Talk:Nootropic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sp0 (talk | contribs) at 17:23, 6 February 2010 (bloodleech.... needs a warning for messing trying to be dictator...don'tdo that again). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconPharmacology B‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPsychology Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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

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[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]



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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oxerin

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
How does this version work for you? Halogenated (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Sounds good to me.Halogenated (talk) 15:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

recent article in nature

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v450/n7173/full/4501157a.html --Doc James (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ethics

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yes see what you can do.Doc James (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Done. --Arcadian (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nootropic&oldid=342318241"