• Neuroscience & Pharmacology Discussion Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Recent Journal Articles Chemistry Mega-Thread
    FREE Chemistry Databases! Self-Education Guide

  • N&PD Moderators: Skorpio

Permanent Drugs/Nootropics

Oddeye

Oddeye

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 19, 2006
Messages
52
I was simply guessing that it is possible to increase the number of a given receptor in order obtain a better mood. (I'm also guessing it's really hard)

I've had many reads about drugs that induced neurogenesis. I think SSRI, CB-1 agonist and some others. I never found any drugs perfect because none can increase permanently your mood or have (rather subtle) long term effect. I'm of course not looking to be on LSD 100% of the time (that could be cool tho ;) )

Well discuss Neurogenesis/Long term drugs/Nootropics

Any info is appreciated
 
Good discussion topic.

I wonder whether neurogensis is even that unique to antidepressants. Possibly it happens more than we realise when any receptor system is targeted. (?)

In terms of IQ (or long term nootropic effect) I would tend to believe motivation is more important rather than trying to increase cognition. How many times have you not learn't something simply because of lazyness? Compare that to how often you have given up learning something because of cognitive abilities? I know its not as simple to define as that but I would still suggest - motivation is more important.

However even if you accept motivation is the key its hard to increase motivation without bringing in other complications. For example stimulants are great for motivation but they bring there own potential problems - neurotoxicty, possible increase in neurodegenerative disorders. (most of the time no one knows)

In fact there is the main problems with nootropics - no one really knows the long term effects. Pharmaceutical companies are great at extrapolating past the known end point of results.
 
Last edited:
Random note- I remember reading an interview with Nichols about the potential of entering academia to do psychedelic research. He mentioned his son doing genetic analysis and mapping how the genes of Drosophila change with a single LSD exposure.
I like to think that LSD is a catalyst for changes after the experience, genetic or not.
On topic, you're looking at the holy grail of neuroscience. If we could continuously grow cells, cures for diseases like parkinsons and others would be fairly trivial.
Short of sucking on stem cells ala Chrisopher Reeve in South Park, I think it is a long way off.
 
kidamnesiac said:
Random note- I remember reading an interview with Nichols about the potential of entering academia to do psychedelic research. He mentioned his son doing genetic analysis and mapping how the genes of Drosophila change with a single LSD exposure.
I like to think that LSD is a catalyst for changes after the experience, genetic or not.
On topic, you're looking at the holy grail of neuroscience. If we could continuously grow cells, cures for diseases like parkinsons and others would be fairly trivial.
Short of sucking on stem cells ala Chrisopher Reeve in South Park, I think it is a long way off.
Click to expand...

Yes I understand what you are saying, but it's possible to increase the rate of growing neurons. It would also be possible(I guess) to increase the number of receptor in the brain.
 
Reminiscent B said:
In fact there is the main problems with nootropics - no one really knows the long term effects. Pharmaceutical companies are great at extrapolating past the known end point of results.
Click to expand...

The oldest nootropics, particularly piracetam and hydergine, have been being studied for about 50 years now, I believe. I guess I'm unclear as to whether they have done any long-term studies or not, though.
 
^ I agree

However correct me if I am wrong but piracetam would have initially been tested on healthy controls (short term), unhealthy people(short term) or mostly old people (long term or until they die).

It wouldn't have studies to compare healthy 20/30 years olds taking piracetam every day for say 20 years or until they die. In fact would they even have a study over ten years in length?

It just costs too much, especially when any pharmaceutical is only patent for 20/25years.

Meta-analysis helps but it is still extrapolation.
 
That is true, I am quite disapointed by by racetam it's not really that great. But I actually think it would be possible to increase the number of receptor, is that true? Is there any drugs that does so?
 
Hmm, I love piracteam personally. It's very subtle but at the same time very useful and strong. I'm equally as excited by its apparent neuroprotective and optimizing effects.
 
I can vouch for piracetam. I find myself very (extremely) interested in words, in a very good way.
 
Oddeye said:
That is true, I am quite disapointed by by racetam it's not really that great. But I actually think it would be possible to increase the number of receptor, is that true? Is there any drugs that does so?
Click to expand...
how öany have you tried
an ani and lefi stack is supposed to be awesome
piracetam is known to be subtle i would go for the potent ones


but anywhay the thing i am looking for is to stop desentisation of receptors so no tolerance to any drug and i think i found some interesting stuff
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top