It's crazy to me how many people have miserable health, complain about their body and mental state endlessly, but still put up any roadblock they can think of to avoid exercising of any form.
> 5 - 9 means strong effects, definitely not placebo.
It’s impossible for anyone to say this convincingly about their own experience. If it were easy to tell whether an effect was due to placebo, we wouldn’t need blinded trials!
time to put a pebble on the pile of anecdotal evidence for exercise as a life-changing nootropic. for two years now I've been doing 20 minutes of resistance training and 20 minutes of cardio every day and it helps so much with everything that its reached a point where my wife will flat out tell me "go lift" if I'm being irritable or having a hard time focusing.
1. Apart from ADHD medications, which are very powerful, most drugs and weird obscure supplements have little effect (there are some intriguing but noisy results about peptides).
2. Exercise— especially weightlifting and HIIT— is also very powerful. There's evidence of a dose-response curve where light exercise is good but intense is better.
Arguably this is pretty unsurprising, from an evolutionary perspective. It would be strange if our brains had "one weird trick" to perform a lot better with no downsides, since if it existed evolution should've found it. But being in good shape confers large benefits.
The suggestion/allusion that the EU's GDP per capita is lower than the US due to Adderall and Dexedrine not being approved/available is wild. Kind of makes me not want to take seriously the rest of the article...
It is frustratingly hard for me to trust most any nootropic discussion nowadays. Without many large random trials, there are as many questions as answers afterwards.
It doesn't help that I'm on Adderall, but if left to my own devices, would absolutely skip it. I'm assuming I benefit in the able to think way from it. Largely the only reason I know I missed a dose is if I find I lose my patience quickly with others.
While I like your project, there should be strong warnings. Some of the substances listed, like amphetamines, aren't just supplements, they actively and unavoidably alter your brain function. Their effects are "much less subjective", others, like omega-3, may have (or not) benefits that you don't feel at all.
'...nootropic ... “Any substance purported to increase or enhance cognitive abilities." ... communities like the nootropics subreddit, which has a great begginer’s guide.'
At first I thought the mispelling was intentional irony. But the leak to the guide shows that it's just unintentional irony
There's one very simple "nootropic" that I've discovered many years ago and have been doing most days of the week. Buying a cup of coffee and taking a walk in nature. It makes me feel better than just coffee or just walking in nature. Another benefit is that in the days I can do this, I have something to look forward to since waking up.
This is a beautiful bit of statistics, but perhaps displaced into self-reflection.
All therapy, practiced with any consistency, is effective -- probably because sacrificing for one's self builds up self-investment, and self-investment leads to self-protective decision-making that improves outcome and outlook.
Nootropics with perceptible feedback will always seem to be working. This might make their practice more consistent initially, but actually undercuts the build-up of self-regard by replacing it with dependency.
The statistical and analytical perspective is the mature way to handle objective decisions over stochastic processes, and it's the right approach for validating drugs at population scale.
But for personal assessments, decisions, and planning, the statistical can at best provide warnings about addiction or ineffectiveness. But more dangerously, it can give a veneer of objective confidence reinforcing self-destructive feedback loops, and suppress the uncertainty that would drive reflection and personal integration.
It's much better to embrace uncertainty, and share with a friend.
They work until they don’t in my anecdotal experience. Any substance it seems the first time is the best. Then, slowly, my brain chemistry adapts, and it becomes less effective. Sometimes a higher dose works for a while. But it never lasts. Then side effects start to build up, and before long it’s counterproductive. SNRIs worked, until after a few months I lost all my endurance (running) and libido. Kratom was wonderful at almost everything, until it eventually stopped hitting as hard and skipping it caused withdrawals. Micro dose maybe worked but very quickly wasn’t effective (like after 2-3 times with psilocybin, or a couple months of ketamine) many others on this list have a similar track record with my brain. Good at first but the effect wears off after a while and usually end up worse off for it.
18 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 36.7 ms ] threadIt's crazy to me how many people have miserable health, complain about their body and mental state endlessly, but still put up any roadblock they can think of to avoid exercising of any form.
It’s impossible for anyone to say this convincingly about their own experience. If it were easy to tell whether an effect was due to placebo, we wouldn’t need blinded trials!
1. Apart from ADHD medications, which are very powerful, most drugs and weird obscure supplements have little effect (there are some intriguing but noisy results about peptides).
2. Exercise— especially weightlifting and HIIT— is also very powerful. There's evidence of a dose-response curve where light exercise is good but intense is better.
Arguably this is pretty unsurprising, from an evolutionary perspective. It would be strange if our brains had "one weird trick" to perform a lot better with no downsides, since if it existed evolution should've found it. But being in good shape confers large benefits.
Modafinil, Racetams, Noopept, Phenibut
Noopept seems to be curiously missing from this list?
It doesn't help that I'm on Adderall, but if left to my own devices, would absolutely skip it. I'm assuming I benefit in the able to think way from it. Largely the only reason I know I missed a dose is if I find I lose my patience quickly with others.
At first I thought the mispelling was intentional irony. But the leak to the guide shows that it's just unintentional irony
All therapy, practiced with any consistency, is effective -- probably because sacrificing for one's self builds up self-investment, and self-investment leads to self-protective decision-making that improves outcome and outlook.
Nootropics with perceptible feedback will always seem to be working. This might make their practice more consistent initially, but actually undercuts the build-up of self-regard by replacing it with dependency.
The statistical and analytical perspective is the mature way to handle objective decisions over stochastic processes, and it's the right approach for validating drugs at population scale.
But for personal assessments, decisions, and planning, the statistical can at best provide warnings about addiction or ineffectiveness. But more dangerously, it can give a veneer of objective confidence reinforcing self-destructive feedback loops, and suppress the uncertainty that would drive reflection and personal integration.
It's much better to embrace uncertainty, and share with a friend.
The best was galantamine, noopept, acetyltyrosine, and cdp-choline. It was beloved by many.
However, my magnum opus could have been stacks that changed daily, to prevent any neurochemical adaptation or tolerance.
But, at some point the almighty paycheck hijacked my brain. Why not include money as an anti-nootropic in your study?
Judging by the boundless stupidity we are seeing in the world of oligarchs now, maybe too much money is tge ultimate anti-nootropic /s