![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
i propose we move the section somewhere else, this article is about drugs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.152.52.113 ( talk) 06:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Nootropics are claimed to increase cognition etc because the jury is still out on the matter. Just because the term defines drugs that ARE cognitive enhancers, it doesn;t mean that the drugs that are currently considered nootropics are in fact proven to do so. Prefacing with the words "are claimed" merely states that the drugs are not definitely proven to do what they are alleged to do, and certainly not weasel words. If you have scientifically proven definitive evidence to the contrary from double-blind studies conducted on a statistically significant number of particiants, please, post it. Most evidence so far is encouraging, but hardly overwhelming. Cheers Halogenated ( talk) 19:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to list some resources here, and we can discuss their merits or lack thereof. Or people can go ahead and use them to cite claims in the article. I just cited Huperzine A with a Cochrane review ( PMID 18425924). PubMed lists all the below as reviews.
Pretty long list, I know. Hopefully it doesn't bother anyone; I'll be weeding them out as I use them. Some of these are likely unusable. I found one interesting study but I lost it in the shuffle, which is why I started taking notes (also, maybe we can help each other get access to some of these). I think a paper suggested that phosphatidylcholine was not really effective. Please keep replies to this section without much substance (e.g. referenced scientific input) to a minimum. I also suggest that we stay alert for negative effects from these drugs, since there is a strong incentive for people to use them. II | ( t - c) 04:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
There is almost no cohesion to the article whatsoever - it exists as a series of lists and titles. Either someone needs to write a proper article for the topic, or I will chop it down into a stub article containing the handful components that actually have citations or the appearance of legitimacy. Halogenated ( talk) 03:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Sahakian, B.; Morein-Zamir, S. (2007). "Professor's little helper". Nature. 450 (7173): 1157–1159. doi: 10.1038/4501157a. PMID 18097378. -- Doc James ( talk) 16:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
This article definitely needs a section on ethics.-- Doc James ( talk) 16:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Have found a really good review about this topic from 2007. I have access if anyone is interested.
Malik R, Sangwan A, Saihgal R, Jindal DP, Piplani P (2007).
"Towards better brain management: nootropics". Curr. Med. Chem. 14 (2): 123–31.
PMID
17266573.{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
-- Doc James ( talk) 18:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Just created this for you guys - go at it. To use this section, just post the link to the article (on wikipedia or external) you think is a nootropic, and then leave it for someone to check and make a reply.
Layout:
Is this article a nootropic?
OR
I read http://www.newswebsite.com/sciencearticle.html is it important?
Meiguswtf ( talk) 12:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
For that one guy: Hormone section -> Orexin - Significant wakefullness promoter Added by User:Meiguswtf
---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bupropion
This antidepressant has similiar effects as stimulants.. could this be a nootropic too?
I recently did a massive edit. I will be watching in case someone reverts it. If you are managing to read this, good, you have taken the basic step to ensure quality of this article (if you are one of those people). If not, well, you won't heed this. Here is my list of demands:
1. if you think something is a nootropic but you don't know (if you really can't tell where it should go or what it does) put it in the "Possible Nootropics" section, and I or someone will try to fit it in somewhere and say wether or not it is/isn't.
2. If you feel you are competent to insert nootropics, take this basic layout: section in which it should go:
link to article - main basic claim
^-- note there are no quotes, and no multiple sentences
3. By main basic claim, there are basic words like anxiolytic that should be used. ALWAYS when adding something, determine if the effect is *claimed* or if it's been proven, or implied by pharmacological study! I would use no word if it has been proven to be a clinical method of action, and if not, use "suspected to", "displays", "shows" etc for clinically demonstrated or clinically inferred activities and "purported to", "claims to" for most applications involving herbs and things which have not been proven, but have been at minimum, documented as effects and verified. If there is no study, it does not belong here!
4. I will remove any substance added to this list that does not have a reference or does not have a reference on it's respective page demonstrating efficacy! Period! Always try http://scholar.google.com/ to find a study with at minimum, claims in its abstract showing efficacy and http://diberri.dyndns.org/cgi-bin/templatefiller/index.cgi? to get the references and labelling right.
5. For some purported herbal or drug things, I may delete them if I can't see their data and/or are from someplace suspicious. (like a study from the Herbal Efficacy Alliance llc. (or "HEAL") shows "herbs" are better than "drugs", but the link does not show any numbers, claim anything specific, have any abstract at all, was not talked about in any publically available webpage or arhived tv/printed media, and is only available at the low low cost of $159.99 for the study info!)
Sorry to be so demanding, but I take this stuff very seriously. I'm not claiming ownership of this page, but if people are willing to follow these guidelines, this page will be a lot more useful and clean.
Meiguswtf ( talk) 12:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll also mention that condition related claims, like a drug improves function in old people, should only warrant mention if the pharmacology was shown to have an effect independent of specific condition. Something I can think of is melatonin. Although it's apperantly necessary for neurological development of major systems, once past the age of like 10 it shows no significant cognition modifying abilities other than entraining sleep patterns, so therefore, I would NOT put it on this page and claim it "grows cells in a part of the brain" when it doesn't grow cell there after like age 10. Meiguswtf ( talk) 12:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I bought that cited article and read it. It is not the view of the authors that people should do anything. It is just about the way in which we deal with the people that use, and want to use these drugs/methods. The article deals with some of the ethical and strategic issues, but it doesn't recomment that anyone ingest anything for any reason. Anyone mind taking this out? It's really incorrect and misleading. 173.24.227.245 ( talk) 10:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
II | ( t - c) 22:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)One of the things that has troubled me most about the reaction is that so many people have read that article as saying, “Let’s freely use Adderall and Ritalin.” That’s not our goal, that’s not our position, that’s not what we want.
Yes what he is saying is that they can be used ethically for cognitive enhancement. Which is layments terms for saying it is okay to use them. Maybe we should change it to "A few scientist fell that it is ethical to use stimulants for cognitive enhancement" A little less strong than recommend -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
What about light therapy? There are a variety of manufacturers of 'light tablets' that claim daily light therapy boosts wakefulness and alertness in the morning, thus helping with concentration & focus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.197.2 ( talk) 23:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
What about resveratrol? Apparently its supposed to remove some nasty plaques that accumulate over time on the brain. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resveratrol#Other_applications —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.197.2 ( talk) 01:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
...wondering if I should beginning planning a course of nootropics. I've considered it before but never seriously and I'm far from an expert so, you see, I was hoping for a bit of insight. But, really, this page is the best that a crew of nootropic enthusiasts was able to manage? Despite what the page says of their efficacy, well, it hardly speaks to their efficacy. Maybe I'll pass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CamHanna ( talk • contribs) 05:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Nootropics is the the generally accepted word for cognitive enchanting drugs. Nootropic has two meanings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.230.59.15 ( talk) 13:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Guanfacine and clonidine are both α2A receptor agonists.
Both of them are commonly prescribed for ADHD, sometimes in conjunction with stimulants, and guanfacine has even been specifically approved by the FDA for ADHD treatment. There are also claims of both general and specific anxiolytic effects (dopamine/norepinephrine...), as well as various other improvements to cognitive function such as memory enhancement, spatial reasoning, etc...
I think these two ought to be added somewhere in this article; could it be done?
Since they possible enhance both attentiveness & working memory, as well as alleviate anxiety, I wouldn't know exactly where to stick them.
Thanks in advance.
71.90.3.136 ( talk) 01:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm going to go ahead and add guanfacine to the article, for memory benefits. 71.90.3.136 ( talk) 19:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I created a new page "cognitive enhancer" and added the proper definition of "nootropic" to the top of the "nootropic" page. "cognitive enhancer" no longer redirects to "nootropic" Perhaps "nootropic" should be a section UNDER "cognitive enhancer", but certainly not vice versa. I will now attempt to move the information to the "cognitive enhancer" page, and keep the nootropic section!? info on the nootropic page. Of course this will take a while for everyone to sort out, but this MUST BE DONE for obvious reasons. -bloodleech —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloodleech ( talk • contribs) 11:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC) OK, I give up. I'm not going to try what I just said I was going to try. Someone else sort it out. I've at least produced a proper definition of nootropic. -bloodleech
OK, nobody seems to have responded to my above proposal. None for, and none against. Personally I think Nootropic is big enough to have it's own page, but if people insist on putting drugs that are obviously NOT nootropics then what is the point of a big lie? Hence my proposal to just move everything to Cognitive Enhancer, and then keep the nootropic section itself focused on nootropics only. I just looked over the article and it is as big a mess as ever, with dubious, mostly unreferenced content all over the place. I think it would do a great service to the english speaking world to simply delete the entire page and start from scratch. Actually I'm thinking of starting a new page entitled Neuroenhancer, and keeping 90% of the content referenced. I think the Nootropic page is mostly out of control and it is apparently too late to ask for people to use verifiable info for encyclopedic content. It would be nice to have an article on the subject(s) that could be academically respectable. OK, on a more positive note: I'm going to start a new section on this talk page and ask for ideas on how to organize/revise/edit/delete info on Nootropic and/or Cognitive Enhancer. -bloodleech Bloodleech ( talk • contribs) April 18 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 09:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC).
Hey guys! I'm a neuropharmacology major (still a student, but quite knowledgeable about a large number of topics in the field, particularly cognitive enhancers/nootropics/stimulants), and after I am finished with my last round of finals (on May 10th!), I would like to go about re-writing this article (most likely from scratch, given how crappy it looks right now). I understand the need for verifiable citations and the need for reorganization of both the nootropic and cognitive enhancer pages. Basically what I need to know from the Wiki community is how to go about submitting my ideas and stuff like that. There seems to be a lot of argument on this page. First time I've actually felt the need to intervene with what was going on on a Wiki page... It seems like fun, and the community could benefit from correct information. Also, when I submit finished work, I strive for impeccable spelling and grammar. I do have access to a large amount of journals and will be able to provide citations for the page. As far as a time-line goes for the page, I can probably have a finished piece of work by the end of May.
Anyone like this idea? :)
Anyway, I'm going to be studying extensively tomorrow (should have been for the past 3 hours - ADHD strikes again), then on Monday finishing up the semester. Afterwards, I shall begin my research on this topic (great summer project, in my opinion, going in and helping clean up Wiki!) If anybody would like to collaborate on this project, shoot me an email via the Wiki thing or whatever, I'll figure it out and get back to you ASAP. Finally, to the many on this page that I have seen, I leave you with this quote: "The prime values of the talk page are communication, courtesy and consideration." Delandeth ( talk) 09:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Quick edit: There seems to be a general consensus on this discussion page that the current "Nootropic" page is in dire need of attention, that the best method appears to be a scrap and rewrite, and that there is no general consensus on the information that should be put into it. My previous comment, along with this one, proposes to create a new "Nootropic" page (and possibly a "Cognitive Enhancer" page) that provides sufficient coverage of the topic, allowing for any further revisions that might be necessary. Delandeth ( talk) 10:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Final addition: Added a refimprove template to the article until further work can be done. Delandeth ( talk) 10:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
i am nothing of an active contributor here, but i thought it necessary to point out that there seems to be a considerable crossover with the above two sections. perhaps they need to be amalgamated. although i notice that there is a few sections here regarding complete re-writes, and the like, so perhaps this can be disregarded —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.207.70 ( talk) 17:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The "Dietary sources and supplements" covers the same areas as "Dietary nootropics". I may delete one of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mind my edits ( talk • contribs) 19:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, these are the problems that I see with Nootropic: 1. Poorly organized. 2. Poorly referenced. 3. Contains a lot of info that does not belong under the heading Nootropic. Now I ask: What are the problems that YOU see? And what do you propose be done about the mess? Please add your ideas below, and when we have 2 or 3 well conceived proposals, we can vote on them. Bloodleech ( talk) 09:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Basically, the writing is terrible, and without any additional references, I'm hesitant to improve it on the sole basis that someone may take it seriously. Someone was very liberal with their use of commas and "although". I'm guessing the homework that led to the bulk of this page got a C, if graded based on grammar.
bandman
I concur: the comma ratio in this article is 2-3 times what it ought to be. zirconscot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.51.97.102 ( talk) 06:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Wondering if we should move the page to Nootropics as we discuss many of them here. Or maybe we should change the title to Memory enhancers as this seems to be the broader category.-- Doc James ( talk) 17:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
There was no consensus for the move proposed above.
I oppose the move to "cognitive enhancers". First of all it's plural, and the title should be singular. For example, see dog and cat, and drug, vitamin, and nutrient. They're all in the singular. See WP:SINGULAR.
According to WP:TITLE: "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." The original and most widespread term for this type of substance is "nootropic". On Google, "nootropic" comes up 139,000 times while "cognitive enhancer" turns up only 19,800 times.
I've been studying (and taking) nootropics for years, and the literature about them heavily favors the term "nootropic" over "cognitive enhancer".
Checking the Merriam Webster online dictionary, nootropic is in there, while "cogitive enhancer" returns zero results. More significantly, it's the same with the Merriam Webster Online Medical Dictionary. Webster's is a pretty authoritative source when it comes to word usage.
In The Free Dictionary, "cognitive enhancer" redirects to "nootropic".
The Transhumanist 00:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Agree with II -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
This section is a typical "as seen on TV" commercial. There are more "citation needed" than actual words I think. Does someone think alike? Sub40Hz ( talk) 18:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Also there seems to be 2 sections containing the same information here... Allethrin ( talk) 02:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
"Cognitive function is largely impacted by one’s diet.[citation needed] The nutrients in food can influence our memory, learning, concentration, and decision-making[citation needed]; therefore the lack of them has a negative effect on the brain[citation needed]."
Anyone have a reference to the effects of malnutrition? It seems obvious but... heh, it is right to expect a citation. Diet and physical activity are both associated with brain function, but again, where's the references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JWhiteheadcc ( talk • contribs) 02:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
We're to start removing the worthless junk from this page. Half these substances are not cited and most citations say nothing with regard to a substance's nootropic activity. This is an article for defined NOOTROPICS not conjecture. I would say we could make a new section called "Potential nootropics" for any substances that do not have well defined nootropic activity but have been mentioned in studies purporting a possible nootropic activity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TTile ( talk • contribs) 21:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I've had this Jones et al review from the Foresight Brain Science, Addiction and Drugs project and some Office of Science and Technology for a while. Seems to be somewhat decent. II | ( t - c) 07:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
It's a NMDA antagonist and AMPAkine.
Some sperglord please fix this, I'm not autistic enough to bother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.109.82.248 ( talk) 11:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I just paraphrased something related to this, from the tianeptine article. SSRE or not, there is no consensus, as I know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.119.14.68 ( talk) 11:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Info about such drugs should also be included, but if there is not enough reliable information, at least the discusion page shoul contain some objective/subjective opinions. Exemple: tianeptine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.119.14.68 ( talk) 11:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I am wondering if it might be worthwhile to include a section on neuroethics and the ethical implications of using nootropics as individuals or in society more generally. This topic is likely to intensify in the near future as more powerful nootropics are developed. Questions pertaining to access and whether or not there should be drug-testing prior to standardized exams like the SAT or MCAT come up immediately, but there are also a host of workplace issues. Philoprof ( talk) 15:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Philoprof
There is no ethical issue and has been no positive demonstration to my knowledge that there exists drugs which will improve performance on the SAT or MCAT exam. I believe however that there is a perception of an ethical issue by analogy to performance enhancing drug usage in sports. However the analogy is a false one.
It is a similar situation to the claim that it is unethical to perform stem cell research on fetuses which would otherwise be thrown in the biological waste container, on the premise that performing such research would kill the fetus. I believe that it is very important to differentiate between moral and ethical issues when framing the discussion of drug testing for the MCAT.
Ethics concerns proper conduct. Whether an individual should perform an action and whether a society should support or discourage that action are determined by both the values of the individual and the values of the society. That discussion is beyond the scope of this article. Agalmic ( talk) 20:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I think there should be a small section on this page about ethics, but with a greater link to neuroenhancement, or whatever the article is for brain improvement, as this article would probably just get the info from there. Meiguswtf ( talk) 12:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there a neuroethics article. If not, it should be created. The "See also" section should point to that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.119.14.68 ( talk) 11:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't we include information about Brainwave Entrainment? Therefore 'Acting on the mind.' http://www.binauralbeatsgeek.com/binaural-beat-research.html Include more citations on peer-reviewed research on Brainwave Entrainment, binaural beats and isochronic tones. Psychotropics tend to alter brainwave patterns. By the way I've tried Piracetam and Choline Bitartrate personally. The improvements are definitely not subjective, however I'd like to see a greater body of research on the substance. Dangerousd777 ( talk) 19:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orexin
nootropic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.152.52.113 ( talk) 09:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Most likely, someone look into it or just take a chance on it. Tukotih ( talk) 09:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Cannabinoid receptor agonists do not belong on the nootropics page. They have a demostrated mechanism for severe impairment of memory and cognition. No item should be on this list without at least a single peer reviewed journal article showing improvement on at least aspect of cognition. The aspects of cognition that is improved should be mentioned.
Cannabinoid receptor antagonists should be added to this list as they have been demonstrated to improve memory in exactly the manner in which THC does not. Agalmic ( talk) 07:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
OK so peer reviewed articles, lets do this!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18807247?ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum http://www.biosignaling.com/content/8/1/12
do you need more than 2 , or is that adequate, someone add the cannabinoid section back in and I'll gladly stock it full of peer reviewed citations to shut up any naysayers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.26.137 ( talk) 16:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
wow, these both imply negative effects. how is this even an opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.66.92 ( talk) 19:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm removing every mention of "recreational drugs". I haven't seen any literature that identifies these as nootropic (with the exception of lion's mane mushroom). If someone finds some literature they can cite it, until then we're just giving out random information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.12.88.139 ( talk) 22:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Seriously guys, I think this needs to be started from scratch. And next time try some academic journals for references 154.20.79.125 ( talk) 03:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to totally bump you on the above comment. I'm trying to make the best out of what is already there, and tried to move the huge mass of sloppy info to "cognitive enhancer", where it more properly belongs, but people still insist on adding non-nootropic cognitive enhancer info to this page. If I have to look up and verify (or prove false, which is even harder) every unreferenced sentence on the page, well I just don't have the time to do that. I'm just doing a little here and there to try and make things better... I add references where possible but sometimes I am just trying to rewrite/clarify very sloppy unreferenced material. I wish a true expert would rewrite Nootropic and figure out a way to keep non-nootropic cognitive enhancers off the page. -bloodleech —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloodleech ( talk • contribs) 08:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia page is not addressing brain aging, if there is another article already dealing with such say after age 35 then I just didn't see it. 99.248.200.246 ( talk) 05:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
this article is unnecessary. it was STOLEN from "nootropic" article because of someone who thinks they can make MAJOR changes without vote and discussion.
This above comment does not provide a link to any other article on Wikipedia that this material could of been stolen from. Not judging that statements merits, however basically no support was offered for that statement at this time and a clear link would permit people to know the issue of which you speak in greater detail
Inhouse expert (
talk)
05:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey, could ya'll make this article longer? It's way too short. /sarcasm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.214.38 ( talk) 00:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
What potential do these substances have?—that's perhaps the primary question, and it hasn't been addressed in the article. How do you even measure their effectiveness to begin with? EIN ( talk) 19:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Testing would be a common way, whether using standard computer testing or otherwise. More to the point would be results in ones life, moving parameters long held in place. This is actually a key topic, for any legitimate clinical trial would require results. I would suggest reviewing the measurements used in clinical trials on those nootropic medications approved in various countries. Inhouse expert ( talk) 05:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Can anyone explain exactly what cerebral suffering is? Is that a proper term for a reference or does it refer to suffering of the person that is strictly cognitive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsseckman ( talk • contribs) 01:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Please do not use the "normal" google search for this article due to extreme bias from advertisers trying to sell you meds. Please use: www.pubmed.com or http://scholar.google.com/ or http://books.google.com/ for finding references <-- This should be deleted since it is absolute bs. The only bias here is from the nootropic scammers :/ 124.191.134.10 ( talk) 12:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
(In
Nootropic#Availability_and_prevalence) - One survey found that 7% of students had used stimulants for a cognitive edge in the past year, and on some campuses the number is as high as 25%
Should we add a note that caffeine isn't included here? I think the numbers would be much higher if it was.
Mikael Häggström (
talk)
14:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I just read the part where it says: "2.Enhances learned behaviors under conditions which are known to disrupt them." That's a puzzling sentence. I take it a "learned behavior" is something like treating a "Hispanic" badly because I was taught to treat them badly, or wiping my mouth as I eat. But it seems rather fantastical that a drug would enhance these types of behaviours, say, in situations where I have no napkins or people are telling me not to treat "Hispanics" badly. How exactly would a pill make you more prone to making you act in these ways? It seems more likely that the drug would make your thoughts faster or improve your ability to concentrate or recall information. Perhaps this point could be explained as it's a little odd when you think about it as a reader.
Also, it says that all nootropic drugs are cognitive enhancers, but not all cognitive enhancers are nootropic drugs. I thought you could give an example, like if say coffee were a nootropic drug, which would be a cognitive enhancer, but there are other cognitive enhancers like say Drug X, which are not nootropic, like coffee. It's just a small point, but an example would help clarify.
70.72.45.131 ( talk) 02:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello Everyone, I feel it would be a worthwhile idea to try and have more than just a section titled "Drugs". Not everything in that section is a drug, supplements for example. Perhaps these can have their own larger sections on the page. This change would also go along more with the definition of Nootropics that we are using. If this is a misguided idea please let me know. I just wanted to know if it might help the page become more organized. Thank you.
RuthMMcLeod ( talk) 17:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Why is modafinil the first sentence of "Academic doping" which is then followed by a paragraph of scheduled stimulant drugs? Modafinil is functionally, legally, and chemically extraordinarily different from the drugs mentioned immediately afterward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoxfordca ( talk • contribs) 04:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a large amount of information on the article page that has no references. In particular, there are large numbers of substances listed with no reference at all. We should have at least some reference for every substance. I propose we move all substances with no references into a section here on the talk page, or a subpage of the talk page which we use as a holding bin. We should only put items back into the article when we have a reference that at least says that the substance is believed to have some nootropic effect. — Makyen ( talk) 21:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Each drug in this article needs 1 ref that asserts that it has a specific "cognition-enhancing"/"nootropic" effect. That effect is what should be included after the drug name, not its pharmacodynamics. I've deleted massive amounts of text simply because the sections have nothing to do with nootropics. They're just lists of drug categories and associated drugs.
So, in a nutshell, SAY THIS:
Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 07:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: |section=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: |section=
ignored (
help)
As anyone checking the edit history might note, I've cut the article down to one third its size from a month ago (from ~100Kb to ~35kB). As a result, this article is now consistent with the WP:MEDRS standard. Any future contributions really need to conform to that standard since this is an important medical article that makes rather significant health claims about drugs.
Please read that page before adding content/citations if you're unfamiliar with it. Thanks! Regards, Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 23:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
There needs to be a section referring to evidence based trials and peer review papers on the subject. Until then, the content is pretty useless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.182.91.94 ( talk) 12:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Please list any concerns with, comments on, or support for the revised/shortened version of the article in this section. I've notified WT:MED and WT:PHARM of this thread for additional feedback. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 06:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi there,
as the article states, the word "Nootropic" was coined by Corneliu E. Giurgea. In his article you find certain criteria for nootropics. Most of those criteria are not met for a lot of substances that are presented as "nootropics" in this articls (definitions are for example: almost complete lack of side effects, protection of brain against injury etc.).
In fact, most of the space in the article (especially Paragraphs "Academic doping", "Side effects", Most parts of "Drugs") is consumed by mainly stimulating drugs most of which show a wide range of side effects and are presumed to damage the brain themselves if used over prolonged periods of time. These should perhaps be transferred into an article Brain doping or the like.
Additionally a lot of typical nootropics aren't mentioned at all in the article ( Citicoline, Alpha-GPC, Centrophenoxine etc.)
I would modify the article myself, but nowadays changes to wiki articles are usually reverted anyway without coercive reason if you are a noname editor and I don't like working for the bin. -- 143.164.102.13 ( talk) 10:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I unfortunately really don't see anything in the academic doping article which isn't already in nootropic that I can merge.
As I noted before, much of the doping article focused on ADHD stims, which creates the scope issue I mentioned in the talkpage discussion (now located in a subpage of this talk page).
Most of the sufficiently general (nootropic-related) material in the doping article made non-evidence based claims, which runs completely counter to what this article is doing (as required by WP:MEDRS, every drug makes an evidence-based claim, often in a clinical context, and is cited by a MEDRS-quality medical review).
There was a lot of literature that made normative statements as well; covering this type of material is very difficult to do in a neutral manner because it asserts a "correct" point of view. I'm not sure the normative medical literature on the use of cognitive enhancers can actually can be covered in an NPOV manner since it appears highly polarized; I'd also really rather not open a can of worms by putting material arguing for or against the use of schedule 2 controlled substances by the general population in this article. Briefly covering these controversies in the first 2 sections as was done acknowledges that "there is a controversy/concern", but we merely provide cursory coverage of the positions and don't discuss the suspicions of potential good or bad effects by all or potential subclasses of users (this type of crap seems so tenuous to me). These medical suspicions and assertions of possibility are speculative proposals and fail WP:MEDRS ( WP:MEDASSESS) by default because it's not evidence-based medicine. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 18:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I've requested this due to the persistence and recent uptick of disruptive IP editing: Special:Permalink/650531118#Nootropic_.28edit.C2.A0.7C_talk.C2.A0.7C_history.C2.A0.7C_protect.C2.A0.7C_delete.C2.A0.7C_links.C2.A0.7C_watch.C2.A0.7C_logs.C2.A0.7C_views.29 Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
It looks like choline bitartrate is being hyped as a nootropic: <redact> Any clues? Kortoso ( talk) 20:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
The Guardian and The New Yorker are incredibly reliable sources and have been undisputed on this page for some time. We need to reach consensus, as I feel like these are verifiable and reliable external sources. Icarus of old ( talk) 19:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Alex. Depending on which story you read, the Guardian has said:
1) Prozac is a placebo that doesn't do anything at all 2) It covers up unhappiness due to social injustice and is used inappropriately as a social band aid 3) It makes artists more creative 4) It makes people violent 5) And more recently, another article saying it doesn't do anything at all.
MEDRS clearly excludes newspapers as sources for health related info.
This seems like a clear cut case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B102:7E3D:EFDA:4A7C:EDA2:3B1C ( talk) 23:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
References
International sales of non-prescription supplements for cognition also exceed $1bn (£650 000; €880 000) a year and are rapidly growing. Ginkgo biloba, vitamins, and even caffeine are common ingredients. Some add piracetam (related to the epilepsy drug levetiracetam), jellyfish proteins, or even "edible pure 23.5 carat gold flakes."
Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 12:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Nootropic. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
it says i should have a review article on magnesium threonate to place it at the main article. journal = Neuron Volume 65 Issue 2 p165–177 date 28 January 2010 pmid20152124
magnesium threonate - ;An article at the journal Neuron says that magnesium L-threonate at an animal model of human cognition improved short term memory by 18% and long-term memory by 100%. At younger rats the memory effect was slightly more than double.
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |doi=
value (
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
-- Sizeofint ( talk) 20:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
There is a bit of content to cover it as a cultural phenomenon but probably not enough to comment on efficacy. Sizeofint ( talk) 16:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
In the article it states that B vitamins have no cognition-enhancing effects. According to the systematic review given as the reference, of the B vitamins, they only analyzed studies on folate, vitamin B6, and vitamin B12. The other five B vitamins—B1, B2, B3, B5, and biotin—were not included in the review. Yet the article makes the claim for all the B vitamins. I fixed this, but Alexbrn rolled back all my edits including this one (and my alphabetical sort and heading rename) with the vague explanation "undue detail", without justifying the revert of these improvements with substantive reasons. I'm concerned that the article is misreporting a source, with a statement that is far more general than what the systematic review found. The Transhumanist 08:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
The claim that L-theanine has a "synergistic" effect with caffeine seems questionable/sketchy to me. I looked-up the reference, and the abstract doesn't really say anything about synergism. Could caffeine alone be causing the neurological improvement? How do we know there is a caffeine-theanine cooperation?
If someone has access to that journal (Nutrition Reviews), could you re-read the actual article? I don't have access myself. Thanks. Armadillo1985 ( talk) 17:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 22:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)CONCLUSION
Tea constituents L-theanine and caffeine in combination were found to induce increases in Bond-Lader alertness of moderate effect size in the first hour, and increases in alertness of small-moderate effect size in the second hour postdose (SMD = 0.542 and 0.392, respectively). Similarly, L-theanine and caffeine in combination were also found to induce increases in attention switching accuracy during both the first and second hours postdose of smallmoderate effect size (SMD = 0.384 and 0.294, respectively). Small enhancement of unisensory visual attention accuracy was also found following L-theanine and caffeine consumption in the first hour postdose (SMD = 0.147). Similarly, small enhancement of unisensory auditory attention accuracy was found following L-theanine and caffeine consumption in the second hour postdose (SMD = 0.247).Moderator analysis did not reveal significant effects of caffeine and L-theanine dose on effect size, although analysis of trends in predicted values suggests that the majority of the attentionenhancing effects can be attributed to caffeine dose. Insuf- ficient data were available to conduct meta-analysis on EGCG’s psychopharmacological effects, although preliminary evidence suggests that EGCG may have a calming effect during the second hour postdose. Future research using a greater range of doses for both L-theanine and EGCG in isolation is required to more accurately determine their effects on cognition and mood, and to dissociate these effects from those of caffeine.
Should we add a ===Psychedelics=== section under https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Nootropic&oldid=804973346#Drugs
-- Jilja ( talk) 00:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I have a problem with the first line. I think that ". . . substances that purport to improve . . . " would be preferable to: ". . . substances that improve cognitive function . . . " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.127.106.227 ( talk) 13:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
@ Zefr: All the quotes are now gone. So, this is how I propose we go about addressing your issues and mine:
{{#tag:ref|The references go here|group="note"}}
. I'm not fine with deleting MEDRS-compliant references in this article. It's obviously a controversial topic. If you have an alternative solution in mind, let me know.Findings from this research unambiguously demonstrate(in that particular sentence, you replaced the word "unambiguously" with the modal verb "may" to convey a possibility of doubt, whereas the cited source conveys absolutely none at all; hence the problem with NPOV).
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
i propose we move the section somewhere else, this article is about drugs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.152.52.113 ( talk) 06:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Nootropics are claimed to increase cognition etc because the jury is still out on the matter. Just because the term defines drugs that ARE cognitive enhancers, it doesn;t mean that the drugs that are currently considered nootropics are in fact proven to do so. Prefacing with the words "are claimed" merely states that the drugs are not definitely proven to do what they are alleged to do, and certainly not weasel words. If you have scientifically proven definitive evidence to the contrary from double-blind studies conducted on a statistically significant number of particiants, please, post it. Most evidence so far is encouraging, but hardly overwhelming. Cheers Halogenated ( talk) 19:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to list some resources here, and we can discuss their merits or lack thereof. Or people can go ahead and use them to cite claims in the article. I just cited Huperzine A with a Cochrane review ( PMID 18425924). PubMed lists all the below as reviews.
Pretty long list, I know. Hopefully it doesn't bother anyone; I'll be weeding them out as I use them. Some of these are likely unusable. I found one interesting study but I lost it in the shuffle, which is why I started taking notes (also, maybe we can help each other get access to some of these). I think a paper suggested that phosphatidylcholine was not really effective. Please keep replies to this section without much substance (e.g. referenced scientific input) to a minimum. I also suggest that we stay alert for negative effects from these drugs, since there is a strong incentive for people to use them. II | ( t - c) 04:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
There is almost no cohesion to the article whatsoever - it exists as a series of lists and titles. Either someone needs to write a proper article for the topic, or I will chop it down into a stub article containing the handful components that actually have citations or the appearance of legitimacy. Halogenated ( talk) 03:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Sahakian, B.; Morein-Zamir, S. (2007). "Professor's little helper". Nature. 450 (7173): 1157–1159. doi: 10.1038/4501157a. PMID 18097378. -- Doc James ( talk) 16:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
This article definitely needs a section on ethics.-- Doc James ( talk) 16:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Have found a really good review about this topic from 2007. I have access if anyone is interested.
Malik R, Sangwan A, Saihgal R, Jindal DP, Piplani P (2007).
"Towards better brain management: nootropics". Curr. Med. Chem. 14 (2): 123–31.
PMID
17266573.{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
-- Doc James ( talk) 18:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Just created this for you guys - go at it. To use this section, just post the link to the article (on wikipedia or external) you think is a nootropic, and then leave it for someone to check and make a reply.
Layout:
Is this article a nootropic?
OR
I read http://www.newswebsite.com/sciencearticle.html is it important?
Meiguswtf ( talk) 12:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
For that one guy: Hormone section -> Orexin - Significant wakefullness promoter Added by User:Meiguswtf
---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bupropion
This antidepressant has similiar effects as stimulants.. could this be a nootropic too?
I recently did a massive edit. I will be watching in case someone reverts it. If you are managing to read this, good, you have taken the basic step to ensure quality of this article (if you are one of those people). If not, well, you won't heed this. Here is my list of demands:
1. if you think something is a nootropic but you don't know (if you really can't tell where it should go or what it does) put it in the "Possible Nootropics" section, and I or someone will try to fit it in somewhere and say wether or not it is/isn't.
2. If you feel you are competent to insert nootropics, take this basic layout: section in which it should go:
link to article - main basic claim
^-- note there are no quotes, and no multiple sentences
3. By main basic claim, there are basic words like anxiolytic that should be used. ALWAYS when adding something, determine if the effect is *claimed* or if it's been proven, or implied by pharmacological study! I would use no word if it has been proven to be a clinical method of action, and if not, use "suspected to", "displays", "shows" etc for clinically demonstrated or clinically inferred activities and "purported to", "claims to" for most applications involving herbs and things which have not been proven, but have been at minimum, documented as effects and verified. If there is no study, it does not belong here!
4. I will remove any substance added to this list that does not have a reference or does not have a reference on it's respective page demonstrating efficacy! Period! Always try http://scholar.google.com/ to find a study with at minimum, claims in its abstract showing efficacy and http://diberri.dyndns.org/cgi-bin/templatefiller/index.cgi? to get the references and labelling right.
5. For some purported herbal or drug things, I may delete them if I can't see their data and/or are from someplace suspicious. (like a study from the Herbal Efficacy Alliance llc. (or "HEAL") shows "herbs" are better than "drugs", but the link does not show any numbers, claim anything specific, have any abstract at all, was not talked about in any publically available webpage or arhived tv/printed media, and is only available at the low low cost of $159.99 for the study info!)
Sorry to be so demanding, but I take this stuff very seriously. I'm not claiming ownership of this page, but if people are willing to follow these guidelines, this page will be a lot more useful and clean.
Meiguswtf ( talk) 12:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll also mention that condition related claims, like a drug improves function in old people, should only warrant mention if the pharmacology was shown to have an effect independent of specific condition. Something I can think of is melatonin. Although it's apperantly necessary for neurological development of major systems, once past the age of like 10 it shows no significant cognition modifying abilities other than entraining sleep patterns, so therefore, I would NOT put it on this page and claim it "grows cells in a part of the brain" when it doesn't grow cell there after like age 10. Meiguswtf ( talk) 12:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I bought that cited article and read it. It is not the view of the authors that people should do anything. It is just about the way in which we deal with the people that use, and want to use these drugs/methods. The article deals with some of the ethical and strategic issues, but it doesn't recomment that anyone ingest anything for any reason. Anyone mind taking this out? It's really incorrect and misleading. 173.24.227.245 ( talk) 10:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
II | ( t - c) 22:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)One of the things that has troubled me most about the reaction is that so many people have read that article as saying, “Let’s freely use Adderall and Ritalin.” That’s not our goal, that’s not our position, that’s not what we want.
Yes what he is saying is that they can be used ethically for cognitive enhancement. Which is layments terms for saying it is okay to use them. Maybe we should change it to "A few scientist fell that it is ethical to use stimulants for cognitive enhancement" A little less strong than recommend -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
What about light therapy? There are a variety of manufacturers of 'light tablets' that claim daily light therapy boosts wakefulness and alertness in the morning, thus helping with concentration & focus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.197.2 ( talk) 23:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
What about resveratrol? Apparently its supposed to remove some nasty plaques that accumulate over time on the brain. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resveratrol#Other_applications —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.197.2 ( talk) 01:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
...wondering if I should beginning planning a course of nootropics. I've considered it before but never seriously and I'm far from an expert so, you see, I was hoping for a bit of insight. But, really, this page is the best that a crew of nootropic enthusiasts was able to manage? Despite what the page says of their efficacy, well, it hardly speaks to their efficacy. Maybe I'll pass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CamHanna ( talk • contribs) 05:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Nootropics is the the generally accepted word for cognitive enchanting drugs. Nootropic has two meanings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.230.59.15 ( talk) 13:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Guanfacine and clonidine are both α2A receptor agonists.
Both of them are commonly prescribed for ADHD, sometimes in conjunction with stimulants, and guanfacine has even been specifically approved by the FDA for ADHD treatment. There are also claims of both general and specific anxiolytic effects (dopamine/norepinephrine...), as well as various other improvements to cognitive function such as memory enhancement, spatial reasoning, etc...
I think these two ought to be added somewhere in this article; could it be done?
Since they possible enhance both attentiveness & working memory, as well as alleviate anxiety, I wouldn't know exactly where to stick them.
Thanks in advance.
71.90.3.136 ( talk) 01:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm going to go ahead and add guanfacine to the article, for memory benefits. 71.90.3.136 ( talk) 19:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I created a new page "cognitive enhancer" and added the proper definition of "nootropic" to the top of the "nootropic" page. "cognitive enhancer" no longer redirects to "nootropic" Perhaps "nootropic" should be a section UNDER "cognitive enhancer", but certainly not vice versa. I will now attempt to move the information to the "cognitive enhancer" page, and keep the nootropic section!? info on the nootropic page. Of course this will take a while for everyone to sort out, but this MUST BE DONE for obvious reasons. -bloodleech —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloodleech ( talk • contribs) 11:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC) OK, I give up. I'm not going to try what I just said I was going to try. Someone else sort it out. I've at least produced a proper definition of nootropic. -bloodleech
OK, nobody seems to have responded to my above proposal. None for, and none against. Personally I think Nootropic is big enough to have it's own page, but if people insist on putting drugs that are obviously NOT nootropics then what is the point of a big lie? Hence my proposal to just move everything to Cognitive Enhancer, and then keep the nootropic section itself focused on nootropics only. I just looked over the article and it is as big a mess as ever, with dubious, mostly unreferenced content all over the place. I think it would do a great service to the english speaking world to simply delete the entire page and start from scratch. Actually I'm thinking of starting a new page entitled Neuroenhancer, and keeping 90% of the content referenced. I think the Nootropic page is mostly out of control and it is apparently too late to ask for people to use verifiable info for encyclopedic content. It would be nice to have an article on the subject(s) that could be academically respectable. OK, on a more positive note: I'm going to start a new section on this talk page and ask for ideas on how to organize/revise/edit/delete info on Nootropic and/or Cognitive Enhancer. -bloodleech Bloodleech ( talk • contribs) April 18 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 09:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC).
Hey guys! I'm a neuropharmacology major (still a student, but quite knowledgeable about a large number of topics in the field, particularly cognitive enhancers/nootropics/stimulants), and after I am finished with my last round of finals (on May 10th!), I would like to go about re-writing this article (most likely from scratch, given how crappy it looks right now). I understand the need for verifiable citations and the need for reorganization of both the nootropic and cognitive enhancer pages. Basically what I need to know from the Wiki community is how to go about submitting my ideas and stuff like that. There seems to be a lot of argument on this page. First time I've actually felt the need to intervene with what was going on on a Wiki page... It seems like fun, and the community could benefit from correct information. Also, when I submit finished work, I strive for impeccable spelling and grammar. I do have access to a large amount of journals and will be able to provide citations for the page. As far as a time-line goes for the page, I can probably have a finished piece of work by the end of May.
Anyone like this idea? :)
Anyway, I'm going to be studying extensively tomorrow (should have been for the past 3 hours - ADHD strikes again), then on Monday finishing up the semester. Afterwards, I shall begin my research on this topic (great summer project, in my opinion, going in and helping clean up Wiki!) If anybody would like to collaborate on this project, shoot me an email via the Wiki thing or whatever, I'll figure it out and get back to you ASAP. Finally, to the many on this page that I have seen, I leave you with this quote: "The prime values of the talk page are communication, courtesy and consideration." Delandeth ( talk) 09:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Quick edit: There seems to be a general consensus on this discussion page that the current "Nootropic" page is in dire need of attention, that the best method appears to be a scrap and rewrite, and that there is no general consensus on the information that should be put into it. My previous comment, along with this one, proposes to create a new "Nootropic" page (and possibly a "Cognitive Enhancer" page) that provides sufficient coverage of the topic, allowing for any further revisions that might be necessary. Delandeth ( talk) 10:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Final addition: Added a refimprove template to the article until further work can be done. Delandeth ( talk) 10:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
i am nothing of an active contributor here, but i thought it necessary to point out that there seems to be a considerable crossover with the above two sections. perhaps they need to be amalgamated. although i notice that there is a few sections here regarding complete re-writes, and the like, so perhaps this can be disregarded —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.207.70 ( talk) 17:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The "Dietary sources and supplements" covers the same areas as "Dietary nootropics". I may delete one of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mind my edits ( talk • contribs) 19:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, these are the problems that I see with Nootropic: 1. Poorly organized. 2. Poorly referenced. 3. Contains a lot of info that does not belong under the heading Nootropic. Now I ask: What are the problems that YOU see? And what do you propose be done about the mess? Please add your ideas below, and when we have 2 or 3 well conceived proposals, we can vote on them. Bloodleech ( talk) 09:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Basically, the writing is terrible, and without any additional references, I'm hesitant to improve it on the sole basis that someone may take it seriously. Someone was very liberal with their use of commas and "although". I'm guessing the homework that led to the bulk of this page got a C, if graded based on grammar.
bandman
I concur: the comma ratio in this article is 2-3 times what it ought to be. zirconscot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.51.97.102 ( talk) 06:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Wondering if we should move the page to Nootropics as we discuss many of them here. Or maybe we should change the title to Memory enhancers as this seems to be the broader category.-- Doc James ( talk) 17:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
There was no consensus for the move proposed above.
I oppose the move to "cognitive enhancers". First of all it's plural, and the title should be singular. For example, see dog and cat, and drug, vitamin, and nutrient. They're all in the singular. See WP:SINGULAR.
According to WP:TITLE: "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." The original and most widespread term for this type of substance is "nootropic". On Google, "nootropic" comes up 139,000 times while "cognitive enhancer" turns up only 19,800 times.
I've been studying (and taking) nootropics for years, and the literature about them heavily favors the term "nootropic" over "cognitive enhancer".
Checking the Merriam Webster online dictionary, nootropic is in there, while "cogitive enhancer" returns zero results. More significantly, it's the same with the Merriam Webster Online Medical Dictionary. Webster's is a pretty authoritative source when it comes to word usage.
In The Free Dictionary, "cognitive enhancer" redirects to "nootropic".
The Transhumanist 00:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Agree with II -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
This section is a typical "as seen on TV" commercial. There are more "citation needed" than actual words I think. Does someone think alike? Sub40Hz ( talk) 18:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Also there seems to be 2 sections containing the same information here... Allethrin ( talk) 02:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
"Cognitive function is largely impacted by one’s diet.[citation needed] The nutrients in food can influence our memory, learning, concentration, and decision-making[citation needed]; therefore the lack of them has a negative effect on the brain[citation needed]."
Anyone have a reference to the effects of malnutrition? It seems obvious but... heh, it is right to expect a citation. Diet and physical activity are both associated with brain function, but again, where's the references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JWhiteheadcc ( talk • contribs) 02:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
We're to start removing the worthless junk from this page. Half these substances are not cited and most citations say nothing with regard to a substance's nootropic activity. This is an article for defined NOOTROPICS not conjecture. I would say we could make a new section called "Potential nootropics" for any substances that do not have well defined nootropic activity but have been mentioned in studies purporting a possible nootropic activity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TTile ( talk • contribs) 21:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I've had this Jones et al review from the Foresight Brain Science, Addiction and Drugs project and some Office of Science and Technology for a while. Seems to be somewhat decent. II | ( t - c) 07:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
It's a NMDA antagonist and AMPAkine.
Some sperglord please fix this, I'm not autistic enough to bother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.109.82.248 ( talk) 11:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I just paraphrased something related to this, from the tianeptine article. SSRE or not, there is no consensus, as I know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.119.14.68 ( talk) 11:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Info about such drugs should also be included, but if there is not enough reliable information, at least the discusion page shoul contain some objective/subjective opinions. Exemple: tianeptine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.119.14.68 ( talk) 11:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I am wondering if it might be worthwhile to include a section on neuroethics and the ethical implications of using nootropics as individuals or in society more generally. This topic is likely to intensify in the near future as more powerful nootropics are developed. Questions pertaining to access and whether or not there should be drug-testing prior to standardized exams like the SAT or MCAT come up immediately, but there are also a host of workplace issues. Philoprof ( talk) 15:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Philoprof
There is no ethical issue and has been no positive demonstration to my knowledge that there exists drugs which will improve performance on the SAT or MCAT exam. I believe however that there is a perception of an ethical issue by analogy to performance enhancing drug usage in sports. However the analogy is a false one.
It is a similar situation to the claim that it is unethical to perform stem cell research on fetuses which would otherwise be thrown in the biological waste container, on the premise that performing such research would kill the fetus. I believe that it is very important to differentiate between moral and ethical issues when framing the discussion of drug testing for the MCAT.
Ethics concerns proper conduct. Whether an individual should perform an action and whether a society should support or discourage that action are determined by both the values of the individual and the values of the society. That discussion is beyond the scope of this article. Agalmic ( talk) 20:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I think there should be a small section on this page about ethics, but with a greater link to neuroenhancement, or whatever the article is for brain improvement, as this article would probably just get the info from there. Meiguswtf ( talk) 12:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there a neuroethics article. If not, it should be created. The "See also" section should point to that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.119.14.68 ( talk) 11:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't we include information about Brainwave Entrainment? Therefore 'Acting on the mind.' http://www.binauralbeatsgeek.com/binaural-beat-research.html Include more citations on peer-reviewed research on Brainwave Entrainment, binaural beats and isochronic tones. Psychotropics tend to alter brainwave patterns. By the way I've tried Piracetam and Choline Bitartrate personally. The improvements are definitely not subjective, however I'd like to see a greater body of research on the substance. Dangerousd777 ( talk) 19:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orexin
nootropic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.152.52.113 ( talk) 09:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Most likely, someone look into it or just take a chance on it. Tukotih ( talk) 09:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Cannabinoid receptor agonists do not belong on the nootropics page. They have a demostrated mechanism for severe impairment of memory and cognition. No item should be on this list without at least a single peer reviewed journal article showing improvement on at least aspect of cognition. The aspects of cognition that is improved should be mentioned.
Cannabinoid receptor antagonists should be added to this list as they have been demonstrated to improve memory in exactly the manner in which THC does not. Agalmic ( talk) 07:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
OK so peer reviewed articles, lets do this!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18807247?ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum http://www.biosignaling.com/content/8/1/12
do you need more than 2 , or is that adequate, someone add the cannabinoid section back in and I'll gladly stock it full of peer reviewed citations to shut up any naysayers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.26.137 ( talk) 16:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
wow, these both imply negative effects. how is this even an opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.66.92 ( talk) 19:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm removing every mention of "recreational drugs". I haven't seen any literature that identifies these as nootropic (with the exception of lion's mane mushroom). If someone finds some literature they can cite it, until then we're just giving out random information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.12.88.139 ( talk) 22:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Seriously guys, I think this needs to be started from scratch. And next time try some academic journals for references 154.20.79.125 ( talk) 03:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to totally bump you on the above comment. I'm trying to make the best out of what is already there, and tried to move the huge mass of sloppy info to "cognitive enhancer", where it more properly belongs, but people still insist on adding non-nootropic cognitive enhancer info to this page. If I have to look up and verify (or prove false, which is even harder) every unreferenced sentence on the page, well I just don't have the time to do that. I'm just doing a little here and there to try and make things better... I add references where possible but sometimes I am just trying to rewrite/clarify very sloppy unreferenced material. I wish a true expert would rewrite Nootropic and figure out a way to keep non-nootropic cognitive enhancers off the page. -bloodleech —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloodleech ( talk • contribs) 08:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia page is not addressing brain aging, if there is another article already dealing with such say after age 35 then I just didn't see it. 99.248.200.246 ( talk) 05:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
this article is unnecessary. it was STOLEN from "nootropic" article because of someone who thinks they can make MAJOR changes without vote and discussion.
This above comment does not provide a link to any other article on Wikipedia that this material could of been stolen from. Not judging that statements merits, however basically no support was offered for that statement at this time and a clear link would permit people to know the issue of which you speak in greater detail
Inhouse expert (
talk)
05:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey, could ya'll make this article longer? It's way too short. /sarcasm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.214.38 ( talk) 00:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
What potential do these substances have?—that's perhaps the primary question, and it hasn't been addressed in the article. How do you even measure their effectiveness to begin with? EIN ( talk) 19:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Testing would be a common way, whether using standard computer testing or otherwise. More to the point would be results in ones life, moving parameters long held in place. This is actually a key topic, for any legitimate clinical trial would require results. I would suggest reviewing the measurements used in clinical trials on those nootropic medications approved in various countries. Inhouse expert ( talk) 05:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Can anyone explain exactly what cerebral suffering is? Is that a proper term for a reference or does it refer to suffering of the person that is strictly cognitive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsseckman ( talk • contribs) 01:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Please do not use the "normal" google search for this article due to extreme bias from advertisers trying to sell you meds. Please use: www.pubmed.com or http://scholar.google.com/ or http://books.google.com/ for finding references <-- This should be deleted since it is absolute bs. The only bias here is from the nootropic scammers :/ 124.191.134.10 ( talk) 12:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
(In
Nootropic#Availability_and_prevalence) - One survey found that 7% of students had used stimulants for a cognitive edge in the past year, and on some campuses the number is as high as 25%
Should we add a note that caffeine isn't included here? I think the numbers would be much higher if it was.
Mikael Häggström (
talk)
14:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I just read the part where it says: "2.Enhances learned behaviors under conditions which are known to disrupt them." That's a puzzling sentence. I take it a "learned behavior" is something like treating a "Hispanic" badly because I was taught to treat them badly, or wiping my mouth as I eat. But it seems rather fantastical that a drug would enhance these types of behaviours, say, in situations where I have no napkins or people are telling me not to treat "Hispanics" badly. How exactly would a pill make you more prone to making you act in these ways? It seems more likely that the drug would make your thoughts faster or improve your ability to concentrate or recall information. Perhaps this point could be explained as it's a little odd when you think about it as a reader.
Also, it says that all nootropic drugs are cognitive enhancers, but not all cognitive enhancers are nootropic drugs. I thought you could give an example, like if say coffee were a nootropic drug, which would be a cognitive enhancer, but there are other cognitive enhancers like say Drug X, which are not nootropic, like coffee. It's just a small point, but an example would help clarify.
70.72.45.131 ( talk) 02:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello Everyone, I feel it would be a worthwhile idea to try and have more than just a section titled "Drugs". Not everything in that section is a drug, supplements for example. Perhaps these can have their own larger sections on the page. This change would also go along more with the definition of Nootropics that we are using. If this is a misguided idea please let me know. I just wanted to know if it might help the page become more organized. Thank you.
RuthMMcLeod ( talk) 17:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Why is modafinil the first sentence of "Academic doping" which is then followed by a paragraph of scheduled stimulant drugs? Modafinil is functionally, legally, and chemically extraordinarily different from the drugs mentioned immediately afterward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoxfordca ( talk • contribs) 04:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a large amount of information on the article page that has no references. In particular, there are large numbers of substances listed with no reference at all. We should have at least some reference for every substance. I propose we move all substances with no references into a section here on the talk page, or a subpage of the talk page which we use as a holding bin. We should only put items back into the article when we have a reference that at least says that the substance is believed to have some nootropic effect. — Makyen ( talk) 21:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Each drug in this article needs 1 ref that asserts that it has a specific "cognition-enhancing"/"nootropic" effect. That effect is what should be included after the drug name, not its pharmacodynamics. I've deleted massive amounts of text simply because the sections have nothing to do with nootropics. They're just lists of drug categories and associated drugs.
So, in a nutshell, SAY THIS:
Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 07:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: |section=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: |section=
ignored (
help)
As anyone checking the edit history might note, I've cut the article down to one third its size from a month ago (from ~100Kb to ~35kB). As a result, this article is now consistent with the WP:MEDRS standard. Any future contributions really need to conform to that standard since this is an important medical article that makes rather significant health claims about drugs.
Please read that page before adding content/citations if you're unfamiliar with it. Thanks! Regards, Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 23:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
There needs to be a section referring to evidence based trials and peer review papers on the subject. Until then, the content is pretty useless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.182.91.94 ( talk) 12:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Please list any concerns with, comments on, or support for the revised/shortened version of the article in this section. I've notified WT:MED and WT:PHARM of this thread for additional feedback. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 06:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi there,
as the article states, the word "Nootropic" was coined by Corneliu E. Giurgea. In his article you find certain criteria for nootropics. Most of those criteria are not met for a lot of substances that are presented as "nootropics" in this articls (definitions are for example: almost complete lack of side effects, protection of brain against injury etc.).
In fact, most of the space in the article (especially Paragraphs "Academic doping", "Side effects", Most parts of "Drugs") is consumed by mainly stimulating drugs most of which show a wide range of side effects and are presumed to damage the brain themselves if used over prolonged periods of time. These should perhaps be transferred into an article Brain doping or the like.
Additionally a lot of typical nootropics aren't mentioned at all in the article ( Citicoline, Alpha-GPC, Centrophenoxine etc.)
I would modify the article myself, but nowadays changes to wiki articles are usually reverted anyway without coercive reason if you are a noname editor and I don't like working for the bin. -- 143.164.102.13 ( talk) 10:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I unfortunately really don't see anything in the academic doping article which isn't already in nootropic that I can merge.
As I noted before, much of the doping article focused on ADHD stims, which creates the scope issue I mentioned in the talkpage discussion (now located in a subpage of this talk page).
Most of the sufficiently general (nootropic-related) material in the doping article made non-evidence based claims, which runs completely counter to what this article is doing (as required by WP:MEDRS, every drug makes an evidence-based claim, often in a clinical context, and is cited by a MEDRS-quality medical review).
There was a lot of literature that made normative statements as well; covering this type of material is very difficult to do in a neutral manner because it asserts a "correct" point of view. I'm not sure the normative medical literature on the use of cognitive enhancers can actually can be covered in an NPOV manner since it appears highly polarized; I'd also really rather not open a can of worms by putting material arguing for or against the use of schedule 2 controlled substances by the general population in this article. Briefly covering these controversies in the first 2 sections as was done acknowledges that "there is a controversy/concern", but we merely provide cursory coverage of the positions and don't discuss the suspicions of potential good or bad effects by all or potential subclasses of users (this type of crap seems so tenuous to me). These medical suspicions and assertions of possibility are speculative proposals and fail WP:MEDRS ( WP:MEDASSESS) by default because it's not evidence-based medicine. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 18:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I've requested this due to the persistence and recent uptick of disruptive IP editing: Special:Permalink/650531118#Nootropic_.28edit.C2.A0.7C_talk.C2.A0.7C_history.C2.A0.7C_protect.C2.A0.7C_delete.C2.A0.7C_links.C2.A0.7C_watch.C2.A0.7C_logs.C2.A0.7C_views.29 Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
It looks like choline bitartrate is being hyped as a nootropic: <redact> Any clues? Kortoso ( talk) 20:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
The Guardian and The New Yorker are incredibly reliable sources and have been undisputed on this page for some time. We need to reach consensus, as I feel like these are verifiable and reliable external sources. Icarus of old ( talk) 19:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Alex. Depending on which story you read, the Guardian has said:
1) Prozac is a placebo that doesn't do anything at all 2) It covers up unhappiness due to social injustice and is used inappropriately as a social band aid 3) It makes artists more creative 4) It makes people violent 5) And more recently, another article saying it doesn't do anything at all.
MEDRS clearly excludes newspapers as sources for health related info.
This seems like a clear cut case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B102:7E3D:EFDA:4A7C:EDA2:3B1C ( talk) 23:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
References
International sales of non-prescription supplements for cognition also exceed $1bn (£650 000; €880 000) a year and are rapidly growing. Ginkgo biloba, vitamins, and even caffeine are common ingredients. Some add piracetam (related to the epilepsy drug levetiracetam), jellyfish proteins, or even "edible pure 23.5 carat gold flakes."
Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 12:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Nootropic. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
it says i should have a review article on magnesium threonate to place it at the main article. journal = Neuron Volume 65 Issue 2 p165–177 date 28 January 2010 pmid20152124
magnesium threonate - ;An article at the journal Neuron says that magnesium L-threonate at an animal model of human cognition improved short term memory by 18% and long-term memory by 100%. At younger rats the memory effect was slightly more than double.
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |doi=
value (
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
-- Sizeofint ( talk) 20:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
There is a bit of content to cover it as a cultural phenomenon but probably not enough to comment on efficacy. Sizeofint ( talk) 16:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
In the article it states that B vitamins have no cognition-enhancing effects. According to the systematic review given as the reference, of the B vitamins, they only analyzed studies on folate, vitamin B6, and vitamin B12. The other five B vitamins—B1, B2, B3, B5, and biotin—were not included in the review. Yet the article makes the claim for all the B vitamins. I fixed this, but Alexbrn rolled back all my edits including this one (and my alphabetical sort and heading rename) with the vague explanation "undue detail", without justifying the revert of these improvements with substantive reasons. I'm concerned that the article is misreporting a source, with a statement that is far more general than what the systematic review found. The Transhumanist 08:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
The claim that L-theanine has a "synergistic" effect with caffeine seems questionable/sketchy to me. I looked-up the reference, and the abstract doesn't really say anything about synergism. Could caffeine alone be causing the neurological improvement? How do we know there is a caffeine-theanine cooperation?
If someone has access to that journal (Nutrition Reviews), could you re-read the actual article? I don't have access myself. Thanks. Armadillo1985 ( talk) 17:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 22:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)CONCLUSION
Tea constituents L-theanine and caffeine in combination were found to induce increases in Bond-Lader alertness of moderate effect size in the first hour, and increases in alertness of small-moderate effect size in the second hour postdose (SMD = 0.542 and 0.392, respectively). Similarly, L-theanine and caffeine in combination were also found to induce increases in attention switching accuracy during both the first and second hours postdose of smallmoderate effect size (SMD = 0.384 and 0.294, respectively). Small enhancement of unisensory visual attention accuracy was also found following L-theanine and caffeine consumption in the first hour postdose (SMD = 0.147). Similarly, small enhancement of unisensory auditory attention accuracy was found following L-theanine and caffeine consumption in the second hour postdose (SMD = 0.247).Moderator analysis did not reveal significant effects of caffeine and L-theanine dose on effect size, although analysis of trends in predicted values suggests that the majority of the attentionenhancing effects can be attributed to caffeine dose. Insuf- ficient data were available to conduct meta-analysis on EGCG’s psychopharmacological effects, although preliminary evidence suggests that EGCG may have a calming effect during the second hour postdose. Future research using a greater range of doses for both L-theanine and EGCG in isolation is required to more accurately determine their effects on cognition and mood, and to dissociate these effects from those of caffeine.
Should we add a ===Psychedelics=== section under https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Nootropic&oldid=804973346#Drugs
-- Jilja ( talk) 00:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I have a problem with the first line. I think that ". . . substances that purport to improve . . . " would be preferable to: ". . . substances that improve cognitive function . . . " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.127.106.227 ( talk) 13:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
@ Zefr: All the quotes are now gone. So, this is how I propose we go about addressing your issues and mine:
{{#tag:ref|The references go here|group="note"}}
. I'm not fine with deleting MEDRS-compliant references in this article. It's obviously a controversial topic. If you have an alternative solution in mind, let me know.Findings from this research unambiguously demonstrate(in that particular sentence, you replaced the word "unambiguously" with the modal verb "may" to convey a possibility of doubt, whereas the cited source conveys absolutely none at all; hence the problem with NPOV).