in cognition. Anticholinergic agents act in the opposite manner, globally impairing everything from judgement to visual recognition - that is how the term nootropic (http://www.tocris.com/dispprod.php?ItemId=5375) validly arose. The studies strongly support efficacy involving combining racetams with an acetylcholine precursor that fortifies this mechanism, and by extension, biologically enhances cognition.

By extension angels and god exis as well. Anything more data driven, like preformance on specific cognitive tasks in random samples of adults?


If you combine a racetam such as Piracetam and especially Pramiracetam with an acetylcholine precursor, several things are going to happen to the point where you won't necessarily enjoy it at strong levels:

- Racing thought associations and rapid judgement calls
- Wakefulness
- Mood overstability

Piracetam is very low in contraindications and essentially physically effects everyone the same way. So is it for everyone? Well, not everyone particularly enjoys walking around with Dr.Spock's mood range and the imperative talkativeness of a valley girl. You'll be the life of the party at a Larry Niven convention though.

SirPhilip
28th November 2008, 02:24 PM
Wow, bold statement for no data, where did that come from? Top secret zero blind methodology that previously I used to determine caffeine motivates people to work without requiring an entire brokerage firm's participation over a month period.

By extension angels and god exis as well. Studies on that were very difficult, even using the zero blind method. We had to wrap our heads around the fact both had measurable, epidemically detrimental effects on cognition worldwide despite no bioactivity whatsoever and lacking any mechanism of action.

Anything more data driven, like preformance on specific cognitive tasks in random samples of adults? The most significant studies would be conducted using Nefiracetam (http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00001933?intr=%22Nefiracetam%22&rank=1) and Pramiracetam, not Piracetam, which efficacy would then be comparatively studied against amphetamines. An initial study was done (http://biopsychiatry.com/pramiracetam.htm) in 1991, which was no surprise, positive. It is silly to debate whether nootropics exist (http://biopsychiatry.com/cholinergics.htm), unless appearing uneducated is what you're after here. Note a study would be attempting to determine recall speed, and learning as a secondary factor. Lastly, Chinese researchers apparently took the initiative in heavily researching them over the past several years.

Dancing David
29th November 2008, 07:06 AM
Okay, in other words, no you don't have recent data?

Too bad , huh.

SirPhilip
29th November 2008, 08:50 AM
Okay, in other words, no you don't have recent data? Too bad , huh. What are you talking about?

luchog
29th November 2008, 02:31 PM
It has been marketed as an intelligence booster, which is misleading. Piracetam doesn't increase intelligence, it increases oxygen / acetylcholine utilization, which increases the rate at which you think and decreases the neurobiological noise to signal ratio.

And the evidence for this is... where exactly? Nothing you've posted so far as included it.

(Here is the second (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7301036?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed))

So, old, outdated study showing results that are mixed, in rats, which may or may not translate to humans (hint, more often than not, it doesn't). No followups? No verification? No recent studies demonstrating less equivocal effects

That's because an educated understanding of the context is required.


It is silly to debate whether nootropics exist, unless appearing uneducated is what you're after here.

Another woo technique, if someone fails to accept something based on your say-so, insult them.

I'm quite well-educated on the issue, and am attempting to become moreso. So far, you'e posted nothing I haven't already seen, and nothing that supports your claims to the extent that you seem to think. All you've proven so far is that studies are lacking, and what studies do exist show mixed results.

Note a study would be attempting to determine recall speed, and learning as a secondary factor. Lastly, Chinese researchers apparently took the initiative in heavily researching them over the past several years.

Great. If they've been researching, where are the results of their research?

If you combine a racetam such as Piracetam and especially Pramiracetam with an acetylcholine precursor, several things are going to happen to the point where you won't necessarily enjoy it at strong levels:

- Racing thought associations and rapid judgement calls
- Wakefulness
- Mood overstability

Piracetam is very low in contraindications and essentially physically effects everyone the same way. So is it for everyone? Well, not everyone particularly enjoys walking around with Dr.Spock's mood range and the imperative talkativeness of a valley girl. You'll be the life of the party at a Larry Niven convention though.
Yeah, all fine and good; but where's the actual, real, hard evidence that it actually does any of the things you claim it does?

SirPhilip
29th November 2008, 08:20 PM
And the evidence for this is... where exactly? Nothing you've posted so far as included it. Evidence that it acts as a cerebral stimulant?

So, old, outdated study showing results that are mixed, in rats, which may or may not translate to humans (hint, more often than not, it doesn't). No followups? No verification? No recent studies demonstrating less equivocal effects It isn't in dispute, though. Everything I wrote was coherently accurate, based on direct observation over five years, and suitable for constructive criticism by anyone with a more educated understanding of the subject than me.

Another woo technique, if someone fails to accept something based on your say-so, insult them. You are contesting combining a acetylcholine precursor with a racetam will not produce a biological effect in contrast to a placebo, which is ridiculous to anyone with a basic education on the subject. Demanding everything spelt out in simplistic terms while you refuse to think, the penalty is your own. Half the reason I wrote at length in fact was preventing should you try one, pressure headaches and throwing your sleeping schedule out of orbit, to say nothing of possible depression. We're talking about exotic, synthetic drugs here that due to their safety are not scheduled, not green tea extract.

I'm quite well-educated on the issue, and am attempting to become moreso. Yeah, all fine and good; but where's the actual, real, hard evidence that it actually does any of the things you claim it does? Racetam nootropics act as cerebral stimulants, they do not noticeably enhance intelligence or comprehension skills. Amphetamines have strong nootropic secondary effects, as any ambitious university student will tell you, as well as caffeine to a lesser degree. Quite a few people on these forums would probably tell you flat out they managed 40% to 60% faster in tests while using an amphetamine. It is a bold statement, to be sure.

Zeuzzz
29th November 2008, 08:28 PM
Tianeptine i would put in this category. Wonder antidepressant that clears peoples consciousness, cheers people up no end, and enables very clear thought I found. Helped with my intelligence and work no ends. It was so successful compared to SRI's, and had so little side effects, that I think the FDA banned it, for obviously commercial reasons. Its quite paradoxical and controversial too, as it goes against the serotonin hypothesis for depression, it actually enhances the reuptake of serotonin instead of inhibiting it, opposite to the action of SSRIs. And its slightly more powerful chemical cousin Amineptine is now actually illegal I think, maybe even a scheduled chemical, though this one did have some side effects so couldn't really be put in this category. Like spontaneous orgasm. :eek:

Theres a couple of other good ones out at the moment, i'll post back when I've the time. But they dont seem to have been researched very much. Plenty of info, first hand experiences, recommendations and scientific publications available about nootropics here: http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=172 (need to register to view the scientific publication archive however)

Dancing David
30th November 2008, 07:24 AM
Evidence that it acts as a cerebral stimulant?

It isn't in dispute, though. Everything I wrote was coherently accurate, based on direct observation over five years, and suitable for constructive criticism by anyone with a more educated understanding of the subject than me.

You are contesting combining a acetylcholine precursor with a racetam will not produce a biological effect in contrast to a placebo, which is ridiculous to anyone with a basic education on the subject. Demanding everything spelt out in simplistic terms while you refuse to think, the penalty is your own. Half the reason I wrote at length in fact was preventing should you try one, pressure headaches and throwing your sleeping schedule out of orbit, to say nothing of possible depression. We're talking about exotic, synthetic drugs here that due to their safety are not scheduled, not green tea extract.

Racetam nootropics act as cerebral stimulants, they do not noticeably enhance intelligence or comprehension skills. Amphetamines have strong nootropic secondary effects, as any ambitious university student will tell you, as well as caffeine to a lesser degree. Quite a few people on these forums would probably tell you flat out they managed 40% to 60% faster in tests while using an amphetamine. It is a bold statement, to be sure.


Still unable to engage is rational discussion?

Wow, Luchog is a very coherent poster, why are you desecending to such 'Angels exist, I shouldn't have to spell it out for you", sort of argument ?

I am refraining from lampooning you more than that Sir Phillip, perhaps you have lampooned yourself quite adequately without my help. I could just insert the word 'homeopathy' or 'spell casting' into many of your sentences for hysterical effect?

SirPhilip
30th November 2008, 08:52 AM
Still unable to engage is rational discussion? Everything I wrote was correct, however. Otherwise I wouldn't have said it. If you set up a basic, proper control group consisting of 50 people using a strong dose of Piracetam plus precursor they would immediately and consistently report the same stimulant effect each time it was administered compared with a placebo. You would probably see an average 30%/40% disparity in completion time compared with a placebo also on structured tests as well.

Wow, Luchog is a very coherent poster.. Requiring information be dumbed down is not coherence.

Professor Yaffle
30th November 2008, 09:04 AM
Requiring people to post evidence rather than assertions is fairly common around here. I am not sure why you are surprised that the same is asked of you.

Zeuzzz
30th November 2008, 09:07 AM
A good one to check out if you want science papers about them would be phenibul. See the wikipedia page for various references and studies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenibut also http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11830761?dopt=Abstract

And theres a brilliant thread that outriderx posted at DF which gives lots of information about nootropics and lists plenty of references. I've yet to read it but at first glance it looks quite comprehensive: http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=70245

SirPhilip
30th November 2008, 09:32 AM
I am refraining from lampooning you more than that Sir Phillip, perhaps you have lampooned yourself quite adequately without my help. I could just insert the word 'homeopathy' or 'spell casting' into many of your sentences for hysterical effect?

Dave, now we both know this is thrilling science fiction were trying to approach, not mythology. Now nobody is stopping you, or Luchog, from doing several controlled trials yourself as I did. The real amusement however will be twofold. One, the simple fact it very easy to directly differentiate from a placebo as a stimulant, which you will observe and second and most irritating of all whether you like it or not, that bickering will noticeably be characteristically different, fluid, and imperative, but not necessarily common sense which is the domain of intelligence. Hence you'll understand what a nootropic is and isn't, what a constructive study protocol would look like, and understanding their research potential as alternatives to harsh physical stimulants like amphetamines. In essence validating of everything I observed on my own trials.

But good lord, I'll fund both of your adventures. As you know from our past exchanges, making correct observations then launching declarations is a rewarding, mischievous pastime of mine. It's a rewarding intellectual sportsmanship that can only be had on critical thinking forums.

SirPhilip
30th November 2008, 10:04 AM
Requiring people to post evidence rather than assertions is fairly common around here. I am not sure why you are surprised that the same is asked of you. The original question was regarding racetams such as Piracetam in regards to a placebo. That is, will you notice anything. Yes, you will.

Having used them almost daily for the good part of five years, I can say without question they are useful stimulants, and anyone is encouraged to confirm the same observations, as I've observed the same in others. What luchog wanted to know however was skills tests in control groups. In other words, comparable effects to an amphetamine, which are far stronger stimulants.

Professor Yaffle
30th November 2008, 10:08 AM
The original question was regarding racetams such as Piracetam in regards to a placebo. That is, will you notice anything. Yes, you will.

Having used them almost daily for the good part of five years, I can say without question they are useful stimulants, and anyone is encouraged to confirm the same observations, as I've observed the same in others. What luchog wanted to know however was skills tests in control groups. In other words, comparable effects to an amphetamine, which are far stronger stimulants.

No, the OP was asking for sources of information on nootropics which were better than the ones found with google which were mainly unsubstantiated.

SirPhilip
30th November 2008, 10:35 AM
No, the OP was asking for sources of information on nootropics which were better than the ones found with google which were mainly unsubstantiated. Actually that was David, and PubMed respectively.

Professor Yaffle
30th November 2008, 10:40 AM
Actually that was David, and PubMed respectively.

What are you talking about?

SirPhilip
30th November 2008, 12:25 PM
What are you talking about? She was curious if anything substantiated the "learning enhancement" claim, that is, an academic performance control group study, which I explained Pramiracetam and Nefiracetam would be candidates not Piracetam as the nootropic effect, while perfectly distinguishable from a placebo, is a moderate wakeful stimulation that does not necessarily increase in effect with dosage but has peripheral nootropic effects, and if a study was taken would be consistent. I wouldn't doubt Pramiracetam however, from my own observations, could have efficacy in comparative studies higher to an amphetamine once the right mg per kg body weight was determined.

David wanted to understand if a nootropic actually exists or not the hard way. I suppose I could lend him $10 so he doesn't have to draw conclusions, and worse, take my word for anything.

Zeuzzz
30th November 2008, 09:48 PM
These should be less sensationalized than most stuff on the net. Though many of the most popular nootropics are not approved for use, and so some of them get left out for this reason. First ones by David Nutt, and he's quite respected and will be impartial. The list of the main nootropics starts on page 13 and each are discussed afterwards with relevant references to publications. Also covers many natural dietary supplements like Ginkgo biloba and ginseng, which are technically nootropics according to research done on their effects on cognition.

http://www.foresight.gov.uk/Brain%20Science/Cognition%20Enhancers.pdf

Cognition Enhancers
Roy Jones
The Research Institute for the Care of the
Elderly, Bath
Kelly Morris
University of Bristol
David Nutt
University of Bristol

also this looks ok:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18353672
Cognition enhancers between treating and doping the mind. Pharmacol Res. 2008 Mar;57(3):196-213. Epub 2008 Feb 15.

Zeuzzz
1st December 2008, 07:53 AM
Interesting to see that Nutt et al do actually include Tianeptine as a nootropic, my above guess that it has nootropic qualities seems largely correct. Though they didn't know where to put it, its mechanism is still regarded a bit of a mystery according to conventional depression theories.

http://www.foresight.gov.uk/Brain%20Science/Cognition%20Enhancers.pdf

Miscellaneous agents

The antidepressant tianeptine prevents and reverses the adverse effects of glucocorticoids and stress on dendritic changes and synaptic plasticity, brain morphology, and memory.[27,208]

Although a serotonergic action was assumed, tianeptine might act to protect neurons from excessive actions of excitatory aminoacids.

SleuthM
2nd December 2008, 11:27 AM
A briefly sketched search on PubMed in the form of

‘nootropic (memory or learning) humans (randomi* or trial* or blind* or systematic)’

identifies some 200 potentially robust studies of which some 35 were published since Jan. 2007.

luchog (Religious Fanatic) may be best served if he scanned the abstracts of these papers to get a reasonable idea of current thinking on nootropic drugs. In a next step he may want to look at three or four of these studies and follow-up their references or contact some of the named authors for further information.

With respect: the discussion on JREF so far has (in large parts) the whiff of unreality about it.

luchog looks for ‘actual, real, hard evidence’. There might not be any.
Happens quite often in medicine / medical research.

Zeuzzz
2nd December 2008, 01:42 PM
God. This thread died after I posted some good information. What do people think of nutts publication? or has he fallen for some misinfo too? I think its quite a good overview.

Anyway, lets restore some activity.

Did you know that water is actually the best nootropic there is? Not only does it greatly enhance learning and your memory, it also has its own memory, called the memory of water (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_memory). Brilliant eh?

:)

luchog
8th December 2008, 10:52 PM
Now nobody is stopping you, or Luchog, from doing several controlled trials yourself as I did.

Actually, the federal government is, since I'm not a licensed medical researcher. But since you claim to be, where are the results of your controlled trials published? Is there are journal article you can reference? Or are you using the term "controlled trial" to mean nothing more than "took a handful of drugs and it was totally gnarly, dude"? Because, FYI, that's not a controlled trial.

Here's a little bit of advice, around here, we want hard evidence. We do not accept unsupported claims, personal anecdotes, or speculation as evidence; and throwing around technical jargon which you clearly don't fully understand impresses no one. So far all you've posted are some unverified preliminary studies, a whole lot of "it's that way because I said so", and a lot of handwaving when challenged on your complete lack of documented evidence for your claims.

Typical woo behaviour.

luchog
8th December 2008, 10:53 PM
God. This thread died after I posted some good information. What do people think of nutts publication? or has he fallen for some misinfo too? I think its quite a good overview.

Nutt's work was addressed earlier in the thread.

luchog
8th December 2008, 11:01 PM
Having used them almost daily for the good part of five years, I can say without question they are useful stimulants, and anyone is encouraged to confirm the same observations, as I've observed the same in others. What luchog wanted to know however was skills tests in control groups. In other words, comparable effects to an amphetamine, which are far stronger stimulants.

Clearly indicating you have not been reading anything actually posted in this thread, nor do you actually understand anything about the substances you're promoting. That is not even remotely what I was asking for.

On top of that, racetams are not CNS stimulants, are not related to amphetamines, nor do they have even remotely an analogous effect. Considering everything else you've posted, it's not surprising you are that clueless about even the most basic facts about these drugs.

luchog
8th December 2008, 11:05 PM
luchog (Religious Fanatic) may be best served if he scanned the abstracts of these papers to get a reasonable idea of current thinking on nootropic drugs. In a next step he may want to look at three or four of these studies and follow-up their references or contact some of the named authors for further information.

No, I wouldn't, because all I've been able to find on Pubmed are old, unverified studies, studies of unrelated drugs and applications, and a lot of inconclusive meta-studies.

luchog looks for ‘actual, real, hard evidence’. There might not be any.
Happens quite often in medicine / medical research.
No, it doesn't. Real, hard evidence is always there. It just requires someone doing the research to demonstrate it. Right now, no one has demonstrated that these drugs do what is claimed that they do. Being that they've been around for the better part of 3 decades; one would think the studies would have been done to provide that evidence by now. Since they haven't, the obvious conclusion is that none of these drugs has shown enough of a consistent and medically siginificant effect in neurotypical individuals to justify further investigation.

Zeuzzz
14th December 2008, 04:54 PM
none of these drugs has shown enough of a consistent and medically siginificant effect in neurotypical individuals to justify further investigation.

Which ones in particular are you looking for supporting evidence for? And what criteria are you testing them against?

Dancing David
14th December 2008, 06:11 PM
Which ones in particular are you looking for supporting evidence for? And what criteria are you testing them against?


I would suggest rephrasing luchog's statement:
"that none of these drugs has shown enough of a consistent and medically siginificant effect in neurotypical individuals to justify further investigation. "

To be

Which of these drugs has been shown to have a consistent and medically significant effect in neurotypic individuals to justify further investigation?

I would say that i would be happy with behavioral measures of either neurological function or behvioral bench marks.

Yes amphetamines allow you to stay up longer, but do they improve of debilitate preformance?

Zeuzzz
14th December 2008, 06:38 PM
Which of these drugs has been shown to have a consistent and medically significant effect in neurotypic individuals to justify further investigation?


Most of the studies I have read are on rats. And unless the rats were particularly clever and writing essays for them to test intelligence, I dont think they can be reliable indicators of imporved intelligence or memory.

Hum Psychopharmacol Clin Exp 2004; 19: 359–360.
BOOK REVIEW
Cognitive Enhancing Drugs. Edited by J. J.
Buccafusco. Birkhauser Verlag: Berlin. Pages: 215.
ISBN: 3-7643-6982-5. Price CHF 198/ Euros 128.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/109087385/abstract
Wednes and colleagues consider the role of natural products
as cognitive enhancing agents. Such products (for
example, gingseng, ginkgo biloba extracts, acetyl carnitine
and the semi purified extract from the Chinese herb huperzine
A) are extremely popular with the general public and
mainly available through health food shops. However, as
the authors point out in their excellent chapter, their efficacy
is largely unknown as few controlled clinical trials have
been undertaken and those that have been carried out
involve only small numbers of subjects.

The final chapter, by Buccafusco and Youdim, considers a
number of interesting new molecules that show promise in
animal studies but have not yet been extensively studied in
the clinic. Of the compounds considered, MHP-133 is a nonspecific
cholinomimetic drug with AchEI activity that
decreases beta amyloid formation while TV3326 is a
MAO A and B inhibitor that increases the release of acetylcholine,
noradrenaline, serotonin, dopamine and has neuroprotective
action by enhancing the activity of alpha
secretase thereby reducing the deposition of beta-amyloid.
In conclusion, this is an excellent and up-to-date account
of the cognitive enhancing drugs that are currently available
or in the process of development. It is interesting to note
that the nootropic agents, such as piracetam and oxiracetam,
and the gangliosides, that were widely used for well
over a decade in several European countries for their supposed
memory enhancing actions, are not mentioned. It
seems, at last, that serious attention is now being given to
those drugs that have demonstrated clinical efficacy in
properly controlled clinical trials and not to those compounds
that only show elaborate behavioural effects in
healthy rats!


But not too much attention from what I've read.

Yes amphetamines allow you to stay up longer, but do they improve of debilitate preformance?


I would say no to typical amphetamines. Compulsove behaviour can go through the roof. One minute you'd be typing away eagerly at your essay and making good progress, the next you'd be frantically doing the ironing, tidying your room and dancing around the kitchen listening to barry manilow.

Zeuzzz
14th December 2008, 06:42 PM
saying that, heres one slightly more recent human study:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11498727
Abstract Rationale: Extracts of Bacopa monniera have
been reported to exert cognitive enhancing effects in animals.
However, the effects on human cognition are inconclusive.
Objective: The current study examined the
chronic effects of an extract of B. monniera (Keenmind)
on cognitive function in healthy human subjects.
Methods: The study was a double-blind placebo-controlled
independent-group design in which subjects were
randomly allocated to one of two treatment conditions,
B. monniera (300 mg) or placebo. Neuropsychological
testing was conducted pre-(baseline) and at 5 and
12 weeks post drug administration. Results: B. monniera
significantly improved speed of visual information processing
measured by the IT task, learning rate and memory
consolidation measured by the AVLT (P<0.05), and
state anxiety (P<0.001) compared to placebo, with maximal
effects evident after 12 weeks. Conclusions: These
findings suggest that B. monniera may improve higher
order cognitive processes that are critically dependent on
the input of information from our environment such as
learning and memory.


As for the most popular ones like piracetam, aniracetam and oxiracetam, cant find a thing in modern studies to test their efficacy. Lots of rat studies, lots of old studies, but no recent ones on humans testing for actual nootropic effects. Maybe I'm just not looking hard enough.

SirPhilip
31st December 2008, 05:51 PM
Clearly indicating you have not been reading anything actually posted in this thread, nor do you actually understand anything about the substances you're promoting. That is not even remotely what I was asking for. On top of that, racetams are not CNS stimulants, are not related to amphetamines, nor do they have even remotely an analogous effect. Considering everything else you've posted, it's not surprising you are that clueless about even the most basic facts about these drugs. Flooring it in neutral, now?

SirPhilip
31st December 2008, 07:41 PM
No, it doesn't. Real, hard evidence is always there. It just requires someone doing the research to demonstrate it. Right now, no one has demonstrated that these drugs do what is claimed that they do. Well, she's right about that. So, does anyone want to throw Luchog $20?

Zeuzzz
18th January 2010, 08:25 PM
Found it!

I knew there was one. Although there seems to be a complete lack of research (funding?) into healthy people and nootropics there is this one study on nornal healthy people, supporting piracetams efficacy.

Increase in the Power of Human Memory in Normal Man through the Use of Drugs

STUART J. DIMOND* and E. Y. M. BROUWERS**
Department of Psychology, University College, P.O. Box 78, Cardiff CF 1 IXB, Wales, Great Britain

Abstract. Nootropyl (Piracetam) a drug reported to facilitate learning in animals was tested for its elect on man by administering it to normal volunteers. The subjects were given 3 x4 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.


Quote:
[from the abstract] Nootropyl (Piracetam) a drug reported to facilitate learning in animals was tested for its elect on man by administering it to normal volunteers. The subjects were given 3 x4 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.

[....]

The subjects were 16 students from University College, Cardiff, 12 male and 4 female: all were in their second and third year of the Psycfiology course. The subjects were medically examined prior to and after the investigation. They were all healthy, well adjusted individuals, at the top level of health.


[..........]

The fact is that the adminstration
of Piracetam promotes verbal learning
and in this it would appear to be a substance which in
a specific respect is capable of extending the intellectual
functions of man. It therefore represents a forerunner
of a class of drugs which could act to lead
him to learn or to remember better, and thus the effect
is in the actual enhancement of performance. The
point has been stressed that the subjects of this investigation
were essentially normal healthy college undergraduates,
Investigations of the past illustrating enhancement
of mental function in man have almost
invariably done so in individuals exhibiting a pathological
condition. Where normals previously have been
studied, for example in the administration of Levadopa
(Loranger et al., 1972) no significant effect has been
reported. Increase in alertness ax~td enhanced mental
ability could be attributed in such cases to the effect
of the drug in counteracting the pathology, or acting
against the pathology in such a way that the mental
processes were enhanced. Such an explanation cannot
be proposed here for our results because our subjects
were not senile, suffering from generalized brain disorder,
confusional states, or any other pathology
of the brain. The effect therefore is essentially of enhancement
of the mnemonic power of the brain by
the action of the drug upon the brain processes themselves
rather than its action in holding some pathology
known or unspec!fied at bay.


Good read, full paper here (http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/local_links.php?action=jump&catid=103&id=8467) (might need to be a member at drugs forum)

or springer http://www.springerlink.com/content/v6t6k526405vm570/

David. Thoughts appreciated.

luchog
22nd January 2010, 12:30 AM
Found it!

I knew there was one. Although there seems to be a complete lack of research (funding?) into healthy people and nootropics there is this one study on nornal healthy people, supporting piracetams efficacy.


Ugh. Not only thread necromancy; but yet another outdated, unreplicated, inadequate study. This one from 1976, is even more flawed than the later studies, with a sample of only 20 subjects, a woeful lack of controls for confounding variables (just read the number of assumptions made), and conclusions that are not supported by the cherry-picked data provided. Far from supporting their efficacy, the results of this study are mixed, at best; and even then the study only claims an effect in a very narrow field of cognition, verbal recall, with no effects shown on other cognitive processes.

Considering the enormous profit potential for proven cognition enhancing drugs; the fact that no one has choosen to continue investigating this category of drugs pretty adequately demonstrates that it's not a fruitful avenue of research. All of the advocates of the racetams depend so heavily on subjective experience rather than objective research, since the objective research fails entirely to support their claims.