Advice on nootropics

tornados2111

Hey, recently I've gotten interested in nootropics including L-theanine, bacopa monnieri and ashwaghanda.


I have a compiled a list of others I'm interested in

* 750 mg Aniracetam
* 250 mg Centrophenoxine
* 350 mg NALT (N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine)
* 1-2 g Glycine
* 3-5 g Creatine

(these are daily dosages I've seen)
I think that aniracetam actually isn't legal in Ireland however, googling the others did not give me any results.

I'd be interested in any information about these substances.

Also, mods, I discussed this with RobFowl so pls dont delete

_Tombstone_

Prime spot for Seven Seas to aim for now that they're main market is soon to finally be regulated. Long overdue.

Some light reading,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nootropic

Nootropics (/noʊ.əˈtrɒpɨks/ noh-ə-trop-iks), also referred to as smart drugs, memory enhancers, neuro enhancers, cognitive enhancers, and intelligence enhancers, are drugs, supplements, nutraceuticals, and functional foods that improve one or more aspects of mental function, such as working memory, motivation, and attention.

Nootropics Aren’t Just For Tech Millionaires
Nootropics and the Human Lab Rats of Reddit


And,

Trials of 1. I like this article.

Every day, millions of people are taking medications that will not help them. The top ten highest-grossing drugs in the United States help between 1 in 25 and 1 in 4 of the people who take them (see 'Imprecision medicine'). For some drugs, such as statins — routinely used to lower cholesterol — as few as 1 in 50 may benefit1.

L1011

(Es)omeprazole only working for 1 in 25 (or so it seems from the infographic there). Actual, reputable source that isn't a pretty picture?

beeno67

L1011 wrote: »

(Es)omeprazole only working for 1 in 25 (or so it seems from the infographic there). Actual, reputable source that isn't a pretty picture?

I think it goes to show you need to be sceptical of all figures, even if published in a journal like Nature. The image implies that for esomeprazole you need to treat 25 people for one to see the benefit. Thinking logically that makes no sense. The actual figures the author appears to be referring to are probably from this article.

Esomeprazole Versus Other Proton Pump Inhibitors in Erosive Esophagitis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials
http://www.cghjournal.org/article/S1542-3565(06)00941-4/pdf

This "shows" that when compared with other PPIs you would need to treat 25 people with esomeprazole to see a benefit over other PPIs. In other words esomeprazole is better than other PPIs but not a lot better.The article in Nature implies a very different story. I haven't looked at the other figures but I would be reluctant to take a lot from this Nature article around how ineffective some drugs may be.

Xeyn

PPI s are one of the most effective medicines out there so I would immediately be skeptical of that poster, but what beeno67 says makes sense. It's not a misrepresentation but pretty much an out and out lie. I know it's an opinion piece but still a bit surprised by Nature.

locum-motion

L1011 wrote: »

(Es)omeprazole only working for 1 in 25 (or so it seems from the infographic there). Actual, reputable source that isn't a pretty picture?

Why your brackets around the "Es"?

The graphic mentions Esomeprazole, not Omeprazole.

They're not merely two names for the same drug, you know.

tornados2111

Sure, not all nootropics might work for me. But they are all reasonably safe, at least the ones that I am interested in. I think it's fair enough to give them a go and see how they work for myself. There is almost no risk, especially with an educated, well-read consumer but it could be enough to make life that little bit easier. That's all I'm looking for. Now I just need to find out what's legal here, and what's not

locum-motion

tornados2111 wrote: »

... Now I just need to find out what's legal here, and what's not

Any chemical "which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body" is a drug.
If the intention of administering the drug is to prevent or treat disease, or to provide a benefit, then it is a medicine.

That being so, unless the substance is contained in a product that has received a Product Authorisation from the HPRA (formerly the IMB), it's illegal in Ireland.

tornados2111

locum-motion wrote: »

Any chemical "which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body" is a drug.
If the intention of administering the drug is to prevent or treat disease, or to provide a benefit, then it is a medicine.

That being so, unless the substance is contained in a product that has received a Product Authorisation from the HPRA (formerly the IMB), it's illegal in Ireland.

The line between drugs and supplements has really blurred in the last few years. You can call it what you want - drug or supplement, but nothing about the word drug on its own suggests that it is illegal

That being said, searching even things like caffeine or creatine here https://www.hpra.ie/ gave no results. So should I assume that's illegal as well as anything else that doesn't come up?

locum-motion

tornados2111 wrote: »

The line between drugs and supplements has really blurred in the last few years. You can call it what you want - drug or supplement, but nothing about the word drug on its own suggests that it is illegal

That being said, searching even things like caffeine or creatine here https://www.hpra.ie/ gave no results. So should I assume that's illegal as well as anything else that doesn't come up?

A 'supplement' is a product intended to make up for a lack of sufficient quantities of a nutrient in a person's diet. Its ingredients are (or should be) chemicals that are normally present in human foodstuffs. Also, they should be actual nutrients ie chemicals that are actually required to avoid ill health.

The line is blurred because of the unscrupulous attempting to circumvent measures designed to prevent harm to the public, who do not have the expertise to make an objective weighing up of the risks and benefits.

Caffeine is both a drug and an ingredient of foodstuffs. If you failed to find it on the HPRA website, you weren't looking very hard.

Creatine is a substance found naturally in vertebrates and therefore is found in foods, specifically meat. However, it isn't itself a nutrient, in that the body can manufacture it itself from arginine and glycine present in the diet. Accordingly, a person's diet does not require supplementation with creatine in order to be healthy.

tornados2111

locum-motion wrote: »

A 'supplement' is a product intended to make up for a lack of sufficient quantities of a nutrient in a person's diet. It's ingredients are (or should be) chemicals that are normally present in human foodstuffs. Also, they should be actual nutrients ie chemicals that are actually required to avoid ill health.

The line is blurred because of the unscrupulous attempting to circumvent measures designed to prevent harm to the public, who do not have the expertise to make an objective weighing up of the risks and benefits.

Caffeine is both a drug and an ingredient of foodstuffs. If you failed to find it on the HPRA website, you weren't looking very hard.

Creatine is a substance found naturally in vertebrates and therefore is found in foods, specifically meat. However, it isn't itself a nutrient, in that the body can manufacture it itself from arginine and glycine present in the diet. Accordingly, a person's diet does not require supplementation with creatine in order to be healthy.

I see. Thanks

L1011

locum-motion wrote: »

Why your brackets around the "Es"?

The graphic mentions Esomeprazole, not Omeprazole.

They're not merely two names for the same drug, you know.

Guarenteeing a single chirality of the same chemical structure doesn't change the underlying structure.

If the data presented was 1 in 25 benefiting over non S chirality omeprazole it'd be more believable...

beeno67

locum-motion wrote: »

Why your brackets around the "Es"?

The graphic mentions Esomeprazole, not Omeprazole.

They're not merely two names for the same drug, you know.

Exactly. Esomeprazole has had a hell of a lot more money spent on it trying to convince doctors and pharmacists that it is a superior drug.

echo beach

beeno67 wrote: »

Exactly. Esomeprazole has had a hell of a lot more money spent on it trying to convince doctors and pharmacists that it is a superior drug.

Yes, and by a strange coincidence that 'education' campaign started shortly before Omeprazole went off patent.

locum-motion

L1011 wrote: »

Guarenteeing a single chirality of the same chemical structure doesn't change the underlying structure.

If the data presented was 1 in 25 benefiting over non S chirality omeprazole it'd be more believable...

What I was trying to point out is that they're not two interchangeable names for the same thing, in the way that, say, Acetaminophen and Paracetamol are, or Aspirin and Acetylsalicylic Acid.

I thought that you thought they were.