Comment · Tue, June 18, 2013 · Ceretropic
Tolerance and Nootropics: Opinions?
Original post in this thread
23423564613 · 20 points
I've noticed a lack of discussion surrounded tolerance. While reaching primary cognitive ability is of primary concern to me, it is also vitally important to avoid tolerance and adaptation.
The human body is exceptional at maintaining chemical equilibrium. Caffeine (up-regulation of adenosine receptors) is perhaps the most cited case, but it is naive to believe the body does not react similarly to unnatural levels of other chemical compounds.
For me, having to dose myself to reach a baseline, normal cognitive state--or do avoid debilitating withdrawal effects--is an serious long-term concern.
Personally, I feel like this aspect of supplementation is often brushed aside, but is perhaps the most paramount attribute--we are attempting to improve upon human physiology, and trading a long-term decrease in energy or anything else for short bursts is more hacky-reallocation and actually a net-negative.
The body is so well-optimized that one could argue against all supplementation. I do believe intelligent supplementation can be a net-positive, but only because the demands and conditions of industrialized life are very different from what our body has been optimized for.
Thoughts?
What they were answering
Direct reply to the original post — see the thread post above.
u/MisterYouAreSoDumb · Ceretropic
That is the whole point behind the nootropic moniker, and adaptogens. They do not lead to tolerance, or significant down-regulation. However, most people don't use the terms properly. True nootropics should improve upon your body's natural processes, without causing tolerance or adverse structural changes.