Another interpretation of the mixed results in the literature is that, in some cases at least, individual differences in response to stimulants have led to null results when some participants in the sample are in fact enhanced and others are not. This possibility is not inconsistent with the previously mentioned ones; both could be at work. Evidence has already been reviewed that ability level, personality, and COMT genotype modulate the effect of stimulants, although most studies in the literature have not broken their samples down along these dimensions. There may well be other as-yet-unexamined individual characteristics that determine drug response. The equivocal nature of the current literature may reflect a mixture of substantial cognitive-enhancement effects for some individuals, diluted by null effects or even counteracted by impairment in others.
For Malcolm Gladwell, “the thing with doping is that it allows you to train harder than you would have done otherwise.” He argues that we cannot easily call someone a cheater on the basis of having used a drug for this purpose. The equivalent, he explains, would be a student who steals an exam paper from the teacher, and then instead of going home and not studying at all, goes to a library and studies five times harder.
It can easily pass through the blood-brain barrier and is known to protect the nerve tissues present in the brain. There is evidence that the acid plays an instrumental role in preventing strokes in adults by decreasing the number of free radicals in the body. It increases the production of acetylcholine, a neurotransmitter that most Alzheimer’s patients are a deficit in.
A number of so-called ‘smart drugs’ or cognitive enhancers have captured attention recently, from stimulants such as modafinil, to amphetamines (often prescribed under the name Adderall) and methylphenidate (also known by its brand name Ritalin). According to widespread news reports, students have begun using these drugs to enhance their performance in school and college, and are continuing to do so in their professional lives.
While these two compounds may not be as exciting as a super pill that instantly unlocks the full potential of your brain, they currently have the most science to back them up. And, as Patel explains, they’re both relatively safe for healthy individuals of most ages. Patel explains that a combination of caffeine and L-theanine is the most basic supplement stack (or combined dose) because the L-theanine can help blunt the anxiety and “shakiness” that can come with ingesting too much caffeine.
A large review published in 2011 found that the drug aids with the type of memory that allows us to explicitly remember past events (called long-term conscious memory), as opposed to the type that helps us remember how to do things like riding a bicycle without thinking about it (known as procedural or implicit memory.) The evidence is mixed on its effect on other types of executive function, such as planning or ability on fluency tests, which measure a person’s ability to generate sets of data—for example, words that begin with the same letter.
Theanine can also be combined with caffeine as both of them work in synergy to increase memory, reaction time, mental endurance, and memory. The best part about Theanine is that it is one of the safest nootropics and is readily available in the form of capsules. A natural option would be to use an excellent green tea brand which constitutes of tea grown in the shade because then Theanine would be abundantly present in it.
The evidence? Found helpful in reducing bodily twitching in myoclonus epilepsy, a rare disorder, but otherwise little studied. Mixed evidence from a study published in 1991 suggests it may improve memory in subjects with cognitive impairment. A meta-analysis published in 2010 that reviewed studies of piracetam and other racetam drugs found that piracetam was somewhat helpful in improving cognition in people who had suffered a stroke or brain injury; the drugs’ effectiveness in treating depression and reducing anxiety was more significant.
Accordingly, we searched the literature for studies in which MPH or d-AMP was administered orally to nonelderly adults in a placebo-controlled design. Some of the studies compared the effects of multiple drugs, in which case we report only the results of stimulant–placebo comparisons; some of the studies compared the effects of stimulants on a patient group and on normal control subjects, in which case we report only the results for control subjects. The studies varied in many other ways, including the types of tasks used, the specific drug used, the way in which dosage was determined (fixed dose or weight-dependent dose), sample size, and subject characteristics (e.g., age, college sample or not, gender). Our approach to the classic splitting versus lumping dilemma has been to take a moderate lumping approach. We group studies according to the general type of cognitive process studied and, within that grouping, the type of task. The drug and dose are reported, as well as sample characteristics, but in the absence of pronounced effects of these factors, we do not attempt to make generalizations about them.
Sure, those with a mental illness may very well need a little more monitoring to make sure they take their medications, but will those suffering from a condition with hallmark symptoms of paranoia and anxiety be helped by consuming a technology that quite literally puts a tracking device inside their body? For patients hearing voices telling them that they're being watched, a monitoring device may be a hard pill to swallow.
Racetams, such as piracetam, oxiracetam, and aniracetam, which are often marketed as cognitive enhancers and sold over-the-counter. Racetams are often referred to as nootropics, but this property is not well established. The racetams have poorly understood mechanisms, although piracetam and aniracetam are known to act as positive allosteric modulators of AMPA receptors and appear to modulate cholinergic systems.