Jump to content

Talk:Nootropic/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Nootropic

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 13:11, 29 January 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

lifestyle

i propose we move the section somewhere else, this article is about drugs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.152.52.113 (talk) 06:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. There is little relevance here.Halogenated (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Nootropics and definition

Nootropics are claimed to increase cognition etc because the jury is still out on the matter. Just because the term defines drugs that ARE cognitive enhancers, it doesn;t mean that the drugs that are currently considered nootropics are in fact proven to do so. Prefacing with the words "are claimed" merely states that the drugs are not definitely proven to do what they are alleged to do, and certainly not weasel words. If you have scientifically proven definitive evidence to the contrary from double-blind studies conducted on a statistically significant number of particiants, please, post it. Most evidence so far is encouraging, but hardly overwhelming. Cheers Halogenated (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No where will you find a definition that says nootropics are drugs that are "claimed" (by whom?) to improve cognition. It furthermore wouldn't make sense to say "So and so claims drug X is a nootropic," since that would just mean "so and so claims drug X is claimed to improve cognition." Nootropics are drugs that improve cognition in some way. "The jury is out" on whether this or that drug is, in fact, a nootropic (maybe none are!). But more to the point of Wikipedia policy, using "claimed to be ___________" without attribution really is weasel wording. Simões (talk/contribs) 21:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
By the same token that I cannot state a Yeti is an extant giant ape, nootropics cannot be stated as drugs that enhance cognition. Perhaps the sentence could be revised to address this better. I'm not a big fan of the term "are claimed" either. Halogenated (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
How does this version work for you? Halogenated (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
We're talking about definitions here, not merely any true or false sentence about a subject. You would never see "extant giant ape" in a definition of "Yeti." Quite simply, a nootropic is type of drug that enhances cognition in the same way that an antidepressant is a drug that mitigates symptoms of depression. What can be disputed or defended with a source is whether drug X is, in fact, a functioning nootropic or antidepressant. But all this seems settled since someone came along with a sourced definition. It's hard to argue with that without a competing source. Simões (talk/contribs) 22:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me.Halogenated (talk) 15:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Resources relevant to the page

I'm going to list some resources here, and we can discuss their merits or lack thereof. Or people can go ahead and use them to cite claims in the article. I just cited Huperzine A with a Cochrane review (PMID 18425924). PubMed lists all the below as reviews.

Pretty long list, I know. Hopefully it doesn't bother anyone; I'll be weeding them out as I use them. Some of these are likely unusable. I found one interesting study but I lost it in the shuffle, which is why I started taking notes (also, maybe we can help each other get access to some of these). I think a paper suggested that phosphatidylcholine was not really effective. Please keep replies to this section without much substance (e.g. referenced scientific input) to a minimum. I also suggest that we stay alert for negative effects from these drugs, since there is a strong incentive for people to use them. II | (t - c) 04:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

One Giant Mess

There is almost no cohesion to the article whatsoever - it exists as a series of lists and titles. Either someone needs to write a proper article for the topic, or I will chop it down into a stub article containing the handful components that actually have citations or the appearance of legitimacy. Halogenated (talk) 03:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Err -- while you're at it, could you try to keep the mess of the talk page down? You've just started a new section when the above two sections state nearly the exact same thing. It is these habits of repetition and not reading which make messes. I may go through this Talk page and see if there are any points worth noting before archiving. Research carefully before you cut, please, as most of these items are legitimately nootropic even if they haven't been cited. ImpIn | (t - c) 07:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to try to write a proper article on this. I don't think the current approach makes sense. I'd prefer to categorize not by function e.g. "grows nerve cells" but by some more straightforward category, i.e. synthetic drugs, nutrients (vitamins amino acids), endogenous substances, herbs, ect. Or perhaps by function, but less so than they are currently...anyway, it will take some time. Anyway, I'm gonna be moving things around substantially, and cutting some, so stop me if you feel like I'm doing something bad. II | (t - c) 08:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

recent article in nature

Sahakian, B.; Morein-Zamir, S. (2007). "Professor's little helper". Nature. 450 (7173): 1157–1159. doi:10.1038/4501157a. PMID 18097378. --Doc James (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Ethics

This article definitely needs a section on ethics.--Doc James (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Review

Have found a really good review about this topic from 2007. I have access if anyone is interested.

Malik R, Sangwan A, Saihgal R, Jindal DP, Piplani P (2007). "Towards better brain management: nootropics". Curr. Med. Chem. 14 (2): 123–31. PMID 17266573.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

--Doc James (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to see it. Could you send it to imperfectlyinformed@gmail.com?
Done--Doc James (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


Possible nootropics

Just created this for you guys - go at it. To use this section, just post the link to the article (on wikipedia or external) you think is a nootropic, and then leave it for someone to check and make a reply.

Layout:

Is this article a nootropic?

OR

I read http://www.newswebsite.com/sciencearticle.html is it important?

Meiguswtf (talk) 12:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

For that one guy: Hormone section -> Orexin - Significant wakefullness promoter Added by User:Meiguswtf

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bupropion

This antidepressant has similiar effects as stimulants.. could this be a nootropic too?

The article doesn't describe it as a nootropic, nor are there terribly many Google hits so describing it. Perhaps best to limit the list to drugs described in print as nootropics, since there's no canonical definition or authority on the category. --Gwern (contribs) 15:26 21 September 2009 (GMT)

giant edit

I recently did a massive edit. I will be watching in case someone reverts it. If you are managing to read this, good, you have taken the basic step to ensure quality of this article (if you are one of those people). If not, well, you won't heed this. Here is my list of demands:

1. if you think something is a nootropic but you don't know (if you really can't tell where it should go or what it does) put it in the "Possible Nootropics" section, and I or someone will try to fit it in somewhere and say wether or not it is/isn't.

2. If you feel you are competent to insert nootropics, take this basic layout: section in which it should go:

link to article - main basic claim

^-- note there are no quotes, and no multiple sentences

3. By main basic claim, there are basic words like anxiolytic that should be used. ALWAYS when adding something, determine if the effect is *claimed* or if it's been proven, or implied by pharmacological study! I would use no word if it has been proven to be a clinical method of action, and if not, use "suspected to", "displays", "shows" etc for clinically demonstrated or clinically inferred activities and "purported to", "claims to" for most applications involving herbs and things which have not been proven, but have been at minimum, documented as effects and verified. If there is no study, it does not belong here!

4. I will remove any substance added to this list that does not have a reference or does not have a reference on it's respective page demonstrating efficacy! Period! Always try http://scholar.google.com/ to find a study with at minimum, claims in its abstract showing efficacy and http://diberri.dyndns.org/cgi-bin/templatefiller/index.cgi? to get the references and labelling right.

5. For some purported herbal or drug things, I may delete them if I can't see their data and/or are from someplace suspicious. (like a study from the Herbal Efficacy Alliance llc. (or "HEAL") shows "herbs" are better than "drugs", but the link does not show any numbers, claim anything specific, have any abstract at all, was not talked about in any publically available webpage or arhived tv/printed media, and is only available at the low low cost of $159.99 for the study info!)

Sorry to be so demanding, but I take this stuff very seriously. I'm not claiming ownership of this page, but if people are willing to follow these guidelines, this page will be a lot more useful and clean.

Meiguswtf (talk) 12:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll also mention that condition related claims, like a drug improves function in old people, should only warrant mention if the pharmacology was shown to have an effect independent of specific condition. Something I can think of is melatonin. Although it's apperantly necessary for neurological development of major systems, once past the age of like 10 it shows no significant cognition modifying abilities other than entraining sleep patterns, so therefore, I would NOT put it on this page and claim it "grows cells in a part of the brain" when it doesn't grow cell there after like age 10. Meiguswtf (talk) 12:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Some Scientists Recommend...

I bought that cited article and read it. It is not the view of the authors that people should do anything. It is just about the way in which we deal with the people that use, and want to use these drugs/methods. The article deals with some of the ethical and strategic issues, but it doesn't recomment that anyone ingest anything for any reason. Anyone mind taking this out? It's really incorrect and misleading. 173.24.227.245 (talk) 10:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me. I don't know who put it in, but the reference has expired. II | (t - c) 16:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it was I who added it and it is what the article said. Will try to find it again. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v456/n7223/full/456702a.html --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Here it is. A commentary supporting the use of cognitive enhancers by 7 scientists / professors. http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2009/marapr/farm/news/greely.html --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
They do say that they can be used ethically, but I'm not sure they're saying that they should be used more. They're saying that cognitive enhancers should not be opposed on principle. Greely says:

One of the things that has troubled me most about the reaction is that so many people have read that article as saying, “Let’s freely use Adderall and Ritalin.” That’s not our goal, that’s not our position, that’s not what we want.

II | (t - c) 22:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes what he is saying is that they can be used ethically for cognitive enhancement. Which is layments terms for saying it is okay to use them. Maybe we should change it to "A few scientist fell that it is ethical to use stimulants for cognitive enhancement" A little less strong than recommend --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't blame you for citing it as recommend. Perhaps switching the word recommend for defend would summarize what they're saying? II | (t - c) 16:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes defend would be fine if you want to add it back in. Here is another interesting paper from 2004: http://www.nature.com.cyber.usask.ca/nrn/journal/v5/n5/full/nrn1390.html --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
TIME describes the POV of the nature journal as advocates. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1869435,00.html We could go with some scientist advocate the use of stimulants and than ref it to the times and the nature article. We are discussing a social perspective so the evidence does not need to be as strigent. Let me know what you think.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Light Therapy

What about light therapy? There are a variety of manufacturers of 'light tablets' that claim daily light therapy boosts wakefulness and alertness in the morning, thus helping with concentration & focus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.197.2 (talk) 23:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Resveratrol

What about resveratrol? Apparently its supposed to remove some nasty plaques that accumulate over time on the brain. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resveratrol#Other_applications —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.197.2 (talk) 01:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I casually clicked onto this article...

...wondering if I should beginning planning a course of nootropics. I've considered it before but never seriously and I'm far from an expert so, you see, I was hoping for a bit of insight. But, really, this page is the best that a crew of nootropic enthusiasts was able to manage? Despite what the page says of their efficacy, well, it hardly speaks to their efficacy. Maybe I'll pass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CamHanna (talk • contribs) 05:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Nootropic (from Talk:Cognitive enhancer)

Nootropics is the the generally accepted word for cognitive enchanting drugs. Nootropic has two meanings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.230.59.15 (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

guanfacine & clonidine

Guanfacine and clonidine are both α2A receptor agonists.

Both of them are commonly prescribed for ADHD, sometimes in conjunction with stimulants, and guanfacine has even been specifically approved by the FDA for ADHD treatment. There are also claims of both general and specific anxiolytic effects (dopamine/norepinephrine...), as well as various other improvements to cognitive function such as memory enhancement, spatial reasoning, etc...

I think these two ought to be added somewhere in this article; could it be done?

Since they possible enhance both attentiveness & working memory, as well as alleviate anxiety, I wouldn't know exactly where to stick them.

Thanks in advance.

71.90.3.136 (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Are they really nootropics? Reading through the clonidine reports on Erowid, most mention various opiate effects and few of the general improvements you claim. --Gwern (contribs) 16:00 20 March 2010 (GMT)
From the guanfacine article:
"In animal models, guanfacine is seen to affect a number of cognitive factors, including working memory improvement, distractibility reduction, response inhibition improvement, and attention control.[citation needed] Performance increases in spatial working memory has also been observed in humans.[14]"
71.90.3.136 (talk) 04:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Really? I think that article is wrong. Reference 14 is about methylphenidate (Ritalin), not guanfacine. The study does mention another study showing that guanfacine improves working memory - in monkeys. Not humans. --Gwern (contribs) 14:16 24 March 2010 (GMT)
Huh?
"Guanfacine has been shown to improve spatial working memory performance in mice [64], rats [65], monkeys [55,66] and humans [67]. "
"Jakala P, Riekkinen M, Sirvio J, Koivisto E, Kejonen K, Vanhanen M, Riekkinen PJ: Guanfacine, but not clonidine, improves planning and working memory performance in humans. " 71.90.3.136 (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to go ahead and add guanfacine to the article, for memory benefits. 71.90.3.136 (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

gianter edit

I created a new page "cognitive enhancer" and added the proper definition of "nootropic" to the top of the "nootropic" page. "cognitive enhancer" no longer redirects to "nootropic" Perhaps "nootropic" should be a section UNDER "cognitive enhancer", but certainly not vice versa. I will now attempt to move the information to the "cognitive enhancer" page, and keep the nootropic section!? info on the nootropic page. Of course this will take a while for everyone to sort out, but this MUST BE DONE for obvious reasons. -bloodleech —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloodleech (talk • contribs) 11:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC) OK, I give up. I'm not going to try what I just said I was going to try. Someone else sort it out. I've at least produced a proper definition of nootropic. -bloodleech

TO DELETE AN ARTICLE AND START AGAIN...IE, what you call a "massive edit" REQUIRES a VOTE and DISCUSSION. You are not dictator here. READ THE RULES, THIS IS EVERYONE SITE, NOT SOME DICTATORS' YOU CANNOT JUST DISMISS PEOPLES ARTICLE CONTRIBUTIONS LIKE THAT WITHOUT DISCUSSION AND VOTE. 17:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
multiple types of structures: A tree structure or a separate and independent structure. If you are suggesting that what is listed in the nootropic article is not BOTH a "cognitive enhancer" AND "nootropic;" then tell us what chemicals. However, "nootropic" does not need to submit nor be in a tree structure under something else. It can be its own tree. Go ahead and make "cognitive enhancer" and put a nootropic section there to redirect here and also put other "cognitive enhancers" that are NOT nootropics in that article... IE, i don't understand what you were trying to do. In addition, do not say "obvious" if you cannot think of the reasons, for this leads me to say "i don't understand what you were trying to do." what is "obvious" is that nootropic is big enough to have its own article.... make a subsection in "cognitive enhancer" that redirects here if you want rather than whatever you were trying to do that I do not understand really. IE, I "guess" you were trying to make articles less refine and more "rough" whereas there is "consolidation to less detail/having own or separate articles/many articles." Ibid Sp0 (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I like the new edit. The terms cognitive enhancer, stimulant, and nootropic are often used interchangeably by people who don't know the history of nootropics or disregard that history probably either because of bias against cognitive enhancers in general or because of the need to promote stimulants. The term nootropic was thought up upon the discovery of piracetam. The reason why piracetam was not classified as stimulant was because it lacked the usual side effects of stimulants such as motor stimulation. Since the invention of piracetam, numerous other nootropics have been created or found. I think it is highly pragmatic to separate nootropics from dangerous drugs like amphetamines. 87.93.134.105 (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
The point of keeping "nootropic" as a separate and its own article is this: It is big enough to have its own article. I do not understand why you would like the edit because you put more detail in the root of "cognitive enhancer" instead of the specific category of "nootropic." If you want to do that, then I do not see a reason to even have the specific article/category. You might as well redirect "nootropic" to a subheading and part of the of "cognitive enhancer" article; otherwise, I do not understand that organization. It is very radical and different from normal conventions. Sp0 (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Disclaimer: I admit that I went about the "gianter edit" in the wrong way. I should have opened a discussion. I am newish to any kind of edit on this scale. REASONS I tried to make the distinction with 2 separate pages: 1. Clumping cognitive enhancers such as amphetamines (not a nootropic) with cognitive enhancers such as piracetam (a nootropic) is ridiculous. So I'm proposing something that makes perhaps more sense than my last edit... =====> MY PROPOSAL: Move everything under "Nootropic" to the "Cognitive Enhancer" page, and have "Nootropic" redirect to "Cognitive Enhancer". Next, focus on making sure the chemicals mentioned are in their proper section. <===== -bloodleech —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloodleech (talk • contribs) 17:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, nobody seems to have responded to my above proposal. None for, and none against. Personally I think Nootropic is big enough to have it's own page, but if people insist on putting drugs that are obviously NOT nootropics then what is the point of a big lie? Hence my proposal to just move everything to Cognitive Enhancer, and then keep the nootropic section itself focused on nootropics only. I just looked over the article and it is as big a mess as ever, with dubious, mostly unreferenced content all over the place. I think it would do a great service to the english speaking world to simply delete the entire page and start from scratch. Actually I'm thinking of starting a new page entitled Neuroenhancer, and keeping 90% of the content referenced. I think the Nootropic page is mostly out of control and it is apparently too late to ask for people to use verifiable info for encyclopedic content. It would be nice to have an article on the subject(s) that could be academically respectable. OK, on a more positive note: I'm going to start a new section on this talk page and ask for ideas on how to organize/revise/edit/delete info on Nootropic and/or Cognitive Enhancer. -bloodleech Bloodleech (talk • contribs) April 18 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 09:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC).

Savior! (Just kidding... Kind of)

Hey guys! I'm a neuropharmacology major (still a student, but quite knowledgeable about a large number of topics in the field, particularly cognitive enhancers/nootropics/stimulants), and after I am finished with my last round of finals (on May 10th!), I would like to go about re-writing this article (most likely from scratch, given how crappy it looks right now). I understand the need for verifiable citations and the need for reorganization of both the nootropic and cognitive enhancer pages. Basically what I need to know from the Wiki community is how to go about submitting my ideas and stuff like that. There seems to be a lot of argument on this page. First time I've actually felt the need to intervene with what was going on on a Wiki page... It seems like fun, and the community could benefit from correct information. Also, when I submit finished work, I strive for impeccable spelling and grammar. I do have access to a large amount of journals and will be able to provide citations for the page. As far as a time-line goes for the page, I can probably have a finished piece of work by the end of May.

Anyone like this idea? :)

Anyway, I'm going to be studying extensively tomorrow (should have been for the past 3 hours - ADHD strikes again), then on Monday finishing up the semester. Afterwards, I shall begin my research on this topic (great summer project, in my opinion, going in and helping clean up Wiki!) If anybody would like to collaborate on this project, shoot me an email via the Wiki thing or whatever, I'll figure it out and get back to you ASAP. Finally, to the many on this page that I have seen, I leave you with this quote: "The prime values of the talk page are communication, courtesy and consideration." Delandeth (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Quick edit: There seems to be a general consensus on this discussion page that the current "Nootropic" page is in dire need of attention, that the best method appears to be a scrap and rewrite, and that there is no general consensus on the information that should be put into it. My previous comment, along with this one, proposes to create a new "Nootropic" page (and possibly a "Cognitive Enhancer" page) that provides sufficient coverage of the topic, allowing for any further revisions that might be necessary. Delandeth (talk) 10:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Final addition: Added a refimprove template to the article until further work can be done. Delandeth (talk) 10:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

General observation: the 'big bang' development style is a recipe for failure - it plays poorly with reviewers, is liable to produce no good results whatsoever, and burns out devs. This is as true for big articles as for software development; there is a reason complete rewrites are dreaded. --Gwern (contribs) 22:02 25 May 2010 (GMT)

sections 4.1 and 4.10

i am nothing of an active contributor here, but i thought it necessary to point out that there seems to be a considerable crossover with the above two sections. perhaps they need to be amalgamated. although i notice that there is a few sections here regarding complete re-writes, and the like, so perhaps this can be disregarded —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.207.70 (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The article repeats Dietary nootropics

The "Dietary sources and supplements" covers the same areas as "Dietary nootropics". I may delete one of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mind my edits (talk • contribs) 19:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

PROPOSALS FOR REORGANIZATION OF NOOTROPIC

OK, these are the problems that I see with Nootropic: 1. Poorly organized. 2. Poorly referenced. 3. Contains a lot of info that does not belong under the heading Nootropic. Now I ask: What are the problems that YOU see? And what do you propose be done about the mess? Please add your ideas below, and when we have 2 or 3 well conceived proposals, we can vote on them. Bloodleech (talk) 09:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


Basically, the writing is terrible, and without any additional references, I'm hesitant to improve it on the sole basis that someone may take it seriously. Someone was very liberal with their use of commas and "although". I'm guessing the homework that led to the bulk of this page got a C, if graded based on grammar. bandman

I concur: the comma ratio in this article is 2-3 times what it ought to be. zirconscot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.51.97.102 (talk) 06:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Page move

Wondering if we should move the page to Nootropics as we discuss many of them here. Or maybe we should change the title to Memory enhancers as this seems to be the broader category.--Doc James (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

"Memory enhancers" definitely is NOT the broader category - many nootropics do much more than enhance memory and some don't enhance memory at all. To classify them all as memory enhancers shows a serious lack of knowledge of their effects. Allethrin (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I wish you would have given this more time. No offense, but I oppose this move because it is a more restrictive category. Many nootropics probably do not enhance memory. Memory and general intelligence are different things. You see what I'm saying? I kind of prefer nootropics, but if you want a more approachable term, it would have to be something like cognitive enhancers. II | (t - c) 18:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes. I based the move on the 2007 review that I just sent you. Cognitive enhancers I agree is even better the memory enhancers. Feel free to move it again.
--Doc James (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Seems I can't move it. Gonna have to get an admin to do it, or more laboriously, list it at "Requested moves". II | (t - c) 19:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes see what you can do.Doc James (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I also understand Nootropics as a more general term than Memory enhancers, that also include mood enhancers, focus enhancers, learning enhancers etc. I think this move is not appropriate. -- þħɥʂıɕıʄʈʝɘɖı 14:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Will try to have it moved to Cognitive enhancers. Nootropics is sort of an unknown turn. A 2007 review also lists it as a subcategory of memory enhancers.--Doc James (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
FYI, MeSH uses "Nootropic Agents" as the main entry (Nootropic+Agents at the U.S. National Library of Medicine Medical Subject Headings (MeSH)), and "Cognitive enhancers" as an alternate entry. --Arcadian (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Havn't seen MeSH before many thanks. Cognitive enhancers is a more widely used term and includes some neuroprotective agents as well as CNS stimulants.
This page discusses both these other classes of agents as well. I agree with II that the current title isn't the best but do not think nootropics is that good either.
We need an admin to move it to Cognitive enhancers though.Doc James (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Done. --Arcadian (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

There was no consensus for the move proposed above.

I oppose the move to "cognitive enhancers". First of all it's plural, and the title should be singular. For example, see dog and cat, and drug, vitamin, and nutrient. They're all in the singular. See WP:SINGULAR.

According to WP:TITLE: "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." The original and most widespread term for this type of substance is "nootropic". On Google, "nootropic" comes up 139,000 times while "cognitive enhancer" turns up only 19,800 times.

I've been studying (and taking) nootropics for years, and the literature about them heavily favors the term "nootropic" over "cognitive enhancer".

Checking the Merriam Webster online dictionary, nootropic is in there, while "cogitive enhancer" returns zero results. More significantly, it's the same with the Merriam Webster Online Medical Dictionary. Webster's is a pretty authoritative source when it comes to word usage.

In The Free Dictionary, "cognitive enhancer" redirects to "nootropic".

The Transhumanist 00:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  • For the record, I disagree with the recent move back to nootropic from cognitive enhancer. Just now I was glancing through the Lancet for an unrelated reason and noticed an article which used the word "cognition enhancer" (Volume 371, Issue 9627, page 1812). The Nature articles we have referenced use cognitive enhancer. The review which Doc James notes below calls nootropics a subset of cognitive enhancers. Our article on Corneliu E. Giurgea notes that he laid out certain criteria for nootropics, including a different mechanism of action and few side-effects. Another article (I forget which) definesd nootropics as cognitive enhancers which are neither stimulants nor depressives. Ultimately this article will need to move back to cognitive enhancers. We should not be basing it upon straight Google hits but the words used by the best sources, and the most logical definition. II | (t - c) 16:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with II --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with foregoing, and agree with move back to nootropic. A 'cognitive enhancer' could be anything - pencil and paper even. Nootropic precisely delineates the subject matter, and has >2x Google hits. --Gwern (contribs) 19:12 6 February 2010 (GMT)

Dietary sources and supplements

This section is a typical "as seen on TV" commercial. There are more "citation needed" than actual words I think. Does someone think alike? Sub40Hz (talk) 18:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Also there seems to be 2 sections containing the same information here... Allethrin (talk) 02:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Malnutrition references?

"Cognitive function is largely impacted by one’s diet.[citation needed] The nutrients in food can influence our memory, learning, concentration, and decision-making[citation needed]; therefore the lack of them has a negative effect on the brain[citation needed]."

Anyone have a reference to the effects of malnutrition? It seems obvious but... heh, it is right to expect a citation. Diet and physical activity are both associated with brain function, but again, where's the references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JWhiteheadcc (talk • contribs) 02:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Lack of citations / Improper citations

We're to start removing the worthless junk from this page. Half these substances are not cited and most citations say nothing with regard to a substance's nootropic activity. This is an article for defined NOOTROPICS not conjecture. I would say we could make a new section called "Potential nootropics" for any substances that do not have well defined nootropic activity but have been mentioned in studies purporting a possible nootropic activity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TTile (talk • contribs) 21:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources (from Talk:Cognitive enhancer)

I've had this Jones et al review from the Foresight Brain Science, Addiction and Drugs project and some Office of Science and Technology for a while. Seems to be somewhat decent. II | (t - c) 07:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Link is broken. --Deleet (talk) 09:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Tianeptine is not a SSRE

It's a NMDA antagonist and AMPAkine.

Some sperglord please fix this, I'm not autistic enough to bother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.109.82.248 (talk) 11:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I just paraphrased something related to this, from the tianeptine article. SSRE or not, there is no consensus, as I know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.119.14.68 (talk) 11:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Neuroplasticity and synaptic plasticity

Info about such drugs should also be included, but if there is not enough reliable information, at least the discusion page shoul contain some objective/subjective opinions. Exemple: tianeptine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.119.14.68 (talk) 11:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Neuroethics

I am wondering if it might be worthwhile to include a section on neuroethics and the ethical implications of using nootropics as individuals or in society more generally. This topic is likely to intensify in the near future as more powerful nootropics are developed. Questions pertaining to access and whether or not there should be drug-testing prior to standardized exams like the SAT or MCAT come up immediately, but there are also a host of workplace issues. Philoprof (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Philoprof

Agree completely--Doc James (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no ethical issue and has been no positive demonstration to my knowledge that there exists drugs which will improve performance on the SAT or MCAT exam. I believe however that there is a perception of an ethical issue by analogy to performance enhancing drug usage in sports. However the analogy is a false one.

It is a similar situation to the claim that it is unethical to perform stem cell research on fetuses which would otherwise be thrown in the biological waste container, on the premise that performing such research would kill the fetus. I believe that it is very important to differentiate between moral and ethical issues when framing the discussion of drug testing for the MCAT.

Ethics concerns proper conduct. Whether an individual should perform an action and whether a society should support or discourage that action are determined by both the values of the individual and the values of the society. That discussion is beyond the scope of this article. Agalmic (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think there should be a small section on this page about ethics, but with a greater link to neuroenhancement, or whatever the article is for brain improvement, as this article would probably just get the info from there. Meiguswtf (talk) 12:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there a neuroethics article. If not, it should be created. The "See also" section should point to that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.119.14.68 (talk) 11:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Aural/Visual Nootropic Phenomenon of 'Brainwave Entrainment'

Shouldn't we include information about Brainwave Entrainment? Therefore 'Acting on the mind.' http://www.binauralbeatsgeek.com/binaural-beat-research.html Include more citations on peer-reviewed research on Brainwave Entrainment, binaural beats and isochronic tones. Psychotropics tend to alter brainwave patterns. By the way I've tried Piracetam and Choline Bitartrate personally. The improvements are definitely not subjective, however I'd like to see a greater body of research on the substance. Dangerousd777 (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

No. Nootropics are chemicals, not sounds. --Gwern (contribs) 19:45 11 February 2012 (GMT)

Oxerin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orexin

nootropic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.152.52.113 (talk) 09:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Most likely, someone look into it or just take a chance on it. Tukotih (talk) 09:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Cannabis

Cannabinoid receptor agonists do not belong on the nootropics page. They have a demostrated mechanism for severe impairment of memory and cognition. No item should be on this list without at least a single peer reviewed journal article showing improvement on at least aspect of cognition. The aspects of cognition that is improved should be mentioned.

Cannabinoid receptor antagonists should be added to this list as they have been demonstrated to improve memory in exactly the manner in which THC does not. Agalmic (talk) 07:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

OK so peer reviewed articles, lets do this!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18807247?ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum http://www.biosignaling.com/content/8/1/12

do you need more than 2 , or is that adequate, someone add the cannabinoid section back in and I'll gladly stock it full of peer reviewed citations to shut up any naysayers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.26.137 (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

wow, these both imply negative effects. how is this even an opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.66.92 (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm removing every mention of "recreational drugs". I haven't seen any literature that identifies these as nootropic (with the exception of lion's mane mushroom). If someone finds some literature they can cite it, until then we're just giving out random information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.12.88.139 (talk) 22:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Quality of Article

Seriously guys, I think this needs to be started from scratch. And next time try some academic journals for references 154.20.79.125 (talk) 03:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to totally bump you on the above comment. I'm trying to make the best out of what is already there, and tried to move the huge mass of sloppy info to "cognitive enhancer", where it more properly belongs, but people still insist on adding non-nootropic cognitive enhancer info to this page. If I have to look up and verify (or prove false, which is even harder) every unreferenced sentence on the page, well I just don't have the time to do that. I'm just doing a little here and there to try and make things better... I add references where possible but sometimes I am just trying to rewrite/clarify very sloppy unreferenced material. I wish a true expert would rewrite Nootropic and figure out a way to keep non-nootropic cognitive enhancers off the page. -bloodleech —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloodleech (talk • contribs) 08:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page is not addressing brain aging, if there is another article already dealing with such say after age 35 then I just didn't see it.99.248.200.246 (talk) 05:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

This article is useless (from Talk:Cognitive enhancer)

this article is unnecessary. it was STOLEN from "nootropic" article because of someone who thinks they can make MAJOR changes without vote and discussion.


This above comment does not provide a link to any other article on Wikipedia that this material could of been stolen from. Not judging that statements merits, however basically no support was offered for that statement at this time and a clear link would permit people to know the issue of which you speak in greater detailInhouse expert (talk) 05:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey, could ya'll make this article longer? It's way too short. /sarcasm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.214.38 (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Just How Effective Are Nootropics?

What potential do these substances have?—that's perhaps the primary question, and it hasn't been addressed in the article. How do you even measure their effectiveness to begin with? EIN (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Testing would be a common way, whether using standard computer testing or otherwise. More to the point would be results in ones life, moving parameters long held in place. This is actually a key topic, for any legitimate clinical trial would require results. I would suggest reviewing the measurements used in clinical trials on those nootropic medications approved in various countries.Inhouse expert (talk) 05:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Cerebral Suffering

Can anyone explain exactly what cerebral suffering is? Is that a proper term for a reference or does it refer to suffering of the person that is strictly cognitive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsseckman (talk • contribs) 01:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Untitled

Please do not use the "normal" google search for this article due to extreme bias from advertisers trying to sell you meds. Please use: www.pubmed.com or http://scholar.google.com/ or http://books.google.com/ for finding references <-- This should be deleted since it is absolute bs. The only bias here is from the nootropic scammers :/ 124.191.134.10 (talk) 12:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Caffeine included?

(In Nootropic#Availability_and_prevalence) - One survey found that 7% of students had used stimulants for a cognitive edge in the past year, and on some campuses the number is as high as 25%
Should we add a note that caffeine isn't included here? I think the numbers would be much higher if it was. Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if the study does exclude universal stimulants like tobacco or caffeine from its numbers - it's highly misleading otherwise. --Gwern (contribs) 23:23 28 January 2010 (GMT)
I changed it to prescription stimulants, so that it's more clear. I also moved the in the last year part because the survey actually said 7% was lifetime use, not yearly. JoshH100 (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Nootropic Vs. Cognitive Enhancer

Hi,

I just read the part where it says: "2.Enhances learned behaviors under conditions which are known to disrupt them." That's a puzzling sentence. I take it a "learned behavior" is something like treating a "Hispanic" badly because I was taught to treat them badly, or wiping my mouth as I eat. But it seems rather fantastical that a drug would enhance these types of behaviours, say, in situations where I have no napkins or people are telling me not to treat "Hispanics" badly. How exactly would a pill make you more prone to making you act in these ways? It seems more likely that the drug would make your thoughts faster or improve your ability to concentrate or recall information. Perhaps this point could be explained as it's a little odd when you think about it as a reader.

Also, it says that all nootropic drugs are cognitive enhancers, but not all cognitive enhancers are nootropic drugs. I thought you could give an example, like if say coffee were a nootropic drug, which would be a cognitive enhancer, but there are other cognitive enhancers like say Drug X, which are not nootropic, like coffee. It's just a small point, but an example would help clarify.

70.72.45.131 (talk) 02:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Organization

Hello Everyone, I feel it would be a worthwhile idea to try and have more than just a section titled "Drugs". Not everything in that section is a drug, supplements for example. Perhaps these can have their own larger sections on the page. This change would also go along more with the definition of Nootropics that we are using. If this is a misguided idea please let me know. I just wanted to know if it might help the page become more organized. Thank you.

RuthMMcLeod (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Modafinil in Academic doping?

Why is modafinil the first sentence of "Academic doping" which is then followed by a paragraph of scheduled stimulant drugs? Modafinil is functionally, legally, and chemically extraordinarily different from the drugs mentioned immediately afterward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoxfordca (talk • contribs) 04:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Page policy, references proposal

There is a large amount of information on the article page that has no references. In particular, there are large numbers of substances listed with no reference at all. We should have at least some reference for every substance. I propose we move all substances with no references into a section here on the talk page, or a subpage of the talk page which we use as a holding bin. We should only put items back into the article when we have a reference that at least says that the substance is believed to have some nootropic effect. — Makyen (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Every drug listed needs to have a relevant WP:MEDRS quality citation asserting some relevant benefit. Since the page's definition of nootropic is excessively vague and not well-defined (neither is wikt:Nootropic), it's probably safe to just include approved drugs/nutraceuticals with established benefits to memory, cognitive function, etc or some protective/generative effect in the brain. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 17:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Refs which might actually be useful AND don't suck! (Satisfy WP:MEDRS)

Each drug in this article needs 1 ref that asserts that it has a specific "cognition-enhancing"/"nootropic" effect. That effect is what should be included after the drug name, not its pharmacodynamics. I've deleted massive amounts of text simply because the sections have nothing to do with nootropics. They're just lists of drug categories and associated drugs.

So, in a nutshell, SAY THIS:

  • St John's Wort—anti-inflammatory, antibiotic, and neuroprotective antidepressant compound which has extremely low toxicity.[1]
DON'T SAY THIS: (while I wrote this for the SJW article, all of the following is completely irrelevant to this article)

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 07:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Kennedy DO, Wightman EL (Jan 2011). "Herbal extracts and phytochemicals: plant secondary metabolites and the enhancement of human brain function". Adv Nutr. 2 (1): 32–50. doi:10.3945/an.110.000117. PMID 22211188.
  2. ^ a b c Nathan, PJ (March 2001). "Hypericum perforatum (St John's Wort): a non-selective reuptake inhibitor? A review of the recent advances in its pharmacology". Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England). 15 (1): 47–54. doi:10.1177/026988110101500109. PMID 11277608.
  3. ^ "Hyperforin". Drugbank. University of Alberta. Retrieved 5 December 2013. {{cite web}}: |section= ignored (help)
  4. ^ "Hyperforin". Pubchem Compound. National Center for Biotechnology Information. Retrieved 5 December 2013. {{cite web}}: |section= ignored (help)

Massive changes

As anyone checking the edit history might note, I've cut the article down to one third its size from a month ago (from ~100Kb to ~35kB). As a result, this article is now consistent with the WP:MEDRS standard. Any future contributions really need to conform to that standard since this is an important medical article that makes rather significant health claims about drugs.

Please read that page before adding content/citations if you're unfamiliar with it. Thanks! Regards, Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 23:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

More academic references required

There needs to be a section referring to evidence based trials and peer review papers on the subject. Until then, the content is pretty useless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.182.91.94 (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

That should really be indicated next to each bullet. Several drug entries on the page include text that covers evidence based trials; all the citations are recent medical reviews of literature on humans, unless I happened to have missed something when I was cutting down the article. Consequently, the page (excluding the miscellaneous section) is adequately sourced per WP:MEDRS; the text just doesn't indicate the evidence. That said, many nutraceuticals don't have enough trials conducted with them for a formal systematic review/meta-analysis to be useful. I may go back through and finish adding the material from the cited review in that section if no one else builds the page though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 14:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The recent content revision and WP:MEDRS

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_48#Nootropic_-_the_opposite_of_WP:MEDRS explains the WP:MEDRS problems in the old revision of this article.

Please list any concerns with, comments on, or support for the revised/shortened version of the article in this section. I've notified WT:MED and WT:PHARM of this thread for additional feedback. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 06:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Secondary sources are definitely required. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Does article really cover "nootropics" or rather "Academic/Brain doping"?

Hi there,

as the article states, the word "Nootropic" was coined by Corneliu E. Giurgea. In his article you find certain criteria for nootropics. Most of those criteria are not met for a lot of substances that are presented as "nootropics" in this articls (definitions are for example: almost complete lack of side effects, protection of brain against injury etc.).

In fact, most of the space in the article (especially Paragraphs "Academic doping", "Side effects", Most parts of "Drugs") is consumed by mainly stimulating drugs most of which show a wide range of side effects and are presumed to damage the brain themselves if used over prolonged periods of time. These should perhaps be transferred into an article Brain doping or the like.

Additionally a lot of typical nootropics aren't mentioned at all in the article (Citicoline, Alpha-GPC, Centrophenoxine etc.)

I would modify the article myself, but nowadays changes to wiki articles are usually reverted anyway without coercive reason if you are a noname editor and I don't like working for the bin. --143.164.102.13 (talk) 10:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

BTW: WP:MEDRS is regarding external sources. Is a Wikipedia article a reliable source, assuming that citations are ok in the article? --143.164.102.13 (talk) 11:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think one man's definition of a class of cognitive enhancers is really notable enough to have an entire wikipedia article written on it. Because of that, I went about writing this article using the loosest definition possible of a nootropic (e.g., a cognitive enhancing drug) and sought medical reviews which explicitly classified a drug as a cognitive enhancer or similar. That said, I would be very happy to see those drugs added to this article if there's medical reviews which cover their cognition enhancing properties.
Wikipedia articles can't cite other wikipedia articles, however, the sources in another wikipedia article can be cited in this article (provided they meet the MEDRS guideline). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 12:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Topic "Citing Wikipedia": Sounds strange though: If Wikipedia doesn't consider itself a reliable source of information, then what is all the fuss about finding good sources for Wiki articles good for? ;)
Topic "Defnition of Nootropic": I see your point, it might seem narrow to let one individual define a term. But we shouldn't forget that the term was created by this person, because there was a new concept that needed a new term. And this intention made sense to a lot of people, otherwise the term wouldn't be known and widely used today. The specific thing about nootropics in contrast to other drugs or narcotics altering the state of mind is found in the definition of Mr Giurgea. I suggest to either split the article into two articles ("Nootropics" in contrast "Brain doping/Smart drugs", while "Smart drugs" seems to be a marketing name rather than a neutral term) or this article is sorted into categories "Nootropics in the original sense" and "Later use of the term". If you google "smart drugs" you find much more hits for pages that talk about substances like "modafinil, to amphetamines (often prescribed under the name Adderall) and methylphenidate", if you google "nootropics" you find much more links regarding "classic nootropics", but there is an intersection between the two topics, that's true. You have a pharmacological definition in the german Wiki that says "Anti-Alzheimer medication" for nootropics which might be nice in a purely pharma wiki, but has almost nothing to do with the common use of the term and is rather misleading for someone looking for common knowledge about the term (although this definition should be mentioned in the article to clarify this issue). What do you think? --143.164.102.13 (talk) 14:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I read the article again and again and I keep stumbling over the sections. If "Nootropic" is a good master category for all the other related sub types (smart drugs, memory enhancers, neuro enhancers, cognitive enhancers, and intelligence enhancers etc.), perhaps we should sort those into sections and subsections, including one section for "Classic nootropics" (or the like) that fall under the definition by Dr. Giurgea. Methylphenidate for example has in several aspects completely different properties than Piracetam. Give it a try? --143.164.102.13 (talk) 13:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Bump. --143.164.102.13 (talk) 10:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
That sounds fine. I'll work on this article over the next week or two (time permitting); I'll need to look for current medical sources that summarize/cover his classification. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 15:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Academic doping merge

TLDR: can't merge any new material due to WP:MEDASSESS, and WP:NPOV concerns with medical and normative content respectively + extremely narrow content scope (WP:UNDUE WEIGHT) in several sections.

I unfortunately really don't see anything in the academic doping article which isn't already in nootropic that I can merge.

As I noted before, much of the doping article focused on ADHD stims, which creates the scope issue I mentioned in the talkpage discussion (now located in a subpage of this talk page).

Most of the sufficiently general (nootropic-related) material in the doping article made non-evidence based claims, which runs completely counter to what this article is doing (as required by WP:MEDRS, every drug makes an evidence-based claim, often in a clinical context, and is cited by a MEDRS-quality medical review).

There was a lot of literature that made normative statements as well; covering this type of material is very difficult to do in a neutral manner because it asserts a "correct" point of view. I'm not sure the normative medical literature on the use of cognitive enhancers can actually can be covered in an NPOV manner since it appears highly polarized; I'd also really rather not open a can of worms by putting material arguing for or against the use of schedule 2 controlled substances by the general population in this article. Briefly covering these controversies in the first 2 sections as was done acknowledges that "there is a controversy/concern", but we merely provide cursory coverage of the positions and don't discuss the suspicions of potential good or bad effects by all or potential subclasses of users (this type of crap seems so tenuous to me). These medical suspicions and assertions of possibility are speculative proposals and fail WP:MEDRS (WP:MEDASSESS) by default because it's not evidence-based medicine. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 18:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Indefinite semiprotection

I've requested this due to the persistence and recent uptick of disruptive IP editing: Special:Permalink/650531118#Nootropic_.28edit.C2.A0.7C_talk.C2.A0.7C_history.C2.A0.7C_protect.C2.A0.7C_delete.C2.A0.7C_links.C2.A0.7C_watch.C2.A0.7C_logs.C2.A0.7C_views.29 Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Choline bitartrate?

It looks like choline bitartrate is being hyped as a nootropic: <redact> Any clues? Kortoso (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Choline is an essential nutrient even though it is also synthesized endogenously. Free choline circulates in blood and in found in all tissues. It is a precursor to the neurotransmitter acetylcholine and to phosphatidylcholine, a component of nerve cell membranes. The pathway from choline to phosphatidylcholine is via CDP-choline, which is also a popular dietary supplement (citicoline/Cognizin®). Choline bitartrate is a less expensive supplement. Supplement products in U.S. deliver 400-600 mg choline as choline bitartrate.David notMD (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:Consensus needed for EL changes

The Guardian and The New Yorker are incredibly reliable sources and have been undisputed on this page for some time. We need to reach consensus, as I feel like these are verifiable and reliable external sources. Icarus of old (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Icarus of old and Alexbrn: I think we should discuss the external links. Which of these do you believe are worth keeping? Certainly we should remove those that are dated or are not WP:RS/WP:MEDRS (depending on which applies). Sizeofint (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
From WP:MEDRS directly: "Conversely, the high-quality popular press can be a good source for social, biographical, current-affairs, financial, and historical information in a medical article. For example, popular science magazines such as New Scientist and Scientific American are not peer reviewed, but sometimes feature articles that explain medical subjects in plain English. As the quality of press coverage of medicine ranges from excellent to irresponsible, use common sense, and see how well the source fits the verifiability policy and general reliable sources guidelines. Sources for evaluating health-care media coverage include the review websites Behind the Headlines, Health News Review,[1] and Media Doctor, along with specialized academic journals, such as the Journal of Health Communication; reviews can also appear in the American Journal of Public Health, the Columbia Journalism Review, the Bad Science column in The Guardian, and others. Health News Review's criteria for rating news stories[28] can help to get a general idea of the quality of a medical news article."
All best. Icarus of old (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Please see WP:MEDRS: these pieces are full of medical assertions and we need solid sourcing for that kind of stuff, not newspaper/magazine fluff. Alexbrn (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
What I quoted is DIRECTLY from WP:MEDRS. The Guardian is mentioned specifically. All best. Icarus of old (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Most of the articles are on the old side of WP:MEDDATE. Doesn't rule out their presence but there should be some newer resources. Sizeofint (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
The Guardian? Maybe, but not for sweeping medical claims like "Cognitive-enhancing drugs, also known as 'smart' drugs are already being used to help people with Alzheimer's disease, schizophrenia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and brain injury." And especially not when the material is outside the 5 year window and we have newer, better sources. And as for the The New Yorker ... Alexbrn (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Alex. Depending on which story you read, the Guardian has said:

1) Prozac is a placebo that doesn't do anything at all 2) It covers up unhappiness due to social injustice and is used inappropriately as a social band aid 3) It makes artists more creative 4) It makes people violent 5) And more recently, another article saying it doesn't do anything at all.

MEDRS clearly excludes newspapers as sources for health related info.

This seems like a clear cut case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B102:7E3D:EFDA:4A7C:EDA2:3B1C (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Ref for Nootropic#Availability and prevalence

[1]

References

  1. ^ Chinthapalli K (September 2015). "The billion dollar business of being smart". BMJ. 351: h4829. doi:10.1136/bmj.h4829. PMID 26370589. International sales of non-prescription supplements for cognition also exceed $1bn (£650 000; €880 000) a year and are rapidly growing. Ginkgo biloba, vitamins, and even caffeine are common ingredients. Some add piracetam (related to the epilepsy drug levetiracetam), jellyfish proteins, or even "edible pure 23.5 carat gold flakes."

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 12:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nootropic. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Magnesium threonate more than doubles ability to relocate items; long term memory

it says i should have a review article on magnesium threonate to place it at the main article. journal = Neuron Volume 65 Issue 2 p165–177 date 28 January 2010 pmid20152124

magnesium threonate  - ;An article at the journal Neuron says that magnesium L-threonate at an animal model of human cognition improved short term memory by 18% and long-term memory by 100%. At younger rats the memory effect was slightly more than double.

[1]

This study appears to be a primary source. We're looking for review articles or meta-analyses or statements from major medical bodies for bio-medical content.

References

  1. ^ Slutsky I (january 2010). "Enhancement of Learning and Memory by Elevating Brain Magnesium". Neuron Volume 65 Issue 2 p165–177 date 28 January 2010 pmid20152124. 65 (2): 165–77. doi:10.1016. PMID 20152124. {{cite journal}}: Check |doi= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)

-- Sizeofint (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Suggested todo 1

There is a bit of content to cover it as a cultural phenomenon but probably not enough to comment on efficacy. Sizeofint (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Suggested todo2

B vitamins

In the article it states that B vitamins have no cognition-enhancing effects. According to the systematic review given as the reference, of the B vitamins, they only analyzed studies on folate, vitamin B6, and vitamin B12. The other five B vitamins—B1, B2, B3, B5, and biotin—were not included in the review. Yet the article makes the claim for all the B vitamins. I fixed this, but Alexbrn rolled back all my edits including this one (and my alphabetical sort and heading rename) with the vague explanation "undue detail", without justifying the revert of these improvements with substantive reasons. I'm concerned that the article is misreporting a source, with a statement that is far more general than what the systematic review found. The Transhumanist 08:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

From the source: "Omega-3 fatty acids, B vitamins, and vitamin E supplementation did not affect cognition in non-demented middle-aged and older adults". WP:STICKTOSOURCE. We don't need guff about the details of the trial (designed to cast doubt?) And renaming references is not helpful. Alexbrn (talk) 08:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Dear Alexbrn, it's not a trial, but an analysis and review of the published research on 5 specific nutrients (Omega-3, folate, and vitamins B6, B12, and E). In their conclusion (which you quoted), the authors are referring to the B vitamins that they covered in their article, not to all B vitamins. Their article isn't about all the B vitamins, but only 3 of them. Please read their article, and you'll see what I mean. For convenience, the tables included in their article present which nutrients they studied the published research of. The Transhumanist 09:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
It's a weird problem with that source, man. I couldn't believe my eyes at first, either. The subject in the conclusion of the abstract doesn't match the subject covered in the body of their article. Like a typo or something. It's vague, like the title of their article, which is way more general than the actual subject too. Check it out, and let me know what you think. The Transhumanist 09:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't say "all" B vitamins. I think it's fine as is. 09:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Alexbrn, That's true, but "B vitamins" is what is listed in the WP article, and when users click on that link, what do they see? An article on all B vitamins. The Transhumanist 10:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC) P.S.: By the way, your name disappeared.
Problem with quoting the article for B vitamins is that it relates to cognitive decline. Current discussion is about Nootropic supplements, which are fast acting or working memory based supplementation. I do not feel the reference is a good match for the discussion.

Could someone verify the claims about L-Theanine?

The claim that L-theanine has a "synergistic" effect with caffeine seems questionable/sketchy to me. I looked-up the reference, and the abstract doesn't really say anything about synergism. Could caffeine alone be causing the neurological improvement? How do we know there is a caffeine-theanine cooperation?

If someone has access to that journal (Nutrition Reviews), could you re-read the actual article? I don't have access myself. Thanks. Armadillo1985 (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I can only read the abstract of the Nutr Rev article which implies synergistic effects between caffeine and L-theanine. I inserted the EFSA evaluation via a PDF for the article, where EFSA found no evidence of theanine cause-and-effect on various conditions; article here. --Zefr (talk) 18:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
NB: the following is badly formatted because I'm not bothering to fix the hyphens and spaces that were borked from copy/pasting; these typographical errors don't occur in the paper. From the conclusions section:

CONCLUSION
Tea constituents L-theanine and caffeine in combination were found to induce increases in Bond-Lader alertness of moderate effect size in the first hour, and increases in alertness of small-moderate effect size in the second hour postdose (SMD = 0.542 and 0.392, respectively). Similarly, L-theanine and caffeine in combination were also found to induce increases in attention switching accuracy during both the first and second hours postdose of smallmoderate effect size (SMD = 0.384 and 0.294, respectively). Small enhancement of unisensory visual attention accuracy was also found following L-theanine and caffeine consumption in the first hour postdose (SMD = 0.147). Similarly, small enhancement of unisensory auditory attention accuracy was found following L-theanine and caffeine consumption in the second hour postdose (SMD = 0.247).Moderator analysis did not reveal significant effects of caffeine and L-theanine dose on effect size, although analysis of trends in predicted values suggests that the majority of the attentionenhancing effects can be attributed to caffeine dose. Insuf- ficient data were available to conduct meta-analysis on EGCG’s psychopharmacological effects, although preliminary evidence suggests that EGCG may have a calming effect during the second hour postdose. Future research using a greater range of doses for both L-theanine and EGCG in isolation is required to more accurately determine their effects on cognition and mood, and to dissociate these effects from those of caffeine.

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Psychedelics

Should we add a ===Psychedelics=== section under https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nootropic&oldid=804973346#Drugs

--Jilja (talk) 00:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

If the medical claims (e.g., any statement about an effect of a drug or drug class) that are added under that heading are cited by reliable medical sources (i.e., medical reviews) and each statement under that heading in this article is directly supported by a corresponding statement in the cited medical source(s), then yes. Otherwise, no. Those are content policies and guidelines on Wikipedia that must be adhered to in any article. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Yikes! Those linked articles were junk - I've cleaned 'em up a bit. Alexbrn (talk) 05:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated claim

I have a problem with the first line. I think that ". . . substances that purport to improve . . . " would be preferable to: ". . . substances that improve cognitive function . . . " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.127.106.227 (talk) 13:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree, and have edited the lede to reflect that cognitive improvement is not sufficiently substantiated in normal people. --Zefr (talk) 13:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
@IP editor: The 1st lead sentence states a definition of a drug class that cites two references. Your proposed revision fails verification with those references. If you can cite a reliable pharmacology source that defines this drug class in the manner you've stated, please cite it and we can note the contradictory definitions across references in the lead. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 12:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I don’t see how any of your deletions in the reverted edit conform to any content policy Zefr. Deleting a ref on the basis of an essay isn’t constructive editing. Deleting MEDRS-sourced content which makes assertions that you don’t agree with is blatant POV editing. Lastly, rewriting a sentence so that it conforms to your POV and disagrees with the source is violates both the NPOV and verifiability policies. If you think your POV is supported by a MEDRS-compliant source, cite it and state the other side. Otherwise, I only see this going to the NPOV noticeboard. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
This is your opinion in defense of your own content and quotes. My revised version was stable for 10 days since your last reverts, indicating other editors did not object to the revisions made. WP:WAR warning: I'm returning to the edited version, and you can argue your points one by one here at Talk per WP:BRD. What I see in your version is a lot of overinterpretation, conjecture, and exaggeration from your prior content, and the extensive quoting is plainly intended to hype your point of view. --Zefr (talk) 01:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
I don’t care about the quotes or the content wording. I care about NPOV and verifiability, which you’re throwing out the window. We have two options. You can work constructively with me to fix the issues with content policy in your original edits; alternatively, you can revert me again and we’ll end up wasting even more time at noticeboards. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
That said, deleting all of the reference quotes is fine with me. I don’t rly care either way. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Zefr: All the quotes are now gone. So, this is how I propose we go about addressing your issues and mine:

  • Ref deletions: If you care that much about seeing 4 reviews in a row, I'd be fine with grouping them into 1 reference using a nested reference: {{#tag:ref|The references go here|group="note"}}. I'm not fine with deleting MEDRS-compliant references in this article. It's obviously a controversial topic. If you have an alternative solution in mind, let me know.
  • NPOV/Verifiability issues: I'm fine with rephrasing the sentences you modified, citing the current sources, provided that you don't write it in a manner that sounds like "a systematic review stated xyz may [statement of findings]" when they make explicit an statement without any potential for doubt or uncertainty via a statement like Findings from this research unambiguously demonstrate (in that particular sentence, you replaced the word "unambiguously" with the modal verb "may" to convey a possibility of doubt, whereas the cited source conveys absolutely none at all; hence the problem with NPOV).
    • If you want to cite an additional source, I'm okay with rephrasing it in a manner consistent with NPOV coverage of distinct viewpoints.
  • My recent edit updated a reference that you keep reverting back to an edition from 2009. That's outside MEDDATE. You've been replacing the updated reference with the outdated one. I made a number of other revisions that weren't simply reverts of your changes, but your revert of my updated reference is a problem because you're replacing a reference that is compliant with MEDRS with an edition of that reference which is not.

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nootropic/Archive_2&oldid=1136251028"