fairnymph
Ex-Bluelighter
And amphetamines DO affect the right side of the brain, just not as strongly as they affect the left side of the brain.
-
OD Moderators: Keif’ Richards | Tryptamino
Adderall For Study, Urban Myth, or True?
- Thread starter kharma_bum
- Start date
Cherub Speck
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2002
- Messages
- 35
^^^^Fairnymph, i couldn't have put it better myself.
Cimora-i would be very interested in seeing your sources for these claims. All of the experience i have had with low doses of meth have shown marked improvments in my memory, ability to concentrate, and it improves my creativity by letting me brainstorm out the ass (which would be the right side of my brain at work).
After i am through brainstorming for a few hours, i do another bump and get to work writing my papers.
I find meth enhances my ability to see how everything in the paper ties together, and relate it somehow.
3 out of my 4 essays in English Comp 1 don't lie
(my first was sober, other 3 where on meth)
My personal experience agrees with what Fairnymph has quoted.
Cimora-i would be very interested in seeing your sources for these claims. All of the experience i have had with low doses of meth have shown marked improvments in my memory, ability to concentrate, and it improves my creativity by letting me brainstorm out the ass (which would be the right side of my brain at work).
After i am through brainstorming for a few hours, i do another bump and get to work writing my papers.
I find meth enhances my ability to see how everything in the paper ties together, and relate it somehow.
3 out of my 4 essays in English Comp 1 don't lie
(my first was sober, other 3 where on meth)
My personal experience agrees with what Fairnymph has quoted.
A friend a my father took this stuff for years, he was a truck-driver and sometimes drove for very long periodes, he had to stay awake. I don't know if he took anything else but he died 2 years ago. He had turned "mad" (mad is not the right word but...) I mean he was not physically sick. He just didn't want to see anybody anymore even his son who had taken his business over, he said I've had enough... and finally died (55). Is there a tie, god only knows. Anyway there we speak about HUGE doses from what I heard. He was a "wood carrier" and you know the woodcutters are usually not the kind "to kiss and tell" so...
Cimora
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2000
- Messages
- 2,495
Im having trouble getting the relevent information from some of the posted studies. The maze test with mice is interesting, although i fail to see that it is nessasarily memory based improvement. (It seems as though this experiment is poorly controlled. The maze time improvement may have come from motivational factors - higher motivation/goal orientation on speed or athletic/biological improvement coulds have increased maze solving time).
Theres not enough information on the other studies to know how well they are controlled and whether the data is generalisable. What specific methodsthey used to test cognition is important to determining if the study is testing what it claims to.
My personal experience of speed has been one of reduced capacity mentality, with increased physical capacity. I feel that it makes one goal focused, but i beleive this could distract from efficient study, as one desires to move foward fast rather than take things in slowly or make decisions ponderously. I have never seen one of the aformentioned studies. Ill see if i can find the results on erowid.
Something that improved memory would require activation in those brain systems. Ive never heard on speed effecting the basal ganglia or hypothalumus? Soemthing that improved logic would effect the cortex. This does happen on speed, but it seems as though the cells are being "spent" like mdma rather than enhanced. So essentially if it makes you smarter logically short-term, it makes you dumb long term. I am interested in the what this cortex activation means, whether it relates to the driven feeling and focus on the future that speed creates, or an actual effect on planning ability.
Thanks for posting some studies, even if they were missing some important details. It makes this converstion much more factual. Im not ever closed to an idea. I just like to focus on the facts. Still not convinced though. I would like to see a simple recall study on humans for memory, and a simple problem-solving task on humans for logic. These studies should be simple to put together and hard to get wrong. They should be very clear in their outcome and generalisability. They would be the first thing any1 worth there salt would do to test these ideas about speed improving memory or logic. There may even be such a test amongst the studies you printed out, but without more detail id never know.
I just read something that said studies are showing speed damages the pre-frontal cortex leading to lower N-acetylaspartate than non-users. That cant be good for intelligence in the long term as the cortex is the centre of planning. NA is also related to epilepsy and other stuff. This is what i meant by speed lowering intelligence. This is the home of logic, the cortex, and speed is fucking it.
Actually run out of time, ill find those studies when i next log on... There not were they used to be, but i promise ill look for em again.
If speed increased memory or logic wouldnt it be considered a smart drug or nootropic rather than a simple recreational drug?
[ 25 November 2002: Message edited by: Cimora ]
Theres not enough information on the other studies to know how well they are controlled and whether the data is generalisable. What specific methodsthey used to test cognition is important to determining if the study is testing what it claims to.
My personal experience of speed has been one of reduced capacity mentality, with increased physical capacity. I feel that it makes one goal focused, but i beleive this could distract from efficient study, as one desires to move foward fast rather than take things in slowly or make decisions ponderously. I have never seen one of the aformentioned studies. Ill see if i can find the results on erowid.
Something that improved memory would require activation in those brain systems. Ive never heard on speed effecting the basal ganglia or hypothalumus? Soemthing that improved logic would effect the cortex. This does happen on speed, but it seems as though the cells are being "spent" like mdma rather than enhanced. So essentially if it makes you smarter logically short-term, it makes you dumb long term. I am interested in the what this cortex activation means, whether it relates to the driven feeling and focus on the future that speed creates, or an actual effect on planning ability.
Thanks for posting some studies, even if they were missing some important details. It makes this converstion much more factual. Im not ever closed to an idea. I just like to focus on the facts. Still not convinced though. I would like to see a simple recall study on humans for memory, and a simple problem-solving task on humans for logic. These studies should be simple to put together and hard to get wrong. They should be very clear in their outcome and generalisability. They would be the first thing any1 worth there salt would do to test these ideas about speed improving memory or logic. There may even be such a test amongst the studies you printed out, but without more detail id never know.
I just read something that said studies are showing speed damages the pre-frontal cortex leading to lower N-acetylaspartate than non-users. That cant be good for intelligence in the long term as the cortex is the centre of planning. NA is also related to epilepsy and other stuff. This is what i meant by speed lowering intelligence. This is the home of logic, the cortex, and speed is fucking it.
Actually run out of time, ill find those studies when i next log on... There not were they used to be, but i promise ill look for em again.
If speed increased memory or logic wouldnt it be considered a smart drug or nootropic rather than a simple recreational drug?
[ 25 November 2002: Message edited by: Cimora ]
Thurgood
Bluelighter
I think fairnymph posted more than enough information relevant to her point, you're just digging youself deeper Cimora when first you say:
Cimora
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2000
- Messages
- 2,495
How is that a contradiction? First i say that evidence is required, then on top of discussing any evidence i mention my personal experience. I didnt mention it because i thought it was valuable evidence or conclusive, only because the other side of the argument seems to like or value subjective accounts. i coudnt care less what my personal experience was. Elevated intelligence/memory or logic ability is easy to measure, subjective experience isnt even relevant.
And im not digging myself in any holes. Its clear that YOU guys are the ones making a positive assertion; that speed helps memory or logic. Im not making any positive claim at all, just asking that you provide evidence which should be easy to obtain if what you say is true. As such i dont technically need to justify my position, you do. However im quite happy to try and find those studies, when i get the time.
Try and be objective, no evidence has been provided in this debate that conclusively falls one or the othew way yet. When some more relevant information is provided then you can claim one side has lost. The previous poster clearly doesnt understand science. The above stuides may or may not provide the evidence we are after, but an objective person must reveiw the methodolgy first before drawing any conclusion. Only 1 study in those listed does this, and its an animal study (poorly correlates to humans often) & its poorly controlled (involves factors outside of crtitical thinking facilities) from what i can tell.
A page full of half-information on maybe or maybe not relevant studies is not conclusive proof. Interesting but not proof. You need the methodology.
Im still very sure that all that is going on here is that poorly motivated people are getting thru more study cause studying is more fun on drugs than sober. Alertness alone doesnt make for better study. Its what your alert to, and in what way that makes good study. ADD kids are alert to everything, and very sensitive to stimulus. This makes them very poor at school because they cant focus on the subtleties (and narrow and control there alertness) - the big things distract them. I dont see speed users being very in control of there alertness nor how it is focused. Still this is not proof, just observation and what seems like common sense to me.
And im not digging myself in any holes. Its clear that YOU guys are the ones making a positive assertion; that speed helps memory or logic. Im not making any positive claim at all, just asking that you provide evidence which should be easy to obtain if what you say is true. As such i dont technically need to justify my position, you do. However im quite happy to try and find those studies, when i get the time.
Try and be objective, no evidence has been provided in this debate that conclusively falls one or the othew way yet. When some more relevant information is provided then you can claim one side has lost. The previous poster clearly doesnt understand science. The above stuides may or may not provide the evidence we are after, but an objective person must reveiw the methodolgy first before drawing any conclusion. Only 1 study in those listed does this, and its an animal study (poorly correlates to humans often) & its poorly controlled (involves factors outside of crtitical thinking facilities) from what i can tell.
A page full of half-information on maybe or maybe not relevant studies is not conclusive proof. Interesting but not proof. You need the methodology.
Im still very sure that all that is going on here is that poorly motivated people are getting thru more study cause studying is more fun on drugs than sober. Alertness alone doesnt make for better study. Its what your alert to, and in what way that makes good study. ADD kids are alert to everything, and very sensitive to stimulus. This makes them very poor at school because they cant focus on the subtleties (and narrow and control there alertness) - the big things distract them. I dont see speed users being very in control of there alertness nor how it is focused. Still this is not proof, just observation and what seems like common sense to me.
fairnymph
Ex-Bluelighter
^^^
YOU have posted NO proof. You ARE digging yourself a deeper hole!
Some of those snippets where EXTREMELY CLEAR AND EXPLICIT in support of amphetamines' ability to increase mental performance etc. If you can't understand them, or don't find them relevant, then your problems must be lie with your difficulty in understanding the english language.
YOU have posted NO proof. You ARE digging yourself a deeper hole!
Some of those snippets where EXTREMELY CLEAR AND EXPLICIT in support of amphetamines' ability to increase mental performance etc. If you can't understand them, or don't find them relevant, then your problems must be lie with your difficulty in understanding the english language.
Cimora
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2000
- Messages
- 2,495
You arew the one in need of more grasp of english. I said i needed the methodology to know if the studies are valid. You boviously know nothing of science, or being objective. Any poorly designed study can come out with any old results. Without knowing HOW they conducted there studies, using what tests, questions, specifics, i CANNOT know how accurate or relevant these studies are. Its nothing to do with me not understanding, its science, one HAS to look at experiment validity thru methodology and generalisability. Its standard scientific practice.
As for be not posting those erowid studies yet, im still looking (i havent got much time im on holiday right now), and theyve been moved but i hope to find them. The burden of proof isnt on me however, as i make no positive claim as your do. You claim speed makes you smarter, therefore technically you must provide the proof. I will still try and get those studies though. (id prefer to find the exact same ones).
Its strange isnt it. Youve thrown a whole bunch of studies at me, clearly without knowing exactly how they are meant to work or how one goes about examining studies. And know you figure youve one the argument. Take a psych101 course, thatll get you str8tned out - STUDY VALIDITY. Not every study that is ever done means exactly what it intends to mean. It has to be well designed to ensure that.
Ive been looking all over erowid, and i didnt find one mention of intelligence or logic or memory in reference to speed. Youd think if it was drug fact, erowid woulda mentioned it, as it mentions relevent and true drug facts on even he obscurest of drugs. Those damn studies dont seem to be on the site anymore, maybe ill try looking on the other drugs sites. I wish i had more time to go trawling.
The one study you posted that included some methodology details was not at all conclusive. They found the following from there experiment:
As for be not posting those erowid studies yet, im still looking (i havent got much time im on holiday right now), and theyve been moved but i hope to find them. The burden of proof isnt on me however, as i make no positive claim as your do. You claim speed makes you smarter, therefore technically you must provide the proof. I will still try and get those studies though. (id prefer to find the exact same ones).
Its strange isnt it. Youve thrown a whole bunch of studies at me, clearly without knowing exactly how they are meant to work or how one goes about examining studies. And know you figure youve one the argument. Take a psych101 course, thatll get you str8tned out - STUDY VALIDITY. Not every study that is ever done means exactly what it intends to mean. It has to be well designed to ensure that.
Ive been looking all over erowid, and i didnt find one mention of intelligence or logic or memory in reference to speed. Youd think if it was drug fact, erowid woulda mentioned it, as it mentions relevent and true drug facts on even he obscurest of drugs. Those damn studies dont seem to be on the site anymore, maybe ill try looking on the other drugs sites. I wish i had more time to go trawling.
The one study you posted that included some methodology details was not at all conclusive. They found the following from there experiment:
These findings suggest that activation of NMDA receptors is necessary for the formation of mnemonic encoding while modulatory components involving slow asynchronous release of glutamate and phasic release of dopamine contribute to the active maintenance of information during the delay period.
Okay first off this is evidence in support of their conclusion as opposed to conclsuive proof of their conclusion. Second there conclusion is not that speed makes you smarter, its that memory encoding uses NMDA receptors and memory maintenence requires dopamine and glutamate.
This might suggest that speed gives rats temporary gains to memory encoding(not nessasarily humans). It depends how the receptors are effected by memory as opposed to by the drugs, to determine if this is a valid conclusion. Are they potentiated? fired? do they carry the memory information? How can one know what implications this has without knowing the effect on the receptor, or the importance of its role in memory. They said it was measurable for the maze test, assuming that was properly controlled, how do we know that applies equally to study? its not a standard or simple memory test, its quite situation specific, involving spatial cognition.
Even if this were the conclsuive proof that any such claim of speed making you smarter should lgoically be accompanied by, speed is also show to do damage to the brain regions it modulates. The cortex, which is invloved in planing. The regions of the brain involved as stated above with memory encoding and spatial awareness. They are all damaged if you take speed. So even if it makes you smarter for a night, it makes you dumber for a month or more. Maybe this is why nobody has ever found conclusive proof of improvement, becuase the effects are cancelled out with side effects?
As i said early, i think this rat study is interesting. I didnt know the role of some brain systems in speed, and its educated me. It lends some support to the notion of preformance increase, but as i stated earlier it should be alot easier than this to prove. A simple memory recall or problem-solving task while on the drug for humans should suffice, if what you claim is true. (As ive also said b4, such a study could be in your list, but id never know without the methodology or further info)
Its worth considering as a factor that memory retreival requires a mood-state similarity. As such good encoding doesnt not mean good memory. Its must also has good retreival, which given you were high, seems less likely.
Ill say it again, the bruden of proof lies with you, not with me. As such i cant dig myself in a hole, as i have nothing to prove.
[ 26 November 2002: Message edited by: Cimora ]
fairnymph
Ex-Bluelighter
I rest my case. I've posted studies, you haven't. End of story!
Cimora
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2000
- Messages
- 2,495
But the burden of proof lies with you, not me, and your studies are inconclusive and only have partial information. I rest MY case.
Why would irrelevant or inconclusive evidence help your argument?
You said you could post more information at the end of one of ur earlier posts...could you post these? -im FAR from convinced, and im being quite objective IMO.
Memory and logic are easy to assess, the experiments for these are simple and easy to design without flaw. If had fifty subjects, i could prove or disprove this theory easily myself, in less than a day and without any experimental flaws. I ask again, why is there no such study on memory or logic, with humans showing this allenged performance increase? (If there is perhaps you could provide it, with the methodology). If your side is true, you wouldnt need info on neurotransmitters or brain regions, all youd need is the simple proof of increase performance in humans. Recall this list of 5 numbers in 20 seconds, or solve this logic puzzle in the least number of steps. Easy. Where is it then? give me this, and the methodology, and i will concede your victory. Until then its just plain unsubstainiated.
[ 26 November 2002: Message edited by: Cimora ]
Why would irrelevant or inconclusive evidence help your argument?
You said you could post more information at the end of one of ur earlier posts...could you post these? -im FAR from convinced, and im being quite objective IMO.
Memory and logic are easy to assess, the experiments for these are simple and easy to design without flaw. If had fifty subjects, i could prove or disprove this theory easily myself, in less than a day and without any experimental flaws. I ask again, why is there no such study on memory or logic, with humans showing this allenged performance increase? (If there is perhaps you could provide it, with the methodology). If your side is true, you wouldnt need info on neurotransmitters or brain regions, all youd need is the simple proof of increase performance in humans. Recall this list of 5 numbers in 20 seconds, or solve this logic puzzle in the least number of steps. Easy. Where is it then? give me this, and the methodology, and i will concede your victory. Until then its just plain unsubstainiated.
[ 26 November 2002: Message edited by: Cimora ]
kharma_bum
Bluelighter
Aaah how amps get us all rowled up!
I think that some people may get help from amps and some may get irritable like me and too euphoric to give a shit. In which any case, all that matters is that people feel like they're improving and that they see the improvement, no? I mean you can throw a million studies at me and say hey these are supose to help YOU!! wtf! and if I still get a shitty grade on my paper, im gonna believe that they might have been the problem. Anyways in my case small doses make me irritable so no I don't think they help me. But thats just me.
[ 26 November 2002: Message edited by: kharma_bum ]
I think that some people may get help from amps and some may get irritable like me and too euphoric to give a shit. In which any case, all that matters is that people feel like they're improving and that they see the improvement, no? I mean you can throw a million studies at me and say hey these are supose to help YOU!! wtf! and if I still get a shitty grade on my paper, im gonna believe that they might have been the problem. Anyways in my case small doses make me irritable so no I don't think they help me. But thats just me.
[ 26 November 2002: Message edited by: kharma_bum ]
Just my personal opinion:
Amphetamines may actually help you study, but I think the effect is small, and its probably better to learn on your own without chemical aid (unless you truly have ADD). I think most people who use speed "to study" really are just using that as an excuse because they want to get high.
Amphetamines may actually help you study, but I think the effect is small, and its probably better to learn on your own without chemical aid (unless you truly have ADD). I think most people who use speed "to study" really are just using that as an excuse because they want to get high.
Cimora
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2000
- Messages
- 2,495
Thats about were i stand. They _MAY_ give ultimately unmeasurably small improvements, but whatver the case, its at the cost of measurable long term costs to memory and logic. Any1 who uses
such a substance as a study aid, is not looking at the big picture (intelligence in a years time), and as such are far more likely to be using to feel good. In my opinion, to feel good, is the only reason any1 uses drugs for (unless they have cancer or whatever).
Any1 who uses a brain-damaging chemical in the hope of mental improvement is obviously deluded. If any1 doubts that speed damages spatial perception, memory etc in the long term - i DO know (and have checked recently) the links and locations of these studies and id be happy to post them to any1 whos interested.
Most people dont need anything more than motivation and application to master studying and exams. For those that dont possess the appropraite logic skills, education takes you to the point where you can do that. Who the hell would take a drug that makes you less aware of objective reality, in order to become more aware of objective reality. No drug make you more aware of objective reality, as an altered reality is never objective by defination. Especially when that drug is rife with harms, including brain damage, psychosis, agression etc.
And for that matter, there are other herbs and drugs that HAVE been shown to give measurable improvements to memory and cognition. If any of you were REALLY serious about supplementing to study, ud take gingko or a nootropic. Ud take dl-phenylanine. Ud be eating lots of fish, nuts, fruit and veges. Or ud try and get some u4ea. If you were really serious about getting better grades, youd count on methods that have been SHOWN to work, not gamble on mind-altering drugs with no conclusive empiricism behind them.
If you were really serious, youd learn and practice mnemonic and study techniques. Youd study more, and start earlier. Youd get help from your teachers and tutors. At the most youd supplement your brain with amino acids, and maybe use a herb or nootropic or two. If you serious ud never gamble with an addictive and power mind-altering drug, that will leave you worse off that when you started with it, intelligence wise.
Show me some1 who is a ex-chronic meth user, and ill show you some1 whos brain is still recovering.
Its kind of akin to saying that throwing a spanner in my computer _seems_ to temporarily improve my preformance (only i cant measure it, so it must be very small) , so gee id better do anytime i need performance in my computer. If throwing in a spanner got me high and made me feel good, maybe i could let my reason lapse for long enough to follow this very stupid rationale, and ignore the obvious damage it does.
[ 26 November 2002: Message edited by: Cimora ]
such a substance as a study aid, is not looking at the big picture (intelligence in a years time), and as such are far more likely to be using to feel good. In my opinion, to feel good, is the only reason any1 uses drugs for (unless they have cancer or whatever).
Any1 who uses a brain-damaging chemical in the hope of mental improvement is obviously deluded. If any1 doubts that speed damages spatial perception, memory etc in the long term - i DO know (and have checked recently) the links and locations of these studies and id be happy to post them to any1 whos interested.
Most people dont need anything more than motivation and application to master studying and exams. For those that dont possess the appropraite logic skills, education takes you to the point where you can do that. Who the hell would take a drug that makes you less aware of objective reality, in order to become more aware of objective reality. No drug make you more aware of objective reality, as an altered reality is never objective by defination. Especially when that drug is rife with harms, including brain damage, psychosis, agression etc.
And for that matter, there are other herbs and drugs that HAVE been shown to give measurable improvements to memory and cognition. If any of you were REALLY serious about supplementing to study, ud take gingko or a nootropic. Ud take dl-phenylanine. Ud be eating lots of fish, nuts, fruit and veges. Or ud try and get some u4ea. If you were really serious about getting better grades, youd count on methods that have been SHOWN to work, not gamble on mind-altering drugs with no conclusive empiricism behind them.
If you were really serious, youd learn and practice mnemonic and study techniques. Youd study more, and start earlier. Youd get help from your teachers and tutors. At the most youd supplement your brain with amino acids, and maybe use a herb or nootropic or two. If you serious ud never gamble with an addictive and power mind-altering drug, that will leave you worse off that when you started with it, intelligence wise.
Show me some1 who is a ex-chronic meth user, and ill show you some1 whos brain is still recovering.
Its kind of akin to saying that throwing a spanner in my computer _seems_ to temporarily improve my preformance (only i cant measure it, so it must be very small) , so gee id better do anytime i need performance in my computer. If throwing in a spanner got me high and made me feel good, maybe i could let my reason lapse for long enough to follow this very stupid rationale, and ignore the obvious damage it does.
[ 26 November 2002: Message edited by: Cimora ]
In my experiance with adderal id have to say it most definatly helps you study. Normaly im a pothead slacker that doesnt do much but when i take adderal i can study for hours. Normaly i would say fuck it ill take the bad grade after about an hour of work.
While I would not say that amphetamines increase intelligence or mental abilities in general, it has been my experience that small doses (2.5-10 mg of adderall orally) do increase vigilance (or the ability to focus on a given task during the period of drug effect) and this is incredibly helpful for most studying projects. At these doses (and doses 2 and 3 x's as much) every once in a while, Adderall has been shown to be safe in normal humans and I find it is also much easier on my body than a lot of late night caffeine, which definately keeps me up but does not help me stay focussed at all.
Here is the rest of one of those article abstracts, which seems to be relevant to this point:
"J Neurosci 1996 Aug 1;16(15):4816-22
Dextroamphetamine enhances "neural network-specific" physiological signals: a positron-emission tomography rCBF study.
Mattay VS, Berman KF, Ostrem JL, Esposito G, Van Horn JD, Bigelow LB, Weinberger DR.
Previous studies in animals and humans suggest that monoamines enhance behavior-evoked neural activity relative to nonspecific background activity (i.e., increase signal-to-noise ratio). We studied the effects of dextroamphetamine, an indirect monoaminergic agonist, on cognitively evoked neural activity in eight healthy subjects using positron-emission tomography and the O15 water intravenous bolus method to measure regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF). Dextroamphetamine (0.25 mg/kg) or placebo was administered in a double-blind, counterbalanced design 2 hr before the rCBF study in sessions separated by 1-2 weeks. rCBF was measured while subjects performed four different tasks: two abstract reasoning tasks--the Wisconsin Card Sorting Task (WCST), a neuropsychological test linked to a cortical network involving dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and other association cortices, and Ravens Progressive Matrices (RPM), a nonverbal intelligence test linked to posterior cortical systems--and two corresponding sensorimotor control tasks. There were no significant drug or task effects on pCO2 or on global blood flow. However, the effect of dextroamphetamine (i.e., dextroamphetamine vs placebo) on task-dependent rCBF activation (i.e., task - control task) showed double dissociations with respect to task and region in the very brain areas that most distinctly differentiate the tasks. In the superior portion of the left inferior frontal gyrus, dextroamphetamine increased rCBF during WCST but decreased it during RPM (ANOVA F (1,7) = 16.72, p < 0.0046). In right hippocampus, blood flow decreased during WCST but increased during RPM (ANOVA F(1,7) = 18.7, p < 0.0035). These findings illustrate that dextroamphetamine tends to "focus" neural activity, to highlight the neural network that is specific for a particular cognitive task. This capacity of dextroamphetamine to induce cognitively specific signal augmentation may provide a neurobiological explanation for improved cognitive efficiency with dextroamphetamine.
Publication Types:
Clinical Trial
Randomized Controlled Trial
PMID: 8764668 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]"
In regard to Ginko and some of the other supplements that you mentioned, there has not been much evidence supporting it's cognitive enhancing effects. So I wonder what you are basing these positive assertions on. Here's two examples:
"Physiol Behav 2001 Jul;73(4):659-65
The effect of Ginkgo biloba on memory in healthy male volunteers.
Moulton PL, Boyko LN, Fitzpatrick JL, Petros TV.
The purpose of this study was to investigate possible effects of Ginkgo biloba, a widely used herbal extract, on memory. This study incorporated a double-blind, placebo-controlled design, which used 30 healthy male subjects in each of two groups. The treatment group received two 60-mg tablets of BioGinkgo (LI 1370) daily for 5 days, while the placebo group received a placebo. On the fifth day, after a 2-h waiting period, all subjects were given the Sternberg Memory Scanning Test [Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 27 (1975) 1.], a reaction time control test, the vocabulary and digit span subtests of the WAIS-R [Wechsler D. Manual for the Wechsler adult intelligence scale - revised. New York: Psychological Corporation, 1981.], a reading span test [J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 19 (1980) 450.] and a prose recall test [Discourse Proc. 13 (1990) 387.]. Blood pressure, heart rate and side effects were also monitored throughout the study. Nonsignificant results were found on all interactions involving treatment group on all tests except the Sternberg Memory Scanning Test. The extract appeared to be safe but largely ineffective in enhancing memory.
Publication Types:
Clinical Trial
Randomized Controlled Trial
PMID: 11495672 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]"
"JAMA 2002 Aug 21;28 8( 7):835-40
Ginkgo for memory enhancement: a randomized controlled trial.
Solomon PR, Adams F, Silver A, Zimmer J, DeVeaux R.
CONTEXT: Several over-the-counter treatments are marketed as having the ability to improve memory, attention, and related cognitive functions in as little as 4 weeks. These claims, however, are generally not supported by well-controlled clinical studies. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether ginkgo, an over-the-counter agent marketed as enhancing memory, improves memory in elderly adults as measured by objective neuropsychological tests and subjective ratings. DESIGN: Six-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling volunteer men (n = 9 8) and women (n = 132) older than 60 years with Mini-Mental State Examination scores greater than 26 and in generally good health were recruited by a US academic center via newspaper advertisements and enrolled over a 26-month period from July 1996 to September 1998. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned to receive ginkgo, 40 mg 3 times per day (n = 115), or matching placebo (n = 115). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Standardized neuropsychological tests of verbal and nonverbal learning and memory, attention and concentration, naming and expressive language, participant self-report on a memory questionnaire, and caregiver clinical global impression of change as completed by a companion. RESULTS: Two hundred three participants (88%) completed the protocol. Analysis of the modified intent-to-treat population (all 219 participants returning for evaluation) indicated that there were no significant differences between treatment groups on any outcome measure. Analysis of the fully evaluable population (the 203 who complied with treatment and returned for evaluation) also indicated no significant differences for any outcome measure. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this 6-week study indicate that ginkgo did not facilitate performance on standard neuropsychological tests of learning, memory, attention, and concentration or naming and verbal fluency in elderly adults without cognitive impairment. The ginkgo group also did not differ from the control group in terms of self-reported memory function or global rating by spouses, friends, and relatives. These data suggest that when taken following the manufacturer's instructions, ginkgo provides no measurable benefit in memory or related cognitive function to adults with healthy cognitive function.
Publication Types:
Clinical Trial
Randomized Controlled Trial
PMID: 12186600 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]"
Sorry for this being so long...
Here is the rest of one of those article abstracts, which seems to be relevant to this point:
"J Neurosci 1996 Aug 1;16(15):4816-22
Dextroamphetamine enhances "neural network-specific" physiological signals: a positron-emission tomography rCBF study.
Mattay VS, Berman KF, Ostrem JL, Esposito G, Van Horn JD, Bigelow LB, Weinberger DR.
Previous studies in animals and humans suggest that monoamines enhance behavior-evoked neural activity relative to nonspecific background activity (i.e., increase signal-to-noise ratio). We studied the effects of dextroamphetamine, an indirect monoaminergic agonist, on cognitively evoked neural activity in eight healthy subjects using positron-emission tomography and the O15 water intravenous bolus method to measure regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF). Dextroamphetamine (0.25 mg/kg) or placebo was administered in a double-blind, counterbalanced design 2 hr before the rCBF study in sessions separated by 1-2 weeks. rCBF was measured while subjects performed four different tasks: two abstract reasoning tasks--the Wisconsin Card Sorting Task (WCST), a neuropsychological test linked to a cortical network involving dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and other association cortices, and Ravens Progressive Matrices (RPM), a nonverbal intelligence test linked to posterior cortical systems--and two corresponding sensorimotor control tasks. There were no significant drug or task effects on pCO2 or on global blood flow. However, the effect of dextroamphetamine (i.e., dextroamphetamine vs placebo) on task-dependent rCBF activation (i.e., task - control task) showed double dissociations with respect to task and region in the very brain areas that most distinctly differentiate the tasks. In the superior portion of the left inferior frontal gyrus, dextroamphetamine increased rCBF during WCST but decreased it during RPM (ANOVA F (1,7) = 16.72, p < 0.0046). In right hippocampus, blood flow decreased during WCST but increased during RPM (ANOVA F(1,7) = 18.7, p < 0.0035). These findings illustrate that dextroamphetamine tends to "focus" neural activity, to highlight the neural network that is specific for a particular cognitive task. This capacity of dextroamphetamine to induce cognitively specific signal augmentation may provide a neurobiological explanation for improved cognitive efficiency with dextroamphetamine.
Publication Types:
Clinical Trial
Randomized Controlled Trial
PMID: 8764668 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]"
In regard to Ginko and some of the other supplements that you mentioned, there has not been much evidence supporting it's cognitive enhancing effects. So I wonder what you are basing these positive assertions on. Here's two examples:
"Physiol Behav 2001 Jul;73(4):659-65
The effect of Ginkgo biloba on memory in healthy male volunteers.
Moulton PL, Boyko LN, Fitzpatrick JL, Petros TV.
The purpose of this study was to investigate possible effects of Ginkgo biloba, a widely used herbal extract, on memory. This study incorporated a double-blind, placebo-controlled design, which used 30 healthy male subjects in each of two groups. The treatment group received two 60-mg tablets of BioGinkgo (LI 1370) daily for 5 days, while the placebo group received a placebo. On the fifth day, after a 2-h waiting period, all subjects were given the Sternberg Memory Scanning Test [Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 27 (1975) 1.], a reaction time control test, the vocabulary and digit span subtests of the WAIS-R [Wechsler D. Manual for the Wechsler adult intelligence scale - revised. New York: Psychological Corporation, 1981.], a reading span test [J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 19 (1980) 450.] and a prose recall test [Discourse Proc. 13 (1990) 387.]. Blood pressure, heart rate and side effects were also monitored throughout the study. Nonsignificant results were found on all interactions involving treatment group on all tests except the Sternberg Memory Scanning Test. The extract appeared to be safe but largely ineffective in enhancing memory.
Publication Types:
Clinical Trial
Randomized Controlled Trial
PMID: 11495672 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]"
"JAMA 2002 Aug 21;28 8( 7):835-40
Ginkgo for memory enhancement: a randomized controlled trial.
Solomon PR, Adams F, Silver A, Zimmer J, DeVeaux R.
CONTEXT: Several over-the-counter treatments are marketed as having the ability to improve memory, attention, and related cognitive functions in as little as 4 weeks. These claims, however, are generally not supported by well-controlled clinical studies. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether ginkgo, an over-the-counter agent marketed as enhancing memory, improves memory in elderly adults as measured by objective neuropsychological tests and subjective ratings. DESIGN: Six-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling volunteer men (n = 9 8) and women (n = 132) older than 60 years with Mini-Mental State Examination scores greater than 26 and in generally good health were recruited by a US academic center via newspaper advertisements and enrolled over a 26-month period from July 1996 to September 1998. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned to receive ginkgo, 40 mg 3 times per day (n = 115), or matching placebo (n = 115). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Standardized neuropsychological tests of verbal and nonverbal learning and memory, attention and concentration, naming and expressive language, participant self-report on a memory questionnaire, and caregiver clinical global impression of change as completed by a companion. RESULTS: Two hundred three participants (88%) completed the protocol. Analysis of the modified intent-to-treat population (all 219 participants returning for evaluation) indicated that there were no significant differences between treatment groups on any outcome measure. Analysis of the fully evaluable population (the 203 who complied with treatment and returned for evaluation) also indicated no significant differences for any outcome measure. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this 6-week study indicate that ginkgo did not facilitate performance on standard neuropsychological tests of learning, memory, attention, and concentration or naming and verbal fluency in elderly adults without cognitive impairment. The ginkgo group also did not differ from the control group in terms of self-reported memory function or global rating by spouses, friends, and relatives. These data suggest that when taken following the manufacturer's instructions, ginkgo provides no measurable benefit in memory or related cognitive function to adults with healthy cognitive function.
Publication Types:
Clinical Trial
Randomized Controlled Trial
PMID: 12186600 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]"
Sorry for this being so long...
Cimora
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2000
- Messages
- 2,495
About gingko your right, the stufies have been mixed, some positive, some negative. However some aminos are known to be useful - such as dl-phenylanine, which i personally find increases my vigilance (although to what degree is untested). There are nootropics which deliver small but measurable effects on memory etc, but the research is thin. u4ea is thought to increase intelligence but i have no idea what studies have been done on this. So yeah, although there is some indications on these compounds, theres no clear super intelligence drug. That said ive never felt i needed much more than suplements at the most, and i do find tyrosine, phen & gingko to be useful for study in emergencies myself.
The stuff you said about speed is about the smartest and most reasonable stuff said yet. Yes it does increase your motivation to focus on a task. If you dont already have the will and focus to study (which i have already), then i could see speed helping. However this isnt gonna help every1. Some of us already find the time and energy to study, and maintain concentration (or take breaks). So its basically not so much as "speed helps you study", but "speed helps you study if your already lackluster about the effort involved". The studies you show on vigilance are more than reasonable, and it fair to say that speed does increase "vigilance". Does vigilance help one study though, or is it the driven motivated way speed make you feel? Vigilance is super-alertness to stimulus in your enviroment. Does this mean you take more in? Normal alertness does do this, but to what degree super-vigilance would increase memory retention i dont know (in all likehood it would be an order of magnitude less than the benefits of "normal" vigilance or concenration).
Personally i find the driveness of speed to be a distractor to thoroughness. Thoroughness i feel is often sacrificed to efficiency, on speed. But then i suppose i do fine on my exams as it is.
Finally an area we can all semi-agree on
Its worth mentioning that amphetemines cause brain damage, and pretty serious stuff too, so perhaps they are a little more ruff on your body than cofeee! And i think ive meant plenty who would agree, but then you may be talking about adderall, which im no expert on.
[ 27 November 2002: Message edited by: Cimora ]
The stuff you said about speed is about the smartest and most reasonable stuff said yet. Yes it does increase your motivation to focus on a task. If you dont already have the will and focus to study (which i have already), then i could see speed helping. However this isnt gonna help every1. Some of us already find the time and energy to study, and maintain concentration (or take breaks). So its basically not so much as "speed helps you study", but "speed helps you study if your already lackluster about the effort involved". The studies you show on vigilance are more than reasonable, and it fair to say that speed does increase "vigilance". Does vigilance help one study though, or is it the driven motivated way speed make you feel? Vigilance is super-alertness to stimulus in your enviroment. Does this mean you take more in? Normal alertness does do this, but to what degree super-vigilance would increase memory retention i dont know (in all likehood it would be an order of magnitude less than the benefits of "normal" vigilance or concenration).
Personally i find the driveness of speed to be a distractor to thoroughness. Thoroughness i feel is often sacrificed to efficiency, on speed. But then i suppose i do fine on my exams as it is.
Finally an area we can all semi-agree on
Its worth mentioning that amphetemines cause brain damage, and pretty serious stuff too, so perhaps they are a little more ruff on your body than cofeee! And i think ive meant plenty who would agree, but then you may be talking about adderall, which im no expert on.
[ 27 November 2002: Message edited by: Cimora ]
Wrong. Amphetamines CAN cause brain damage at certain levels. Once again, scientists don't have as firm a stance as you would like 
But you'd have everyone believe otherwise.
Obviously you're no expert. If you were any amount of informed you'd realize Adderall contains amphetamines.
But you'd have everyone believe otherwise.Obviously you're no expert. If you were any amount of informed you'd realize Adderall contains amphetamines.
fairnymph
Ex-Bluelighter
Cimora said:
Cimora
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2000
- Messages
- 2,495
Perhaps i mistook your argument for the majority one here. i am sorry, if thats the case. And if thats the case, i retract all statements previous to this post 
Science is clear on some topics, like logic tasks or memory basic, chemistry, basic physics. Just because the brain damage studies (and some use low doses, at least one relevent study that i remember) arent conclusive measures, and neither are preformance studies on habitual drug users, doesnt mean the risks cant be serious to occasional low-dose users. Common sense would suggest looking at these studies, that this could be the case. Or it could be harmless, but thats seems unlikely given that chemical imbalances caused by other drugs often manifest in _some_ fashion even if mild, and chemical imbalance has been proven.
No im not an expert on adderall. big deal, its just a dumb stimulant...do i look like a tweaker to you?
As far as admiting im wrong, its something i do all the time much to peoples chargrin. I switch sides no problem, when im given a convincing argument, whereas most people argue merely for ego, i argue to determine the best beleif or truth. Its a libran thing. I happy to retract any statement or argument that is wrong.
The totality of what i was trying to say is the i dont think speed helps those who already help themselves. Its just for those who lack the wherewithall to apply themselves normally. I think thats a fair position. And it doesnt make you smarter, it just gives you motivation and persistance if you dont already possess these.
I dont want ppl to get the idea this is a "brainy" drug, and depend on it for school as i think thats largely not smart, and not really true. (although im sure a small percentage do fine using it for study, they prolly dont need it, theyre just being lazy).
[ 27 November 2002: Message edited by: Cimora ]
Science is clear on some topics, like logic tasks or memory basic, chemistry, basic physics. Just because the brain damage studies (and some use low doses, at least one relevent study that i remember) arent conclusive measures, and neither are preformance studies on habitual drug users, doesnt mean the risks cant be serious to occasional low-dose users. Common sense would suggest looking at these studies, that this could be the case. Or it could be harmless, but thats seems unlikely given that chemical imbalances caused by other drugs often manifest in _some_ fashion even if mild, and chemical imbalance has been proven.
No im not an expert on adderall. big deal, its just a dumb stimulant...do i look like a tweaker to you?
As far as admiting im wrong, its something i do all the time much to peoples chargrin. I switch sides no problem, when im given a convincing argument, whereas most people argue merely for ego, i argue to determine the best beleif or truth. Its a libran thing. I happy to retract any statement or argument that is wrong.
The totality of what i was trying to say is the i dont think speed helps those who already help themselves. Its just for those who lack the wherewithall to apply themselves normally. I think thats a fair position. And it doesnt make you smarter, it just gives you motivation and persistance if you dont already possess these.
I dont want ppl to get the idea this is a "brainy" drug, and depend on it for school as i think thats largely not smart, and not really true. (although im sure a small percentage do fine using it for study, they prolly dont need it, theyre just being lazy).
[ 27 November 2002: Message edited by: Cimora ]
Just one more little thing about the coffee amphetamine comparisons from Jon Ott's Pharmacotheon (taken from canabis culture article-sorry I couldn't get all of the references):
"Amphetamine vs caffeine
A key question in the safety of any substance is the amount and concentration of the dose taken, and the form of use. Amphetamines taken in moderate doses are a safe a reliable stimulant. It is only when large doses are repeatedly smoked or injected that health and psychological problems may occur.
In his massive, scholarly work Pharmacotheon, respected entheogenic researcher Jonathon Ott discusses the research comparing amphetamine to caffeine.
"Quite a bit of research has been conducted comparing caffeine with amphetamines," explains Ott, "and almost invariably, amphetamines turn out to be superior." He continues to explain that amphetamines improve reaction time and increase the steadiness of the hands, while caffeine does not improve reaction time, and actually impairs steadiness. He also quotes a summary of the caffeine/amphetamine comparison studies, which says that "at dose levels that clearly enhance performance, the amphetamines seem not only more effective than caffeine, but less costly in terms of side effects."
"I'd feel much safer if my pilot on an all-night flight had taken 10mg of methamphetamine before departing... instead of chain-smoking Marlboros and gulping execrable airline coffee all the way," conludes Ott, adding that "NASA, which has conducted research on optimizing performance of austronauts, settled on a NASA-developed 'prescription' containing amphetamines for the pilots of the space shuttle..."
Ott concludes that "the US Federal Aviation Administration is guilty of defaulting on its obligations to protect the safety of air travelers, by allowing the use by pilots of inferior stimulants which impair the steadiness of pilots' hands and degrade their night vision."
"
(also: The study "Dextroamphetamine enhances "neural network-specific" physiological signals" was the same one Fairnymph quoted, I just put up the rest of the abstract.")
"Amphetamine vs caffeine
A key question in the safety of any substance is the amount and concentration of the dose taken, and the form of use. Amphetamines taken in moderate doses are a safe a reliable stimulant. It is only when large doses are repeatedly smoked or injected that health and psychological problems may occur.
In his massive, scholarly work Pharmacotheon, respected entheogenic researcher Jonathon Ott discusses the research comparing amphetamine to caffeine.
"Quite a bit of research has been conducted comparing caffeine with amphetamines," explains Ott, "and almost invariably, amphetamines turn out to be superior." He continues to explain that amphetamines improve reaction time and increase the steadiness of the hands, while caffeine does not improve reaction time, and actually impairs steadiness. He also quotes a summary of the caffeine/amphetamine comparison studies, which says that "at dose levels that clearly enhance performance, the amphetamines seem not only more effective than caffeine, but less costly in terms of side effects."
"I'd feel much safer if my pilot on an all-night flight had taken 10mg of methamphetamine before departing... instead of chain-smoking Marlboros and gulping execrable airline coffee all the way," conludes Ott, adding that "NASA, which has conducted research on optimizing performance of austronauts, settled on a NASA-developed 'prescription' containing amphetamines for the pilots of the space shuttle..."
Ott concludes that "the US Federal Aviation Administration is guilty of defaulting on its obligations to protect the safety of air travelers, by allowing the use by pilots of inferior stimulants which impair the steadiness of pilots' hands and degrade their night vision."
"
(also: The study "Dextroamphetamine enhances "neural network-specific" physiological signals" was the same one Fairnymph quoted, I just put up the rest of the abstract.")