I'm not mad, I'm disappointed. This product did not work at all. It didn't even feel like it was just a caffeine pill (usually what supplements that don't work are actually made of). It literally does nothing. In hindsight, I feel like I did when I was a kid and ordered $4.50 X-ray sunglasses from the back of a comic book. Deep down knew it was too good to be true, but secretly I hoped it would work. Shame on me for getting sucked into a bunch of hype.
(In particular, I don’t think it’s because there’s a sudden new surge of drugs. FDA drug approval has been decreasing over the past few decades, so this is unlikely a priori. More specifically, many of the major or hot drugs go back a long time. Bacopa goes back millennia, melatonin I don’t even know, piracetam was the ’60s, modafinil was ’70s or ’80s, ALCAR was ’80s AFAIK, Noopept & coluracetam were ’90s, and so on.)
For illustration, consider amphetamines, Ritalin, and modafinil, all of which have been proposed as cognitive enhancers of attention. These drugs exhibit some positive effects on cognition, especially among individuals with lower baseline abilities. However, individuals of normal or above-average cognitive ability often show negligible improvements or even decrements in performance following drug treatment (for details, see de Jongh, Bolt, Schermer, & Olivier, 2008). For instance, Randall, Shneerson, and File (2005) found that modafinil improved performance only among individuals with lower IQ, not among those with higher IQ. [See also Finke et al 2010 on visual attention.] Farah, Haimm, Sankoorikal, & Chatterjee 2009 found a similar nonlinear relationship of dose to response for amphetamines in a remote-associates task, with low-performing individuals showing enhanced performance but high-performing individuals showing reduced performance. Such ∩-shaped dose-response curves are quite common (see Cools & Robbins, 2004)
“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.”
At small effects like d=0.07, a nontrivial chance of negative effects, and an unknown level of placebo effects (this was non-blinded, which could account for any residual effects), this strongly implies that LLLT is not doing anything for me worth bothering with. I was pretty skeptical of LLLT in the first place, and if 167 days can’t turn up anything noticeable, I don’t think I’ll be continuing with LLLT usage and will be giving away my LED set. (Should any experimental studies of LLLT for cognitive enhancement in healthy people surface with large quantitative effects - as opposed to a handful of qualitative case studies about brain-damaged people - and I decide to give LLLT another try, I can always just buy another set of LEDs: it’s only ~$15, after all.)
Nootropics may seem attractive to anyone who wants to try to improve their cognitive function and is willing to purchase powders, pills and other forms of these natural and synthetic supplements. Nootropic users have their own terminology, referring to measured combinations of nootropics and vitamins and minerals as “stacks.” For instance, Danger and Play, a site for active people, features a stack for beginners. The recipe includes 1600 mg of the piracetam along with recommended dosages of supplements such as ALCAR, rhodiola and magnesium. There are recipes for morning, afternoon and night, thus providing daylong guidance on how to most effectively stack for more energy, greater concentration, and improved information retention. The stack tip specifically states that the ingredients are not addictive, especially if taken in strict accordance with the recipe.
Brain enhancing drug – the steroids of the mental world, these are compounds that can be both artificial or natural that are not recommended for casual consumption. If taken over a long period of time, they can and will result in permanent and debilitating damage, and if taken wrongly, they can and will result in injury, illness, and death. So far from being the best brain pill that they loop around and punch the actual best brain pill in the face.
Maddy Heeszel is a 20-something-year-old from Central California. She is a 4.0 GPA graduate from Brandman University with a B.A. in Liberal Studies, Multiple Subjects Teaching. Maddy works full-time as a freelance writer and social media marketer. She also owns a plant nursery. In her spare time, Maddy enjoys cooking, gardening, watching prank videos on YouTube, playing video games, learning new languages, and taking pictures. She also has interests in health, psychology, and nutrition. You can connect with her on Linkedin.
Why? Just think for a moment how much visual, auditory, and sensory information you’re exposed to and required to process every day. From constant background sounds to big city noise pollution, the phone ringing, artificial lighting, chemical-laden air fresheners circulating smells of fresh linen, electromagnetic fields piercing through your brain, the new procedure you have to learn at work, and a host of other sensory stimuli, the human brain has to organize and deal with this information all while keeping you upright and going. Although the brain has incredible skills and unimaginable capabilities, modern living creates unprecedented stress and sensory overload from all of the information that must be processed every single day. Sensory overload has even been shown to cause irritability, anxiety, mood swings, depression, ADHD, fibromyalgia, PTSD and chronic fatigue syndrome. The ability of your brain to continue learning, processing, and forming new neural connections is key to maintaining optimal brain health and longevity.
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.