[Pongo_the_Great]

Nooptroics work, otherwise they'd not have FDA [insert whatever system you're under] approval. A quick glance at the crap fluff piece above shows that many of them are simple supplements [i.e. distilled stuff from a normal diet], but some are <b>real pharmaceutical drugs</b>.

Obviously, we immediately cull anything that is available from a normal diet, and ask the questions of the others. As such, your <b>entire</b> argument is ignorant, as it fails to ask the simple question: <i>in what cases do these drugs work</i>?

They're designed for a purpose. They must be efficacious for that purpose. They <i>might</i> have other beneficial side effects. They <i>might</i> have negative side effects.

Your comment is ignorant as hell, and it's depressing that you're the top comment.

Hint: drugs such as modafinil, caffeine, nicotine are part of daily life <b>because they have a demonstrable effect</b>.

This is a white-wash, and a pathetic piece of propaganda. Major pharma companies, and entire caffeine / nicotine based economies of industrialised <> developing world countries and the multi-billion $ profits involved state you're full of shit.

/HN, what a crock.

HINT: Military forces have been STUFFING a whole slew of drugs into their people since they were discovered. Where do you think heroin came from? Where do you think amphetamines came from? Where do you think most of the research (hello LSD) was focused towards in the last 40 years? Where do you think the newest batch of stuff came from?

Here's a "duel" for you: find a serving member of combat (esp. Airforce) and then ask them if they can fly <i>without</i> taking their pills. They. Are. Not. Allowed. To.

Enhancing drugs work ~ go investigate the fucking Tour-de-France, you idiot. And if you need data on the mental realm, then nicotine & caffeine have <b>full documented papers on their effects</b>. This isn't even the prescription / FDA / illegal stuff out there.

You really are a shill.

Gaaahh... Muppets.

p.s. "On Muppets". Why the hell doesn't standard HTML tags work around here? Retro-chique? Kinda... odd for this type of forum.

[robbiep]

You state that Nootropics work, or else they wouldn't be available/approved. However drugs that would generally be considered psychoactive aren't approved as nootropics, they are approved as part of the food and beverage industry/anti depressant/anti-narcolepsy/anti-ADD aids (Modafinil, Adderall, nicotine, caffeine). Their use as nootropics is secondary to their licensed use and their current popularity is, I believe, mostly to the technological sophistication of society, with a quest for constant improvement and productivity metrics.

>|They're designed for a purpose. They must be efficacious for that purpose.

Why? That is fallacious. They aren't designed for the purpose they are touted for, and as you correctly point out later, the article that these comments all relate to primarily refer to supplements rather than drugs per se .

>| Where do you think heroin came from?

What are you talking about? The military had nothing to do with Heroin.

Now, I use caffeine, nicotine and modafinil regularly. But that does not legitimise all drugs/supplements that have had the label 'nootropic' added to them by passionate advocates for human mental advancement and improvement, and the comment that is currently the first post in this thread I believe correctly points out what is required in order to establish evidence around the efficacy of these drugs.

We should not be too rapid in our praise of miracle cures and treatments, history shows that most of them are a load of shit.

ps. try asterisks for italics

[strlen]

> Hint: drugs such as modafinil, caffeine, nicotine are part of daily life <b>because they have a demonstrable effect</b>.

The original story talks about racetams as opposed to stimulants. I don't think the fact that stimulants... stimulate is controversial: it's just side effects of stimulants are also well known. Of course, some stimulants are more socially accepted than others: no one calls me a junky and an addict, even though I run to the coffee machine every morning lest I experience (non-trivial) withdrawal syndroms (headache, excessive sleepiness).

Racetams appeal as they (seem to) have no known side effects -- which is that part that sounds too good to be true. As far as I understand the mechanism is such: poor absorption of choline (either due to lack of choline in diet or issues with choline receptors) creates cognitive impairment; racetams and choline "fix" this impairment. That isn't controversial.

However, what I don't know (and what tokenadult doesn't know) is what affect racetams and choline have on healthy individuals. In other words, is the money spent on months' supply of choline and *racetam simply better spent on French press, a good grinder, dark roasted beans, and a gym membership?

I don't know and I'm curious to see some studies. Note: I am not saying that folks shouldn't experiment with racetams, it's just they can't know a-priori it will have the advertised effect. OTOH if you are not short on money, there's nothing wrong with experimentation: the Placebo effect alone could be worth it. It's just you have to draw the line between "someone on the Internet reported did X and experienced Y" and "X implies Y is a scientific valid conclusion".

Of course the worst scam is energy drinks: a cup of coffee costs less and tastes better than five hour energy -- and I am at a loss at how a five hour energy could do something that coffee can not.

[Pongo_the_Great]

Racetams have proven effects on healthy adults. [Do you want to know more?]. There's a scaled effect which is notable, but most adults over 30 will benefit from them (i.e. the 'smarter / less damaged your systems are' the less benefit you get).

Do you really not have access to common papers? This might be a question of me assuming common access to information where there is none.

Or, think of it this way ~ unless you're living in a pristine environment (which most of you aren't), then they'll help you. Most humans are swimming in a whole sea of chemicals [airborne, ingested] and bacterial processes that you're not aware of. Heck, every human being's weight is 1Kg (ish) of non-human DNA and complex ecosystems.

Yep, that's right: you're a huge ecosystem of your own, revel in it. So take off 1kg off the scale, that's other beasties at play.

Ye Gods, most of you are firing off megadeath levels of antibacterials, chromosome damaging chemicals, metal-based-nasties and so forth just by getting ready in the morning.[1] Your brain chemistry is a whole lot more complex ~ and although we're getting there on understanding it, we've a while to go.

But, the Racetams have so far proven <b>entirely</b> benign, and helpful. They should be given to everyone by deafult, if we're in the realms of fluoridating water supplies.

[1] No, I like science. I love science. We all love it. Still doesn't change the fact that processes like decaffeinated coffee production had stupidly large amounts of cancer producing drugs in them until recently. Or DDT.

[strlen]

Unfortunately I am not in a university, so I no longer have access to JSTOR and the like. I did dig around PubMed/Google and what I've been able to find were studies of impaired individuals. Citations would be useful -- for studies on healthy (or like you said, "naturally" unhealthy -- due to age, environment, lifestyle, etc...) adults.

[Pongo_the_Great]

Well, do a simple bit of logic there (sorry; the study I had in mind is locked). From the age of 20 > 30, there's a quantifiable degradation of DNA replication, or as we call it "ageing". We can all agree that ageing seems to impair certain functions, and if these types of drugs improve "impaired" individuals, then... ?

As stated: the greater the impairment, the greater the effect. Now, you might not want to spend $x on a mere 5% improvement, but we do it all the time in reality ~ tinfoil hats off, but why do we fluoridate water supplies or make sure children have nutritious meals? [in the old model of society that seems to have fallen away].

Note: I advise strongly against over-dosing or using the stronger types without some knowledge of what's going on in your brain. Although, most people fuck around with their brain chemistry happily enough on pleasure receptors anyhow, so it's better than even the legal abuses you can get up to [pain killers, alcohol, nicotine-purely-to-lungs].

Bottom line: it ain't going to kill you like other stuff, and there's no evidence it can actually damage you either [barring affective behaviours which will subside as the drug is removed[1]]. Try it, be sensible, and then whatever.

The entire theatre of this thread, set by the idiot who made the 1st post is ridiculous. Learn some science, maybe?

[1]You might get some slight mania etc depending on your base chemistry, but it's not going to be permanent.

[strlen]

It's fine if the paper is behind a paywall: can you at least give a citation (from a peer-reviewed journal) and an abstract?

Additionally, please see tokenadult's posts: tokenadult is anything _but_ an idiot and has contributed much valuable insight to this community (often times with concrete citations). It's important to learn to disagree respectfully.

[Pongo_the_Great]

Reading the forum rules here, I'm at a loss why a user has gone through my posts on this thread and flagged each one, without a reason.. especially since the first rude post was the one that deserved nuking, not my responses, and <i>didn't</i> get one. Nuke the rude abrasive one, not the ones offering more, unless you've a reason?

The thread I responded to is still lacking in quality, esp. references ~ but I learnt down-thread s/he's a known poster, so I guess the rules don't apply.

Charming. ZZzzz.

[Edit: I'm having trouble finding the paper on this, for reference below, it's from a Welsh University ~ it might have been removed and/or hijacked for use for something else]

[xanados]

Tone is important on Hacker News and you can get downvoted for that alone. Your tone throughout this conversation was dismissive and exaggerated, and HN generally rewards people who are clear and staid in their writing. If you offered evidence for your positions and argued clearly and convincingly for them, and without defensiveness, insult and exaggeration you could probably get many people to agree with you.

People who have been on the site a long time (note: not me) can downvote you, which is what happened to your posts, rather than them being flagged. If you are flagged it just goes to the admins and they delete it if it's counterproductive. Also, you don't seem to know how to use the formatting here, and you don't care enough to figure it out and fix your old posts, which some could take to be as disrespectful to a new community.