Nootropic Smoothie - Thoughts and Experiences Please!

[volatile]

I stumbled across the following recipe today for what is essentially a nootropic smoothie:

2 cups fresh blueberries
1 cup fresh blackberries
1 cup fresh rasberries
2 cups pure, fresh squeezed tangerine juice or orange juice (use tangerine if you can find it)
2 scoops Twinlab Veggie Fuel (vegetable protein conglomerate–not the soy-only)
2 scoops “perfect food” green food (Garden of Life is good)
4 tablespoons Twinlabs Choline Powder (NOT Choline Cocktail II)
200mg phenylpiracetam (powder)
2400mg piracetam (powder)
45mg vinpocetine (powder)
1 cup chopped ice

(From: Yttrx.net). As far as I can tell, all the ingredients are legal to possess (though one is banned by anti-doping bodies in sport), and have few toxic effects or associated problems. Nevertheless, the author gives warnings about the intake of the various 'active ingredients'. He describes this concoction as "about 1/10th the price of pure methamphetamine, without the bothersome physical addiction, facial pox and tell-tale toothlessness, and WITH about double the duration and three times the physical stamina and mental acuity, it’s two big glasses of afterburn."

After reading the Wiki entries on the supplements involved, particularly piracetam, I'm really tempted to try these - out of intellectual curiosity more than anything else, particularly as the whole area of nootropics and transhumanism fascinate me. I'm sceptical as to the potency and claimed effects, but it does seem that there have been validated double-blind trials on the chemicals involved which have suggested some quantitative benefit to mental processes.

Does anyone here have any experience with any of these specific compounds, or nootropics more generally? Is there any research I should be aware of which suggests that taking these things might not be so "super good for you" as this guy claims?

 

[calebprime]

I don't know anything about these drugs, but from what the Wiki said, 45 mg. of vinpocetine is a lot.

So I wouldn't glug this down for starters.

Nibble a little of these things first, and see if you have adverse reactions.

Fascinating stuff, though.

Please let us know.

Maybe you'd be super-intelligent for 3 weeks, and then you'd turn into...The Fly...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs0fGt_Gzbk

 

[volatile]

I don't know anything about these drugs, but from what the Wiki said, 45 mg. of vinpocetine is a lot.

So I wouldn't glug this down for starters.

Nibble a little of these things first, and see if you have adverse reactions.

Fascinating stuff, though.

Please let us know.

Maybe you'd be super-intelligent for 3 weeks, and then you'd turn into...The Fly...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs0fGt_Gzbk

Yes, the dosage of Vinpocetine is a little odd given the wiki info and associated caution of doses over 5mg. You obviously have to work up to these kinds if doses, but the author does say that quite clearly anyway.

If I can get the ingredients easily (and it seems that, with the exception of phenylpiracetam, they're all available off-the-shelf from high-street health food stores) then I'm tempted to venture towards trying these for a month or so, to see what happens. I'm a PhD student, so any increase in brain power is to be welcomed!

 

[Graham Jackman]

Caution

Despite many years as a clinical pharmacologist(possibly because of it), I am still very reluctant to use any medication without good reason. The newer the drug and the weaker the evidence, the less likely it is that I will take it. I always think that a good rule of thumb is to wait for at least a few years to see what the long term outcomes are. Brains are unreliable enough, without subjecting them to treatment without a very good reason

 

[volatile]

Despite many years as a clinical pharmacologist(possibly because of it), I am still very reluctant to use any medication without good reason. The newer the drug and the weaker the evidence, the less likely it is that I will take it. I always think that a good rule of thumb is to wait for at least a few years to see what the long term outcomes are. Brains are unreliable enough, without subjecting them to treatment without a very good reason

That's sage advice, Graham, thank you. I understand your reticence - is there anything more specific on these compounds that you've come across in your professional capacity?

I think you bring up and interesting philosophical point in your first sentence; indeed, it's one that people like Carl Elliott have discussed at length. Is "because we want to be 'better than well'" a good enough reason to engage with these types of technologies?

There's no clear answer to that question, and medical ethicists make convincing arguments for both caution and freedom. I think what you were getting at was that unless these were necessary to treat an underlying medical condition, there wasn't enough reason to take them. Personally, I'm fascinated by transfuturism and techno-utopianism, and I think that if these drugs do enhance cognitive function and that the side-effects are minimal, "because it's interesting" is a "good reason".

 

[Verde]

the whole area of nootropics and transhumanism fascinate me.

I'm fascinated by transfuturism and techno-utopianism,

Maybe it's just a function of my oldness, but none of these terms mean anything to me. Are you just playing with us? If not, I suspect you are a bloody loony.

I'm a PhD student, so any increase in brain power is to be welcomed!

That's scary. Not in any technical field, I hope.

V.

 

[volatile]

Maybe it's just a function of my oldness, but none of these terms mean anything to me. Are you just playing with us? If not, I suspect you are a bloody loony.

Errrm, what? I'm certainly not a "loony", thank you every much. There is lots and lots of literature - both technological and philosophical - on the issue of man's use of technology to better himself beyond biological limits - and just because you haven't heard of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Is it so hard to use Google or Wikipedia or Amazon before resorting to insults?

Just for starters:

Wikipedia on Nootropics
World Transhumanist Organsiation
Wikipedia on Transhumansim
'Better than Well' by Dr. Carl Elliott.

As for "techno-utopianism", this is a term used (often pejoratively) to describe the work of people like Ray Kurzweil, who believe that the future of human evolution will be partly or entirely mediated by our technological capacity, and that the solution to many of the world's problems lies in our technological audacity. "Technofuturism" is similar (excuse me saying "transfuturism" - it's 3am and I conflated "transhumanism" and "technofuturism"), and refers to the ever-increasing and ever more intimate role technology plays in our lives.

My PhD's (partly) on the philosophy of the interaction between bodies and technologies. Why is that "scary"?

 

[Verde]

Errrm, what? I'm certainly not a "loony", thank you every much. There is lots and lots of literature - both technological and philosophical - on the issue of man's use of technology to better himself beyond biological limits - and just because you haven't heard of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Is it so hard to use Google or Wikipedia or Amazon before resorting to insults?

I'm sorry if you found it insulting. In my culture, the phrase 'bloody loony' is a term of endearment.

I did actually hunt around, before I posted, for more information on the phrases you used, and frankly all I saw was a bunch of woo-type nonsense. Perhaps there is something of substance there, but it seems to be hidden under a blanket of silly stuff.

As for "techno-utopianism", this is a term used (often pejoratively) to describe the work of people like Ray Kurzweil, who believe that the future of human evolution will be partly or entirely mediated by our technological capacity, and that the solution to many of the world's problems lies in our technological audacity. "Technofuturism" is similar (excuse me saying "transfuturism" - it's 3am and I conflated "transhumanism" and "technofuturism"), and refers to the ever-increasing and ever more intimate role technology plays in our lives.

I have read some of Kurzweil's work, and find his ideas interesting. However, I don't recall him advocating the ingestion of mind altering substances as a way to advance this facet of science.

My PhD's (partly) on the philosophy of the interaction between bodies and technologies. Why is that "scary"?

Again, my response was intended to be a bit tongue-in-cheek, but as a control engineer working in big industrial plants I have seen quite a number of holders of advanced foo-foo degrees that should not be allowed anywhere near moving machinery.

V.

 

[Graham Jackman]

That's sage advice, Graham, thank you. I understand your reticence - is there anything more specific on these compounds that you've come across in your professional capacity?

I think you bring up and interesting philosophical point in your first sentence; indeed, it's one that people like Carl Elliott have discussed at length. Is "because we want to be 'better than well'" a good enough reason to engage with these types of technologies?

There's no clear answer to that question, and medical ethicists make convincing arguments for both caution and freedom. I think what you were getting at was that unless these were necessary to treat an underlying medical condition, there wasn't enough reason to take them. Personally, I'm fascinated by transfuturism and techno-utopianism, and I think that if these drugs do enhance cognitive function and that the side-effects are minimal, "because it's interesting" is a "good reason".

I don't have anything specific on these compounds and there doesn't seem to be any hard evidence. To quote Woody Allen; "The brain! That's my second favourite organ". Mine seems to be working just fine, allowing for the effect of advancing years, and as it's the only one I'm likely to have, I don't intend to take unnecessary risks with it.

 

[PixyMisa]

Blueberries and tangerine juice? Sounds revolting.

 

[Jeff Corey]

My PhD's (partly) on the philosophy of the interaction between bodies and technologies. Why is that "scary"?

"The philosophical implications of Robocop and Dr. Frankenstein's Monster: Questions of free will and some other stuff"?

 

[volatile]

"The philosophical implications of Robocop and Dr. Frankenstein's Monster: Questions of free will and some other stuff"?

That's brilliant! I might just use that...

 

[volatile]

I'm sorry if you found it insulting. In my culture, the phrase 'bloody loony' is a term of endearment.

I never want to visit wherever it is you're from!

I did actually hunt around, before I posted, for more information on the phrases you used, and frankly all I saw was a bunch of woo-type nonsense. Perhaps there is something of substance there, but it seems to be hidden under a blanket of silly stuff.

I'm sure you could say the same of quantum mechanics, couldn't you? The umbrella of transhumansim is pretty large, and there are some lunatics on the fringe (the Raelians call themselves transhumanist). But by and large it's a legitimate area of technological and sociological interest encompassing biology, chemistry and engineering as well as politics, ethics and philosophy.

I have read some of Kurzweil's work, and find his ideas interesting. However, I don't recall him advocating the ingestion of mind altering substances as a way to advance this facet of science.

He didn't, that's true. But the issue of nootropics fits into the same general area of interest - using technology to improve ourselves, to push the limits of what the body can do. Yes, we might not "need" to improve our cognitive functions, but why shouldn't we? And what would the world be like if more people did push these limits? There are plenty of things we do to ourselves that aren't necessary but which provide functional or aesthetic change. And the fact is, as our technological audacity increases, the more these types of things will be of interest. This isn't "woo". It's a serious question of science and it's sociological consequences.

There are all kinds of political, ethical and just downright interesting questions in this field, and to dismiss them out of hand is churlish.

Again, my response was intended to be a bit tongue-in-cheek, but as a control engineer working in big industrial plants I have seen quite a number of holders of advanced foo-foo degrees that should not be allowed anywhere near moving machinery.

I don't pretend to understand how to operate industrial plants (though before I started my PhD I used to work in the automotive industry sourcing special tools and OEM spares for production lines). That said, I'm not rude about people who do. Perhaps you might extend the same courtesy to others?

 

[volatile]

Blueberries and tangerine juice? Sounds revolting.

Indeed. I can't imagine this tastes too pleasant...

 

[volatile]

I don't have anything specific on these compounds and there doesn't seem to be any hard evidence. To quote Woody Allen; "The brain! That's my second favourite organ". Mine seems to be working just fine, allowing for the effect of advancing years, and as it's the only one I'm likely to have, I don't intend to take unnecessary risks with it.

Fair enough. I can appreciate that. I'm just trying to gauge risk levels here, partly. Is it naive of me to assume that seeing as these compounds are sold in health food stores and have been cleared by ethical boards to be used in clinical trials that they're not outright dangerous- that is to say, they're not toxic or likely to kill me, at least in the short term?

 

[volatile]

More from this guy's blog. He certainly seems to have done his research, but I'd still appreciate the input if anyone knows more about these specific drugs...

The effect has to do with the ingredients themselves, and an interaction between two. The fruits and juice give a sharp sugar peak, which begins its decline as the protein, choline and nootropics begin to take effect. The protein converts the drink into a pretty good meal replacement and supplies fuel for muscle retention and recovery. The choline provides “fuel” for the piracetam and phenylpiracetam to consume, otherwise they’ll deplete levels of choline that is constructed from a natural diet and is difficult to replace quickly. The phenylpiracetam is a unique nootropic in that along with its very strong cognitive enhancing qualities, it provides heightened strength, stamina and dexterity, though the mechanism behind this effect isn’t completely understood. The piracetam is a mainstream nootropic, the most common and safest of the ‘racetams, and also the weakest by weight—though when combined with phenylpiracetam, the effects of both are enhanced.

 

[NeilC]

If you want concentration, energy and memory I'd recommend modafinil. That hands-down definately works. It's not illegal in the UK, dunno about the USA.

For lots of discussion on piracetam etc check out this place and it's forums: http://www.imminst.org/

 

[IMST]

2 cups fresh blueberries
1 cup fresh blackberries
1 cup fresh rasberries
2 cups pure, fresh squeezed tangerine juice or orange juice (use tangerine if you can find it)
1 cup chopped ice

worth a try

2 scoops Twinlab Veggie Fuel (vegetable protein conglomerate–not the soy-only)
2 scoops “perfect food” green food (Garden of Life is good)
4 tablespoons Twinlabs Choline Powder (NOT Choline Cocktail II)
200mg phenylpiracetam (powder)
2400mg piracetam (powder)
45mg vinpocetine (powder)

None for me, thanks.

 

[volatile]

If you want concentration, energy and memory I'd recommend modafinil. That hands-down definately works. It's not illegal in the UK, dunno about the USA.

It might not be illegal but it seems like it's really, really expensive. Over $1,000 a kg?! No thanks!

That said, do you know any legal, cheap and reliable UK sources?

 

[Graham Jackman]

Risk

Fair enough. I can appreciate that. I'm just trying to gauge risk levels here, partly. Is it naive of me to assume that seeing as these compounds are sold in health food stores and have been cleared by ethical boards to be used in clinical trials that they're not outright dangerous- that is to say, they're not toxic or likely to kill me, at least in the short term?

Short term, probably not. However, are you only planning to live a few more years. If so, it hardly seems worth the effort of improving your memory. Personally, I concentrate less on gross memory and more on understanding what I need to know. In that way, I can derive what I need in short order and as Iuse the ideas more the overall knowledge improves.
Ethics committees are not standardised and can only act on what information they are given and what their background knowledge is. At least in a clinical trial, there should be medical supervision. In the privacy of your own home, there's no-one to effectively manage adverse reactions.