Results: Women with high caffeine intakes had significantly higher rates of bone loss at the spine than did those with low intakes (−1.90 ± 0.97% compared with 1.19 ± 1.08%; P = 0.038). When the data were analyzed according to VDR genotype and caffeine intake, women with the tt genotype had significantly (P = 0.054) higher rates of bone loss at the spine (−8.14 ± 2.62%) than did women with the TT genotype (−0.34 ± 1.42%) when their caffeine intake was >300 mg/d…In 1994, Morrison et al (22) first reported an association between vitamin D receptor gene (VDR) polymorphism and BMD of the spine and hip in adults. After this initial report, the relation between VDR polymorphism and BMD, bone turnover, and bone loss has been extensively evaluated. The results of some studies support an association between VDR polymorphism and BMD (23-,25), whereas other studies showed no evidence for this association (26,27)…At baseline, no significant differences existed in serum parathyroid hormone, serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D, serum osteocalcin, and urinary N-telopeptide between the low- and high-caffeine groups (Table 1⇑). In the longitudinal study, the percentage of change in serum parathyroid hormone concentrations was significantly lower in the high-caffeine group than in the low-caffeine group (Table 2⇑). However, no significant differences existed in the percentage of change in serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D
My answer is that this is not a lot of research or very good research (not nearly as good as the research on nicotine, eg.), and assuming it’s true, I don’t value long-term memory that much because LTM is something that is easily assisted or replaced (personal archives, and spaced repetition). For me, my problems tend to be more about akrasia and energy and not getting things done, so even if a stimulant comes with a little cost to long-term memory, it’s still useful for me. I’m going continue to use the caffeine. It’s not so bad in conjunction with tea, is very cheap, and I’m already addicted, so why not? Caffeine is extremely cheap, addictive, has minimal effects on health (and may be beneficial, from the various epidemiological associations with tea/coffee/chocolate & longevity), and costs extra to remove from drinks popular regardless of their caffeine content (coffee and tea again). What would be the point of carefully investigating it? Suppose there was conclusive evidence on the topic, the value of this evidence to me would be roughly $0 or since ignorance is bliss, negative money - because unless the negative effects were drastic (which current studies rule out, although tea has other issues like fluoride or metal contents), I would not change anything about my life. Why? I enjoy my tea too much. My usual tea seller doesn’t even have decaffeinated oolong in general, much less various varieties I might want to drink, apparently because de-caffeinating is so expensive it’s not worthwhile. What am I supposed to do, give up my tea and caffeine just to save on the cost of caffeine? Buy de-caffeinating machines (which I couldn’t even find any prices for, googling)? This also holds true for people who drink coffee or caffeinated soda. (As opposed to a drug like modafinil which is expensive, and so the value of a definitive answer is substantial and would justify some more extensive calculating of cost-benefit.)
as scientific papers become much more accessible online due to Open Access, digitization by publishers, and cheap hosting for pirates, the available knowledge about nootropics increases drastically. This reduces the perceived risk by users, and enables them to educate themselves and make much more sophisticated estimates of risk and side-effects and benefits. (Take my modafinil page: in 1997, how could an average person get their hands on any of the papers available up to that point? Or get detailed info like the FDA’s prescribing guide? Even assuming they had a computer & Internet?)
Probably most significantly, use of the term “drug” has a significant negative connotation in our culture. “Drugs” are bad: So proclaimed Richard Nixon in the War on Drugs, and Nancy “No to Drugs” Reagan decades later, and other leaders continuing to present day. The legitimate demonization of the worst forms of recreational drugs has resulted in a general bias against the elective use of any chemical to alter the body’s processes. Drug enhancement of athletes is considered cheating – despite the fact that many of these physiological shortcuts obviously work. University students and professionals seeking mental enhancements by taking smart drugs are now facing similar scrutiny.
The data from 2-back and 3-back tasks are more complex. Three studies examined performance in these more challenging tasks and found no effect of d-AMP on average performance (Mattay et al., 2000, 2003; Mintzer & Griffiths, 2007). However, in at least two of the studies, the overall null result reflected a mixture of reliably enhancing and impairing effects. Mattay et al. (2000) examined the performance of subjects with better and worse working memory capacity separately and found that subjects whose performance on placebo was low performed better on d-AMP, whereas subjects whose performance on placebo was high were unaffected by d-AMP on the 2-back and impaired on the 3-back tasks. Mattay et al. (2003) replicated this general pattern of data with subjects divided according to genotype. The specific gene of interest codes for the production of Catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT), an enzyme that breaks down dopamine and norepinephrine. A common polymorphism determines the activity of the enzyme, with a substitution of methionine for valine at Codon 158 resulting in a less active form of COMT. The met allele is thus associated with less breakdown of dopamine and hence higher levels of synaptic dopamine than the val allele. Mattay et al. (2003) found that subjects who were homozygous for the val allele were able to perform the n-back faster with d-AMP; those homozygous for met were not helped by the drug and became significantly less accurate in the 3-back condition with d-AMP. In the case of the third study finding no overall effect, analyses of individual differences were not reported (Mintzer & Griffiths, 2007).
Nature magazine conducted a poll asking its readers about their cognitive-enhancement practices and their attitudes toward cognitive enhancement. Hundreds of college faculty and other professionals responded, and approximately one fifth reported using drugs for cognitive enhancement, with Ritalin being the most frequently named (Maher, 2008). However, the nature of the sample—readers choosing to answer a poll on cognitive enhancement—is not representative of the academic or general population, making the results of the poll difficult to interpret. By analogy, a poll on Vermont vacations, asking whether people vacation in Vermont, what they think about Vermont, and what they do if and when they visit, would undoubtedly not yield an accurate estimate of the fraction of the population that takes its vacations in Vermont.
Next, if these theorized safe and effective pills don't just get you through a test or the day's daily brain task but also make you smarter, whatever smarter means, then what? Where's the boundary between genius and madness? If Einstein had taken such drugs, would he have created a better theory of gravity? Or would he have become delusional, chasing quantum ghosts with no practical application, or worse yet, string theory. (Please use "string theory" in your subject line for easy sorting of hate mail.)
An entirely different set of questions concerns cognitive enhancement in younger students, including elementary school and even preschool children. Some children can function adequately in school without stimulants but perform better with them; medicating such children could be considered a form of cognitive enhancement. How often does this occur? What are the roles and motives of parents, teachers, and pediatricians in these cases? These questions have been discussed elsewhere and deserve continued attention (Diller, 1996; Singh & Keller, 2010).
One of the most obscure -racetams around, coluracetam (Smarter Nootropics, Ceretropic, Isochroma) acts in a different way from piracetam - piracetam apparently attacks the breakdown of acetylcholine while coluracetam instead increases how much choline can be turned into useful acetylcholine. This apparently is a unique mechanism. A crazy Longecity user, ScienceGuy ponied up $16,000 (!) for a custom synthesis of 500g; he was experimenting with 10-80mg sublingual doses (the ranges in the original anti-depressive trials) and reported a laundry list of effects (as does Isochroma): primarily that it was anxiolytic and increased work stamina. Unfortunately for my stack, he claims it combines poorly with piracetam. He offered free 2g samples for regulars to test his claims. I asked & received some.
“My husband and I (Ryan Cedermark) are so impressed with the research Cavin did when writing this book. If you, a family member or friend has suffered a TBI, concussion or are just looking to be nicer to your brain, then we highly recommend this book! Your brain is only as good as the body’s internal environment and Cavin has done an amazing job on providing the information needed to obtain such!”
I’m wary of others, though. The trouble with using a blanket term like “nootropics” is that you lump all kinds of substances in together. Technically, you could argue that caffeine and cocaine are both nootropics, but they’re hardly equal. With so many ways to enhance your brain function, many of which have significant risks, it’s most valuable to look at nootropics on a case-by-case basis. Here’s a list of 9 nootropics, along with my thoughts on each.
Vinh Ngo, a San Francisco family practice doctor who specializes in hormone therapy, has become familiar with piracetam and other nootropics through a changing patient base. His office is located in the heart of the city’s tech boom and he is increasingly sought out by young, male tech workers who tell him they are interested in cognitive enhancement.
“Cavin has done an amazing job in all aspects of his life. Overcoming the horrific life threatening accident, and then going on to do whatever he can to help others with his contagious wonderful attitude. This book is an easy to understand fact filled manual for anyone, but especially those who are or are caregivers for a loved one with tbi. I also highly recommend his podcast series.”
Most people would describe school as a place where they go to learn, so learning is an especially relevant cognitive process for students to enhance. Even outside of school, however, learning plays a role in most activities, and the ability to enhance the retention of information would be of value in many different occupational and recreational contexts.
So is there a future in smart drugs? Some scientists are more optimistic than others. Gary Lynch, a professor in the School of Medicine at the University of California, Irvine argues that recent advances in neuroscience have opened the way for the smart design of drugs, configured for specific biological targets in the brain. “Memory enhancement is not very far off,” he says, although the prospects for other kinds of mental enhancement are “very difficult to know… To me, there’s an inevitability to the thing, but a timeline is difficult.”
Similarly, Mehta et al 2000 noted that the positive effects of methylphenidate (40 mg) on spatial working memory performance were greatest in those volunteers with lower baseline working memory capacity. In a study of the effects of ginkgo biloba in healthy young adults, Stough et al 2001 found improved performance in the Trail-Making Test A only in the half with the lower verbal IQ.
Photo credits: AlexLMX/shutterstock.com, HQuality/shutterstock.com, Rost9/shutterstock.com, Peshkova/shutterstock.com, Max4e Photo/shutterstock.com, Shidlovski/shutterstock.com, nevodka/shutterstock.com, Sangoiri/shutterstock.com, IrynaImago/shutterstock.com, Kostrez/shutterstock.com, Molekuul_be/shutterstock.com, Rawpixel.com/shutterstock.com, Mr.Meijer/shutterstock.com, fizkes/shutterstock.com, ReginaNogova/shutterstock.com, puhhha/shutterstock.com, LuMikhaylova/shutterstock.com, vitstudio/shutterstock.com, Fotografiecor.nl/shutterstock.com, Shidlovski/shutterstock.com, goodluz/shutterstock.com, Sudowoodo/shutterstock.com, 5SecondStudio/shutterstock.com, AfricaStudio/shutterstock.com, IrynaImago/shutterstock.com
"Piracetam is not a vitamin, mineral, amino acid, herb or other botanical, or dietary substance for use by man to supplement the diet by increasing the total dietary intake. Further, piracetam is not a concentrate, metabolite, constituent, extract or combination of any such dietary ingredient. [...] Accordingly, these products are drugs, under section 201(g)(1)(C) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 321(g)(1)(C), because they are not foods and they are intended to affect the structure or any function of the body. Moreover, these products are new drugs as defined by section 201(p) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 321(p), because they are not generally recognized as safe and effective for use under the conditions prescribed, recommended, or suggested in their labeling."