Clarke and Sokoloff (1998) remarked that although [a] common view equates concentrated mental effort with mental work…there appears to be no increased energy utilization by the brain during such processes (p. 664), and …the areas that participate in the processes of such reasoning represent too small a fraction of the brain for changes in their functional and metabolic activities to be reflected in the energy metabolism of the brain… (p. 675).
Your memory may decline with age and high-stress lifestyle. In this post, we cover supplements and nootropics that help improve memory, with the mechanisms. If you’re interested in cognitive enhancement that my clients and I have used for awesome results you should check out our book, SelfHacked Secrets. To receive the first chapter free click here.
Looking at the prices, the overwhelming expense is for modafinil. It’s a powerful stimulant - possibly the single most effective ingredient in the list - but dang expensive. Worse, there’s anecdotal evidence that one can develop tolerance to modafinil, so we might be wasting a great deal of money on it. (And for me, modafinil isn’t even very useful in the daytime: I can’t even notice it.) If we drop it, the cost drops by a full $800 from $1761 to $961 (almost halving) and to $0.96 per day. A remarkable difference, and if one were genetically insensitive to modafinil, one would definitely want to remove it.
Following up on the promising but unrandomized pilot, I began randomizing my LLLT usage since I worried that more productive days were causing use rather than vice-versa. I began on 2 August 2014, and the last day was 3 March 2015 (n=167); this was twice the sample size I thought I needed, and I stopped, as before, as part of cleaning up (I wanted to know whether to get rid of it or not). The procedure was simple: by noon, I flipped a bit and either did or did not use my LED device; if I was distracted or didn’t get around to randomization by noon, I skipped the day. This was an unblinded experiment because finding a randomized on/off switch is tricky/expensive and it was easier to just start the experiment already. The question is simple too: controlling for the simultaneous blind magnesium experiment & my rare nicotine use (I did not use modafinil during this period or anything else I expect to have major influence), is the pilot correlation of d=0.455 on my daily self-ratings borne out by the experiment?
Unlike many hypothetical scenarios that bioethicists worry about - human clones, "designer babies" - cognitive enhancement is already in full swing. But how much do they actually help? Are they potentially harmful or addictive? Then there's the question of what we mean by "smarter". Could enhancing one kind of thinking exact a toll on others? All these questions need proper scientific answers, but for now much of the discussion is taking place furtively, among the increasing number of people who are performing daily experiments on their own brains.

Nicotine has been shown to improve working memory, and research has also demonstrated that oral consumption of nicotine enhances memory consolidation in perceptual learning by enhancing the efficacy of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors and thereby enhancing the overall cholinergic system, which modulates memory formation. In other words, nicotine consumption improves the efficiency of acetylcholine (a neurotransmitter) receptors and, thus, improves the part of the nervous system that regulates healthy memory function. Some research also indicates that psychiatric populations suffering from cognitive deficits (such as patients suffering from schizophrenia) may enjoy even greater neuroprotection from nicotine consumption than healthy individuals. You may be concerned about using nicotine given its potential as an addictive substance. Well, nicotine plays a dual role in the brain by simultaneously promoting addiction and enhancing cognition. In fact, the processes are closely linked through the pathways by which they work. That means that when it comes to dosing nicotine, it’s all about moderation. Because nicotine can be easily abused and has high addictive potential, when using nicotine for cognitive enhancement, you must be precise with dosage and conscious of the amount you use. Studies have shown that moderate doses of nicotine typically produce cognitive enhancement, but very high doses can actually impair cognitive performance. A moderate dose would look something like 2-4 milligrams administered over 20-30 minutes, a dose easily available in the form of nicotine gum or spray. Later in this article, I’ll fill you in on my own personal dosage and use of nicotine.

Dosage is apparently 5-10mg a day. (Prices can be better elsewhere; selegiline is popular for treating dogs with senile dementia, where those 60x5mg will cost $2 rather than $3532. One needs a veterinarian’s prescription to purchase from pet-oriented online pharmacies, though.) I ordered it & modafinil from Nubrain.com at $35 for 60x5mg; Nubrain delayed and eventually canceled my order - and my enthusiasm. Between that and realizing how much of a premium I was paying for Nubrain’s deprenyl, I’m tabling deprenyl along with nicotine & modafinil for now. Which is too bad, because I had even ordered 20g of PEA from Smart Powders to try out with the deprenyl. (My later attempt to order some off the Silk Road also failed when the seller canceled the order.)

Research does not support that drugs like Ritalin help students do well in school. Studies show that prescription stimulants do not help to improve learning or thinking in those who do not actually have ADHD. Further, research reveals that students who abuse prescription stimulants have lower GPAs than students who do not abuse the drugs.[14] Although Ritalin improves concentration, this effect is largely misunderstood among non-prescribed users. These illicit users mistakenly believe that they can use a drug out of its prescribed context, thinking they can reap the benefits intended for legitimate users.


Finally, it’s not clear that caffeine results in performance gains after long-term use; homeostasis/tolerance is a concern for all stimulants, but especially for caffeine. It is plausible that all caffeine consumption does for the long-term chronic user is restore performance to baseline. (Imagine someone waking up and drinking coffee, and their performance improves - well, so would the performance of a non-addict who is also slowly waking up!) See for example, James & Rogers 2005, Sigmon et al 2009, and Rogers et al 2010. A cross-section of thousands of participants in the Cambridge brain-training study found caffeine intake showed negligible effect sizes for mean and component scores (participants were not told to use caffeine, but the training was recreational & difficult, so one expects some difference).
In 3, you’re considering adding a new supplement, not stopping a supplement you already use. The I don’t try Adderall case has value $0, the Adderall fails case is worth -$40 (assuming you only bought 10 pills, and this number should be increased by your analysis time and a weighted cost for potential permanent side effects), and the Adderall succeeds case is worth $X-40-4099, where $X is the discounted lifetime value of the increased productivity due to Adderall, minus any discounted long-term side effect costs. If you estimate Adderall will work with p=.5, then you should try out Adderall if you estimate that 0.5 \times (X-4179) > 0 ~> $X>4179$. (Adderall working or not isn’t binary, and so you might be more comfortable breaking down the various how effective Adderall is cases when eliciting X, by coming up with different levels it could work at, their values, and then using a weighted sum to get X. This can also give you a better target with your experiment- this needs to show a benefit of at least Y from Adderall for it to be worth the cost, and I’ve designed it so it has a reasonable chance of showing that.)
It is important that this type of approach is discussed with a qualified health professional, such as a registered nutritional therapist, to ensure it is an appropriate strategy for you, as well as to help you avoid missing out on vital nutrients, whilst eliminating certain foods. They can also provide advice on improving your longer term health, which over time may allow for foods to be reintroduced without negative symptoms occurring.

It would be like saying: 'No, you can't use a cell phone. It might increase productivity!'" If we eventually decide that neuroenhancers work, and are basically safe, will we one day enforce their use? Lawmakers might compel certain workers - A&E doctors, air-traffic controllers - to take them. (Indeed, the US Air Force already makes modafinil available to pilots embarking on long missions.) For the rest of us, the pressure will be subtler - that queasy feeling I get when I remember that my younger colleague is taking Provigil to meet deadlines. All this may be leading to a kind of society I'm not sure I want to live in: a society where we're even more overworked and driven by technology than we already are, and where we have to take drugs to keep up; a society where we give children academic steroids along with their daily vitamins.

Barbara Sahakian, a neuroscientist at Cambridge University, doesn’t dismiss the possibility of nootropics to enhance cognitive function in healthy people. She would like to see society think about what might be considered acceptable use and where it draws the line – for example, young people whose brains are still developing. But she also points out a big problem: long-term safety studies in healthy people have never been done. Most efficacy studies have only been short-term. “Proving safety and efficacy is needed,” she says.


I’ve been taking nootropics on and off for a month, and despite my spurts of productivity, I’m still not 100 percent sure that they’re working. I could well be placebo-ing myself into thinking I'm working harder and focusing better than I typically do. But apparently enough people are feeling some effect, placebo or not, because nootropics start-ups are thriving. There’s truBrain, Nootrobrain, Nootroo, and a host of others. Nootrobox, the company that makes my pills, says that it’s selling "five figures" worth of cognitive supplements monthly to customers that include top Silicon Valley executives and Hollywood moguls.


The amphetamine mix branded Adderall is terribly expensive to obtain even compared to modafinil, due to its tight regulation (a lower schedule than modafinil), popularity in college as a study drug, and reportedly moves by its manufacture to exploit its privileged position as a licensed amphetamine maker to extract more consumer surplus. I paid roughly $4 a pill but could have paid up to $10. Good stimulant hygiene involves recovery periods to avoid one’s body adapting to eliminate the stimulating effects, so even if Adderall was the answer to all my woes, I would not be using it more than 2 or 3 times a week. Assuming 50 uses a year (for specific projects, let’s say, and not ordinary aimless usage), that’s a cool $200 a year. My general belief was that Adderall would be too much of a stimulant for me, as I am amphetamine-naive and Adderall has a bad reputation for letting one waste time on unimportant things. We could say my prediction was 50% that Adderall would be useful and worth investigating further. The experiment was pretty simple: blind randomized pills, 10 placebo & 10 active. I took notes on how productive I was and the next day guessed whether it was placebo or Adderall before breaking the seal and finding out. I didn’t do any formal statistics for it, much less a power calculation, so let’s try to be conservative by penalizing the information quality heavily and assume it had 25%. So \frac{200 - 0}{\ln 1.05} \times 0.50 \times 0.25 = 512! The experiment probably used up no more than an hour or two total.
Last April the scientific journal Nature published the results of an informal online poll asking whether readers attempted to sharpen "their focus, concentration, or memory" by taking drugs such as Ritalin and Provigil, a newer kind of stimulant, known generically as modafinil, which was developed to treat narcolepsy. One in five respondents said they did. A majority of the 1,400 readers who responded said that healthy adults should be permitted to take brain boosters for non-medical reasons, and 69% said that mild side-effects were an acceptable risk. Though a majority said that such drugs should not be made available to children who had no diagnosed medical condition, a third admitted that they would feel pressure to give "smart drugs" to their kids if they learned that other parents were doing so.
Our current natural brain health formula contains Cordyceps-Sinensis Extract as well as the complete balance of brain health supporting nutrients that work perfectly together to help your body elevate essential acetylcholine levels while increasing the neurological components (neurotransmitters) needed to help you stay alert, focused, mentally driven and calm.
When comparing supplements, consider products with a score above 90% to get the greatest benefit from smart pills to improve memory. Additionally, we consider the reviews that users send to us when scoring supplements, so you can determine how well products work for others and use this information to make an informed decision. Every month, our editor puts her name on that month’s best smart bill, in terms of results and value offered to users.
For 2 weeks, upon awakening I took close-up photographs of my right eye. Then I ordered two jars of Life-Extension Sea-Iodine (60x1mg) (1mg being an apparently safe dose), and when it arrived on 10 September 2012, I stopped the photography and began taking 1 iodine pill every other day. I noticed no ill effects (or benefits) after a few weeks and upped the dose to 1 pill daily. After the first jar of 60 pills was used up, I switched to the second jar, and began photography as before for 2 weeks. The photographs were uploaded, cropped by hand in Gimp, and shrunk to more reasonable dimensions; both sets are available in a Zip file.

Any consideration of the future of nootropics is directly tied into the future of humanity. As long as work productivity demands continue to soar, there will like be a affiliated rise in the desire to increase brain power. As Vice discusses in a thoughtful article providing several insights into why nootropics are popular, it is not surprising that smart drugs and the nootropic industry are ever-expanding. Vice points out that sci-fi writers once warned of people being overtaken by machines, but instead, human beings are becoming machines, taking on unrealistic work levels.[15] Taking nootropic drugs is akin to loading up on premium fuel in an effort to go faster and do better.

Nicotine’s stimulant effects are general and do not come with the same tweakiness and aggression associated with the amphetamines, and subjectively are much cleaner with less of a crash. I would say that its stimulant effects are fairly strong, around that of modafinil. Another advantage is that nicotine operates through nicotinic receptors and so doesn’t cross-tolerate with dopaminergic stimulants (hence one could hypothetically cycle through nicotine, modafinil, amphetamines, and caffeine, hitting different receptors each time).

These brain enhancers allow users to go without sleep for extended periods of time. But in the long-term, insomnia is a hazardous side effect, not a so-called benefit. Lack of sleep is extremely detrimental to your brain health and function. It’s during sleep that your brain consolidates memories, cleans away toxins, repairs itself, and creates new brain cells. (52, 53, 54, 55)
The amphetamine mix branded Adderall is terribly expensive to obtain even compared to modafinil, due to its tight regulation (a lower schedule than modafinil), popularity in college as a study drug, and reportedly moves by its manufacture to exploit its privileged position as a licensed amphetamine maker to extract more consumer surplus. I paid roughly $4 a pill but could have paid up to $10. Good stimulant hygiene involves recovery periods to avoid one’s body adapting to eliminate the stimulating effects, so even if Adderall was the answer to all my woes, I would not be using it more than 2 or 3 times a week. Assuming 50 uses a year (for specific projects, let’s say, and not ordinary aimless usage), that’s a cool $200 a year. My general belief was that Adderall would be too much of a stimulant for me, as I am amphetamine-naive and Adderall has a bad reputation for letting one waste time on unimportant things. We could say my prediction was 50% that Adderall would be useful and worth investigating further. The experiment was pretty simple: blind randomized pills, 10 placebo & 10 active. I took notes on how productive I was and the next day guessed whether it was placebo or Adderall before breaking the seal and finding out. I didn’t do any formal statistics for it, much less a power calculation, so let’s try to be conservative by penalizing the information quality heavily and assume it had 25%. So \frac{200 - 0}{\ln 1.05} \times 0.50 \times 0.25 = 512! The experiment probably used up no more than an hour or two total.
The team behind Brain Pill strongly believes in fair win-win scenarios. That’s why every customer has an opportunity to try this product for the full two months. There’s nothing to worry about during this period because you are covered by the no-questions-asked money-back guarantee. Some people begin experiencing the first obvious results in less than a month. On the other hand, some users require up to 60 days to see Brain Pill at work full scale. It’s an individual thing. If you aren’t absolutely thrilled by Brain Pill’s results after two months of use, you are free to ask for the full refund. It’s that simple and fair. In addition, you get an extra week after the initial period of 60 days expired to send back the bottles you haven’t used. You will either get all the benefits or get the full refund. So, this risk-free opportunity just can’t get any better, can it?
Directions — as a dietary supplement take 2 veggie capsules once a day . For best results take 20-30 min before a meal with an 8oz. Glass of water or as directed by your healthcare professional. As a dietary supplement take two (2) veggie capsules once a day. For best results take 20-30 minutes before a meal with an 8oz. glass of water or as directed by your healthcare professional. — Suggested Use: As a dietary supplement, adults take one (1) capsule per day. Do not exceed 2 capsules per day. —
The experiment then is straightforward: cut up a fresh piece of gum, randomly select from it and an equivalent dry piece of gum, and do 5 rounds of dual n-back to test attention/energy & WM. (If it turns out to be placebo, I’ll immediately use the remaining active dose: no sense in wasting gum, and this will test whether nigh-daily use renders nicotine gum useless, similar to how caffeine may be useless if taken daily. If there’s 3 pieces of active gum left, then I wrap it very tightly in Saran wrap which is sticky and air-tight.) The dose will be 1mg or 1/4 a gum. I cut up a dozen pieces into 4 pieces for 48 doses and set them out to dry. Per the previous power analyses, 48 groups of DNB rounds likely will be enough for detecting small-medium effects (partly since we will be only looking at one metric - average % right per 5 rounds - with no need for multiple correction). Analysis will be one-tailed, since we’re looking for whether there is a clear performance improvement and hence a reason to keep using nicotine gum (rather than whether nicotine gum might be harmful).
And in his followup work, An opportunity cost model of subjective effort and task performance (discussion). Kurzban seems to have successfully refuted the blood-glucose theory, with few dissenters from commenting researchers. The more recent opinion seems to be that the sugar interventions serve more as a reward-signal indicating more effort is a good idea, not refueling the engine of the brain (which would seem to fit well with research on procrastination).↩
If you are a slow caffeine metabolizer and consume too much caffeine, you run the risk of mild to severe complications, such as cardiovascular disease. There’s also the sleep disruption problem of having too much caffeine left in your bloodstream late in the day as a result of a longer caffeine half-life, a problem not faced by fast caffeine metabolizers (it’s so unfair if you love your cup of joe, right?). In addition, fast caffeine metabolizers actually run a reduced risk of cardiovascular complications if they consume at least one cup of coffee per day. While anyone can be a slow caffeine metabolizer, there are certain ethnic backgrounds that are indeed associated with slower and faster caffeine metabolisms. For example, it’s known that people with Asian and African ethnic backgrounds generally have slower rates of caffeine metabolism. To find out if you’re a fast or slow caffeine metabolizer, you can have a relatively inexpensive salivary genetic test performed by a company like 23andme and then use the online dashboard to jump straight to your CYP1A2 gene. When you’re there, you type into the search bar “rs762551”. If your rs762551 SNP variant is AA, then you’re a fast caffeine metabolizer, but if your variant is AC or CC, you’re a slow caffeine metabolizer. Fortunately, many genetic testing companies will now simply report directly on your results whether you’re a slow or fast metabolizer, without you needing to go through the SNP searching trouble.
Finally, it’s not clear that caffeine results in performance gains after long-term use; homeostasis/tolerance is a concern for all stimulants, but especially for caffeine. It is plausible that all caffeine consumption does for the long-term chronic user is restore performance to baseline. (Imagine someone waking up and drinking coffee, and their performance improves - well, so would the performance of a non-addict who is also slowly waking up!) See for example, James & Rogers 2005, Sigmon et al 2009, and Rogers et al 2010. A cross-section of thousands of participants in the Cambridge brain-training study found caffeine intake showed negligible effect sizes for mean and component scores (participants were not told to use caffeine, but the training was recreational & difficult, so one expects some difference).
One fairly powerful nootropic substance that, appropriately, has fallen out of favor is nicotine. It’s the chemical that gives tobacco products their stimulating kick. It isn’t what makes them so deadly, but it does make smoking very addictive. When Europeans learned about tobacco’s use from indigenous tribes they encountered in the Americas in the 15th and 16th centuries, they got hooked on its mood-altering effects right away and even believed it could cure joint pain, epilepsy, and the plague. Recently, researchers have been testing the effects of nicotine that’s been removed from tobacco, and they believe that it might help treat neurological disorders including Parkinson’s disease and schizophrenia; it may also improve attention and focus. But, please, don’t start smoking or vaping. Check out these 14 weird brain exercises that make you smarter.
One study of helicopter pilots suggested that 600 mg of modafinil given in three doses can be used to keep pilots alert and maintain their accuracy at pre-deprivation levels for 40 hours without sleep.[60] However, significant levels of nausea and vertigo were observed. Another study of fighter pilots showed that modafinil given in three divided 100 mg doses sustained the flight control accuracy of sleep-deprived F-117 pilots to within about 27% of baseline levels for 37 hours, without any considerable side effects.[61] In an 88-hour sleep loss study of simulated military grounds operations, 400 mg/day doses were mildly helpful at maintaining alertness and performance of subjects compared to placebo, but the researchers concluded that this dose was not high enough to compensate for most of the effects of complete sleep loss.

A key ingredient of Noehr’s chemical “stack” is a stronger racetam called Phenylpiracetam. He adds a handful of other compounds considered to be mild cognitive enhancers. One supplement, L-theanine, a natural constituent in green tea, is claimed to neutralise the jittery side-effects of caffeine. Another supplement, choline, is said to be important for experiencing the full effects of racetams. Each nootropic is distinct and there can be a lot of variation in effect from person to person, says Lawler. Users semi-annonymously compare stacks and get advice from forums on sites such as Reddit. Noehr, who buys his powder in bulk and makes his own capsules, has been tweaking chemicals and quantities for about five years accumulating more than two dozens of jars of substances along the way. He says he meticulously researches anything he tries, buys only from trusted suppliers and even blind-tests the effects (he gets his fiancée to hand him either a real or inactive capsule).
At this point, I began thinking about what I was doing. Black-market Adderall is fairly expensive; $4-10 a pill vs prescription prices which run more like $60 for 120 20mg pills. It would be a bad idea to become a fan without being quite sure that it is delivering bang for the buck. Now, why the piracetam mix as the placebo as opposed to my other available powder, creatine powder, which has much smaller mental effects? Because the question for me is not whether the Adderall works (I am quite sure that the amphetamines have effects!) but whether it works better for me than my cheap legal standbys (piracetam & caffeine)? (Does Adderall have marginal advantage for me?) Hence, I want to know whether Adderall is better than my piracetam mix. People frequently underestimate the power of placebo effects, so it’s worth testing. (Unfortunately, it seems that there is experimental evidence that people on Adderall know they are on Adderall and also believe they have improved performance, when they do not5. So the blind testing does not buy me as much as it could.)

It seems like we're constantly bombarded by the newest superfoods, how matcha is the coffee, and why Himalayan salt is "so much better" than sea salt (spoiler alert: it's not, but its pink hue definitely makes cooking more fun). Dieting has always been an on/off kind of activity in my life which is why I've struggled to jump on this train for a while.
Sure, you could certainly swallow too much St. John’s Wort and create the same type of serotonin or neurotransmitter issues you could create with a synthetic smart drug, but it’s far more difficult to harm yourself with a nootropic compared to a synthetic smart drug. Although synthetic, laboratory-designed nootropics do indeed exist, even those are not as harsh on the biology as a smart drug and have a mechanism of action that is a bit more natural. Let’s begin with the more natural nootropics.
Nootropics – sometimes called smart drugs – are compounds that enhance brain function. They’re becoming a popular way to give your mind an extra boost. According to one Telegraph report, up to 25% of students at leading UK universities have taken the prescription smart drug modafinil [1], and California tech startup employees are trying everything from Adderall to LSD to push their brains into a higher gear [2].
If all of this sounds great to you, get ready to level up your brain to game like a god with GodMode. Unless, you know, you're under 18, pregnant, potentially have any pre-existing medical conditions, are taking any prescription medications, are otherwise ingesting caffeine or taking other stimulants, or you don't want to drop $60 on gamer pills. Then, you know, don't.

Some work has been done on estimating the value of IQ, both as net benefits to the possessor (including all zero-sum or negative-sum aspects) and as net positive externalities to the rest of society. The estimates are substantial: in the thousands of dollars per IQ point. But since increasing IQ post-childhood is almost impossible barring disease or similar deficits, and even increasing childhood IQs is very challenging, much of these estimates are merely correlations or regressions, and the experimental childhood estimates must be weakened considerably for any adult - since so much time and so many opportunities have been lost. A wild guess: $1000 net present value per IQ point. The range for severely deficient children was 10-15 points, so any normal (somewhat deficient) adult gain must be much smaller and consistent with Fitzgerald 2012’s ceiling on possible effect sizes (small).

This is why it was so refreshing to stumble across Dr. Lisa Mosconi's new book "Brain Food: The Surprising Power of Eating for Cognitive Power" . "Our brains aren't keeping up with the historical change in dietary consumptions", says Dr. Lisa. And it's quite evident in her book when she does a historical overview and draws an important relationship between what our ancestors were eating and the concept of longevity. Her contribution to the fascinating new world of "neuro-nutrition" differs drastically from the diet culture we are all so used to and can help us understand why including (and excluding) certain foods, will actually boost our brain health. 


Price discrimination is aided by barriers such as ignorance and oligopolies. An example of the former would be when I went to a Food Lion grocery store in search of spices, and noticed that there was a second selection of spices in the Hispanic/Latino ethnic food aisle, with unit prices perhaps a fourth of the regular McCormick-brand spices; I rather doubt that regular cinnamon varies that much in quality. An example of the latter would be using veterinary drugs on humans - any doctor to do so would probably be guilty of medical malpractice even if the drugs were manufactured in the same factories (as well they might be, considering economies of scale). Similarly, we can predict that whenever there is a veterinary drug which is chemically identical to a human drug, the veterinary drug will be much cheaper, regardless of actual manufacturing cost, than the human drug because pet owners do not value their pets more than themselves. Human drugs are ostensibly held to a higher standard than veterinary drugs; so if veterinary prices are higher, then there will be an arbitrage incentive to simply buy the cheaper human version and downgrade them to veterinary drugs.
*Results for individuals will vary, depending on existing health factors, lifestyle and level of fitness. The information contained on this site is intended to educate only and is in no way, a substitute for medical advice that your doctor or healthcare provider can offer, with whom you should always consult with before making any dietary changes. Information within should not be used for diagnosis, treatment or prevention of any disease. Testimonials and results contained within may not be an implication of future results. Testimonials on this site are based on the experiences of a few people and you may not have similar results. These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.
Reason: More than 50 percent of your brain is comprised of DHA! Among a big group of elderly Americans, those with the highest blood levels of DHA were about half as apt to develop dementia and 39% as apt to develop Alzheimer’s as those with lower blood levels of DHA over a nine-year period. The top 25% of those with the highest blood DHA got about 180 mg DHA a day or three servings of fish a week, researchers said. In this study, the other major fatty acid in fish oil. EPA had no effect.

Qualia Mind, meanwhile, combines more than two dozen ingredients that may support brain and nervous system function – and even empathy, the company claims – including vitamins B, C and D, artichoke stem and leaf extract, taurine and a concentrated caffeine powder. A 2014 review of research on vitamin C, for one, suggests it may help protect against cognitive decline, while most of the research on artichoke extract seems to point to its benefits to other organs like the liver and heart. A small company-lead pilot study on the product found users experienced improvements in reasoning, memory, verbal ability and concentration five days after beginning Qualia Mind.

×