Talk:Nootropic

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

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Oxerin

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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.

• Girugea's articles.
• Wired articles: Give Your Intellect a Boost — Just Say Yes to Doing the Right Drugs! and Really Smart Drugs
• PMC. The Psychopharmacology of Herbal Medicine: Plant Drugs That Alter Mind, Brain and Behavior
• PMC. Cognitive dysfunctions in schizophrenia: potential benefits of cholinesterase inhibitor adjunctive therapy
• PMC. Efficacy and safety of galantamine in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease: multicentre randomised controlled trial
• PMC. Drugs for Alzheimer disease. Fairly critical review.
• PMC. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=122286&rendertype=abstract.
• PMC Drugs for Alzheimer's disease 2
• PMC Effect of the herbal extract combination Panax quinquefolium and Ginkgo biloba on attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: a pilot study.
• PMID 11744068 Yohimbine: a clinical review. No access; has a section on memory.
• PMID 16848706 Choline: critical role during fetal development and dietary requirements in adults. (free access)
• PMID 16989905 Lipoic acid as a novel treatment for Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. (no access)
• PMID 17171187 Citicoline: pharmacological and clinical review, 2006 update. (no access)
• PMID 18046877 Citicoline (Cognizin) in the treatment of cognitive impairment. (no access)
• PMID 18198970 The use of cognitive enhancers in behavioral disturbances of Alzheimer's disease. (no access)
• PMID 17908041 East meets West in the search for Alzheimer's therapeutics - novel dimeric inhibitors from tacrine and huperzine A. (no access)
• PMID 16437532 Cholinesterase inhibitors for Alzheimer's disease. (no access, Cochrane)
• PMID 17960354 [Therapy of cognitive deficits in schizophrenia with acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. A systematic overview] (no access, German)
• PMID 17979717 Recent developments in cholinesterases inhibitors for Alzheimer's disease treatment. (no access? my library lies to me)
• PMID 18078044 [Hippocampus: a target for cognition enhancers] (Russian, specifically mentions nootropics)
• PMID 18078043 [Nootropes (cognition enhancers) and neuroprotectors] (Russian again)
• PMID 18050502 Acetylcholine. (no access)
• PMID 18033952 A systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of piracetam and piracetam-like compounds in experimental stroke. (no access)
• PMID 17979717 Recent developments in cholinesterases inhibitors for Alzheimer's disease treatment. (no access? library lies again...)

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)

recent article in nature

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v450/n7173/full/4501157a.html --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)

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. -- þħɥʂıɕıʄʈ^ʝɘɖı 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

guanfacine & clonidine

Guanfacine and clonidine are both α_2A 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)

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)

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)

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?