Since the discovery of the effect of nootropics on memory and focus, the number of products on the market has increased exponentially. The ingredients used in a supplement can tell you about the effectiveness of the product. Brain enhancement pills that produce the greatest benefit are formulated with natural vitamins and substances, rather than caffeine and synthetic ingredients. In addition to better results, natural supplements are less likely to produce side effects, compared with drugs formulated with chemical ingredients.
We reached out to several raw material manufacturers and learned that Phosphatidylserine and Huperzine A are in short supply. We also learned that these ingredients can be pricey, incentivizing many companies to cut corners. A company has to have the correct ingredients in the correct proportions in order for a brain health formula to be effective. We learned that not just having the two critical ingredients was important – but, also that having the correct supporting ingredients was essential in order to be effective.
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.
In the study, which evaluated the eating habits and mental ability of more than 950 older adults for an average of five years, those adults who ate a serving of leafy green veggies once or twice a day experienced slower mental deterioration than those who ate no vegetables, even when factors like age, education and family history of dementia were factored in.
Turns out, when compared with smokers who drank coffee regularly, non-coffee drinkers had twice as much of the cell damage associated with tobacco use. In addition, the smokers who didn’t consume coffee were up to seven times more likely to be affected by the same cancer as nonsmokers. Regular smokers who drank coffee fewer than two times each week had double the chances of developing cancer compared to those who drank coffee frequently. So ultimately, coffee-drinking cigarette-puffers have some kind of health advantage over their smoking counterparts who don’t drink coffee.
Took pill 1:27 PM. At 2 my hunger gets the best of me (despite my usual tea drinking and caffeine+piracetam pills) and I eat a large lunch. This makes me suspicious it was placebo - on the previous days I had noted a considerable appetite-suppressant effect. 5:25 PM: I don’t feel unusually tired, but nothing special about my productivity. 8 PM; no longer so sure. Read and excerpted a fair bit of research I had been putting off since the morning. After putting away all the laundry at 10, still feeling active, I check. It was Adderall. I can’t claim this one either way. By 9 or 10 I had begun to wonder whether it was really Adderall, but I didn’t feel confident saying it was; my feeling could be fairly described as 50%.
The fact is, many of these compounds in small amounts and less frequent use can be relatively safe, but as you’re probably not surprised to hear, I’m not 100% convinced of the overall long-term safety or efficacy of most smart drugs used frequently or in moderate to high dosages for the reasons stated above. It is true that some are slightly less risky than others and are increasing in popularity among biohackers and medical professionals. They’re also becoming used with high frequency by students, athletes and e-gamers, three populations for which smart drug “doping control” is becoming more frequently banned and considered to be illegal use of performance-enhancing drugs. Yes, “brain doping” and “brain PED’s” (brain Performance Enhancing Drugs) are now a thing. But I’d consider carefully the use of smart drugs as daily go-to brain enhancing supplements, especially in light of the safer alternative you’re about to discover: the entire category of natural and synthetic nootropic compounds.
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.
Woo understands that when selling brain drugs, skepticism comes with the territory. "The typical first reaction is, this is bullshit, you guys are snake-oil salesmen," he says. "We're not medical doctors nor biochemistry experts, but we are experts in building teams and building products. Like how Elon Musk attacks rockets and electric cars from 'first principles,' we see ourselves as applying Silicon Valley aesthetics and operational know-how to the murky world of nootropics."
According to the US Food and Drug Administration, "Piracetam is not a vitamin, mineral, amino acid, herb or other botanical, or dietary substance for use by man to supplement the diet by increasing the total dietary intake. Further, piracetam is not a concentrate, metabolite, constituent, extract or combination of any such dietary ingredient. [...] Accordingly, these products are drugs, under section 201(g)(1)(C) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 321(g)(1)(C), because they are not foods and they are intended to affect the structure or any function of the body. Moreover, these products are new drugs as defined by section 201(p) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 321(p), because they are not generally recognized as safe and effective for use under the conditions prescribed, recommended, or suggested in their labeling."