Not long ago I met Anjan Chatterjee, a neurologist at the University of Pennsylvania, in his office at the labyrinthine Penn hospital complex. Chatterjee's main research interests are in subjects like the neurological basis of spatial understanding, but in the past few years, as he has heard more about students taking cognitive enhancers, he has begun writing about the ethical implications of such behaviour. In 2004 he coined the term "cosmetic neurology" to describe the practice of using drugs developed for recognised medical conditions to strengthen ordinary cognition. Chatterjee worries about cosmetic neurology, but he thinks that it will eventually become as acceptable as cosmetic surgery; in fact with neuroenhancement it's harder to argue that it's frivolous. As he notes in a 2007 paper: "Many sectors of society have winner-take-all conditions in which small advantages produce disproportionate rewards." At school and at work, the usefulness of being "smarter", needing less sleep and learning more quickly is "abundantly clear". In the near future, he predicts, some neurologists will refashion themselves as "quality-of-life consultants" whose role will be "to provide information while abrogating final responsibility for these decisions to patients". The demand is certainly there: from an ageing population that won't put up with memory loss; from overwrought parents bent on giving their children every possible edge; from anxious employees in an efficiency-obsessed, BlackBerry-equipped office culture where work never really ends.


Long story short, aging is your brain’s worst enemy. The same applies to all organs of our body, but the brain suffers the most. Both neurotransmitters and neurons are taking the blow too. As a result, the neuron communication is affected. Now, this may seem like the rocket science to you, but it’s enough to say, serotonin and dopamine are the most important neurotransmitters. Without these components, you can forget about good mood. Serotonin and dopamine levels drop at a rate of approximately 10% for every decade you add to your age.
Pomegranate juice. Pomegranate juice (you can eat the fruit itself but with its many tiny seeds, it's not nearly as convenient) offers potent antioxidant benefits, says Kulze, which protect the brain from the damage of free radicals. "Probably no part of the body is more sensitive to the damage from free radicals as the brain," says board-certified neurologist David Perlmutter, MD, author of The Better Brain Book. Citrus fruits and colorful vegetables are also high on Perlmutter's list of "brainy" foods because of their antioxidant properties -- "the more colorful the better," he says. Because pomegranate juice has added sugar (to counteract its natural tartness), you don't want to go overboard, says Kulze; she recommends approximately 2 ounces a day, diluted with spring water or seltzer.

There are a variety of substances to get magnesium from. Considerable enthusiasm for the new compound magnesium l-threonate was stirred by 2 small animal rat studies finding that magnesium l-threonate was able to increase magnesium levels in the brain and improve learning/memory tasks. (There are no published human trials as of October 2015, and evidence of publication bias, which I take as evidence against there being large effects in humans.) Animal studies mean very little, of course (see the appendix), but I thought it’d be interesting to try using l-threonate, so I bought the $30 Life Extension Neuro-Mag Magnesium L-Threonate with Calcium and Vitamin D3 (205g), which according to the LEF product page works out to ~60g of Magtein™ magnesium L-threonate and ~4.31g elemental magnesium inasmuch as LEF claims 2000mg of threonate powder provides 144mg elemental magnesium or a 14:1 ratio. (I don’t need the calcium or vitamin D3, but this was the only magnesium l-threonate on Amazon.) Experiment-wise, I’ll probably look at sleep metrics and Mnemosyne performance; I put off designing a blind self-experiment until after trying some.
The principal metric would be mood, however defined. Zeo’s web interface & data export includes a field for Day Feel, which is a rating 1-5 of general mood & quality of day. I can record a similar metric at the end of each day. 1-5 might be a little crude even with a year of data, so a more sophisticated measure might be in order. The first mood study is paywalled so I’m not sure what they used, but Shiotsuki 2008 used State-Trait of Anxiety Inventory (STAI) and Profiles of Mood States Test (POMS). The full POMS sounds too long to use daily, but the Brief POMS might work. In the original 1987 paper A brief POMS measure of distress for cancer patients, patients answering this questionnaire had a mean total mean of 10.43 (standard deviation 8.87). Is this the best way to measure mood? I’ve asked Seth Roberts; he suggested using a 0-100 scale, but personally, there’s no way I can assess my mood on 0-100. My mood is sufficiently stable (to me) that 0-5 is asking a bit much, even.

My answer is that this is not a lot of research or very good research (not nearly as good as the research on nicotine, eg.), and assuming it’s true, I don’t value long-term memory that much because LTM is something that is easily assisted or replaced (personal archives, and spaced repetition). For me, my problems tend to be more about akrasia and energy and not getting things done, so even if a stimulant comes with a little cost to long-term memory, it’s still useful for me. I’m going continue to use the caffeine. It’s not so bad in conjunction with tea, is very cheap, and I’m already addicted, so why not? Caffeine is extremely cheap, addictive, has minimal effects on health (and may be beneficial, from the various epidemiological associations with tea/coffee/chocolate & longevity), and costs extra to remove from drinks popular regardless of their caffeine content (coffee and tea again). What would be the point of carefully investigating it? Suppose there was conclusive evidence on the topic, the value of this evidence to me would be roughly $0 or since ignorance is bliss, negative money - because unless the negative effects were drastic (which current studies rule out, although tea has other issues like fluoride or metal contents), I would not change anything about my life. Why? I enjoy my tea too much. My usual tea seller doesn’t even have decaffeinated oolong in general, much less various varieties I might want to drink, apparently because de-caffeinating is so expensive it’s not worthwhile. What am I supposed to do, give up my tea and caffeine just to save on the cost of caffeine? Buy de-caffeinating machines (which I couldn’t even find any prices for, googling)? This also holds true for people who drink coffee or caffeinated soda. (As opposed to a drug like modafinil which is expensive, and so the value of a definitive answer is substantial and would justify some more extensive calculating of cost-benefit.)

“By drawing on more than fifteen years of scientific research and experience, Dr. Mosconi provides expert advice to prevent medical decline and sharpen memory. Her brain healthy recipes will help you maintain peak cognitive performance well into old age and therefore delay and may even prevent the appearance of debilitating diseases like Alzheimer’s.”
Ampakines are structurally derived from a popular nootropic called “aniracetam”. Their basic function is to activate AMPA glutamate receptors (AMPARs). Glutamate (a neurotransmitter) is the primary mediator of excitatory synaptic transmission in mammalian brains, which makes it crucial for synaptic plasticity (the adaptation of synapses, the space between neurons across which information is sent), learning and memory, so when you activate or stimulate glutamate receptors, you can trigger many of these functions. AMPARs are distributed across the central nervous system and are stimulated by incoming glutamate to begin the neuroenhancing benefits they’re often used for. But it is possible to have too much glutamate activity. When excess glutamate is produced, accumulates and binds to AMPARs, the result is excitotoxicity, which is a state of cell death (in the case of the central nervous system and your brain, neuron death) resulting from the toxic levels of excitatory amino acids. Excitotoxicity is believed to play a major role in the development of various degenerative neurological conditions such as schizophrenia, delirium and dementia.
The main concern with pharmaceutical drugs is adverse effects, which also apply to nootropics with undefined effects. Long-term safety evidence is typically unavailable for nootropics.[13] Racetams — piracetam and other compounds that are structurally related to piracetam — have few serious adverse effects and low toxicity, but there is little evidence that they enhance cognition in people having no cognitive impairments.[19]
×