I almost resigned myself to buying patches to cut (and let the nicotine evaporate) and hope they would still stick on well enough afterwards to be indistinguishable from a fresh patch, when late one sleepless night I realized that a piece of nicotine gum hanging around on my desktop for a week proved useless when I tried it, and that was the answer: if nicotine evaporates from patches, then it must evaporate from gum as well, and if gum does evaporate, then to make a perfect placebo all I had to do was cut some gum into proper sizes and let the pieces sit out for a while. (A while later, I lost a piece of gum overnight and consumed the full 4mg to no subjective effect.) Google searches led to nothing indicating I might be fooling myself, and suggested that evaporation started within minutes in patches and a patch was useless within a day. Just a day is pushing it (who knows how much is left in a useless patch?), so I decided to build in a very large safety factor and let the gum sit for around a month rather than a single day.
While the primary effect of the drug is massive muscle growth the psychological side effects actually improved his sanity by an absurd degree. He went from barely functional to highly productive. When one observes that the decision to not attempt to fulfill one’s CEV at a given moment is a bad decision it follows that all else being equal improved motivation is improved sanity.
On the plus side: - I noticed the less-fatigue thing to a greater extent, getting out of my classes much less tired than usual. (Caveat: my sleep schedule recently changed for the saner, so it’s possible that’s responsible. I think it’s more the piracetam+choline, though.) - One thing I wasn’t expecting was a decrease in my appetite - nobody had mentioned that in their reports.I don’t like being bothered by my appetite (I know how to eat fine without it reminding me), so I count this as a plus. - Fidgeting was reduced further

Similarly, we could try applying Nick Bostrom’s reversal test and ask ourselves, how would we react to a virus which had no effect but to eliminate sleep from alternating nights and double sleep in the intervening nights? We would probably grouch about it for a while and then adapt to our new hedonistic lifestyle of partying or working hard. On the other hand, imagine the virus had the effect of eliminating normal sleep but instead, every 2 minutes, a person would fall asleep for a minute. This would be disastrous! Besides the most immediate problems like safely driving vehicles, how would anything get done? You would hold a meeting and at any point, a third of the participants would be asleep. If the virus made it instead 2 hours on, one hour off, that would be better but still problematic: there would be constant interruptions. And so on, until we reach our present state of 16 hours on, 8 hours off. Given that we rejected all the earlier buffer sizes, one wonders if 16:8 can be defended as uniquely suited to circumstances. Is that optimal? It may be, given the synchronization with the night-day cycle, but I wonder; rush hour alone stands as an argument against synchronized sleep - wouldn’t our infrastructure would be much cheaper if it only had to handle the average daily load rather than cope with the projected peak loads? Might not a longer cycle be better? The longer the day, the less we are interrupted by sleep; it’s a hoary cliche about programmers that they prefer to work in long sustained marathons during long nights rather than sprint occasionally during a distraction-filled day, to the point where some famously adopt a 28 hour day (which evenly divides a week into 6 days). Are there other occupations which would benefit from a 20 hour waking period? Or 24 hour waking period? We might not know because without chemical assistance, circadian rhythms would overpower anyone attempting such schedules. It certainly would be nice if one had long time chunks in which could read a challenging book in one sitting, without heroic arrangements.↩
DNB-wise, eyeballing my stats file seems to indicate a small increase: when I compare peak scores D4B scores, I see mostly 50s and a few 60s before piracetam, and after starting piracetam, a few 70s mixed into the 50s and 60s. Natural increase from training? Dunno - I’ve been stuck on D4B since June, so 5 or 10% in a week or 3 seems a little suspicious. A graph of the score series27:
This is a small water plant native to India. Bacopa is an adaptogen – it helps your body adapt to stress. It also improves memory in healthy adults[12] and enhances attention and mood in people over 65. [13] Scientists still don’t fully understand how Bacopa works, but they do know it takes time to work; study participants didn’t feel its memory-enhancing effects until they’d been supplementing with it daily for 4 weeks, so if you try Bacopa, stick with it for a month before you give up on it.
The third category was cognitive control - how effectively you can check yourself in circumstances where the most natural response is the wrong one. A classic test is the Stroop Task, in which people are shown the name of a colour (let's say orange) written in a different colour (let's say purple). They're asked to read the word (which is easy, because our habitual response to a word is to read it) or to name the ink colour (which is harder, because our first impulse is to say "orange"). These studies presented a more mixed picture, but overall they showed some benefit "for most normal healthy subjects" - especially for people who had inherently poorer cognitive control.
The task of building a better mousetrap just got a lot harder. Scientists at Princeton University recently created a strain of smarter mice by inserting a gene that boosts the activity of brain cells. The mice can learn to navigate mazes and find or recognize objects faster than run-of-the-mill rodents. The news, announced in the Sept. 2, 1999 issue of the journal Nature, raises the possibility that genetic engineers may someday be able to help humans learn and remember faster, too.
The methodology would be essentially the same as the vitamin D in the morning experiment: put a multiple of 7 placebos in one container, the same number of actives in another identical container, hide & randomly pick one of them, use container for 7 days then the other for 7 days, look inside them for the label to determine which period was active and which was placebo, refill them, and start again.
How exactly – and if – nootropics work varies widely. Some may work, for example, by strengthening certain brain pathways for neurotransmitters like dopamine, which is involved in motivation, Barbour says. Others aim to boost blood flow – and therefore funnel nutrients – to the brain to support cell growth and regeneration. Others protect brain cells and connections from inflammation, which is believed to be a factor in conditions like Alzheimer's, Barbour explains. Still others boost metabolism or pack in vitamins that may help protect the brain and the rest of the nervous system, explains Dr. Anna Hohler, an associate professor of neurology at Boston University School of Medicine and a fellow of the American Academy of Neurology.
Articles and information on this website may only be copied, reprinted, or redistributed with written permission (but please ask, we like to give written permission!) The purpose of this Blog is to encourage the free exchange of ideas. The entire contents of this website is based upon the opinions of Dave Asprey, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective authors, who may retain copyright as marked. The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the personal research and experience of Dave Asprey and the community. We will attempt to keep all objectionable messages off this site; however, it is impossible to review all messages immediately. All messages expressed on The Bulletproof Forum or the Blog, including comments posted to Blog entries, represent the views of the author exclusively and we are not responsible for the content of any message.
Dr. Lisa Mosconi, PhD, INHC, is the associate director of the Alzheimer's Prevention Clinic at Weill Cornell Medical College (WCMC)/NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, where she was recruited as an associate professor of Neuroscience in Neurology. She also is an adjunct faculty member in the Department of Psychiatry at NYU School of Medicine, in the Department of Nutrition at NYU Steinhardt School of Nutrition and Public Health, and in the Departments of Neurology and Nuclear Medicine at the University of Florence (Italy). Formerly, Dr. Mosconi founded and was the director of the Nutrition & Brain Fitness Lab at New York University School of Medicine (NYU), and an assistant professor in the NYU Department of Psychiatry, where she served as the director of the Family History of Alzheimer's disease research program. Dr. Mosconi holds a dual PhD degree in Neuroscience and Nuclear Medicine from the University of Florence, Italy, and is a board certified integrative nutritionist and holistic healthcare practitioner. She is well known for her research on the early detection of Alzheimer's disease and is passionately interested in the mitigation and prevention of memory loss through lifestyle modifications including diet, nutrition, and physical and intellectual fitness.
Jump up ^ Greely, Henry; Sahakian, Barbara; Harris, John; Kessler, Ronald C.; Gazzaniga, Michael; Campbell, Philip; Farah, Martha J. (December 10, 2008). "Towards responsible use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by the healthy". Nature. Nature Publishing Group. 456 (7223): 702–705. Bibcode:2008Natur.456..702G. doi:10.1038/456702a. ISSN 1476-4687. OCLC 01586310. PMID 19060880. Retrieved March 25, 2014. (Subscription required (help)).
×