Comment · Thu, July 10, 2014 · Ceretropic
Nootropics mostly suck
Original post in this thread
AoE-Priest · 7 points
I'm by no means an expert in the area, but most of the research I've seen so far is done on old, demented stroked out grannies or done on rats. There is not much that is done on young, healthy people. The studies done on the young don't have the most robust methodologies either. And the studies tend to be inconsistent and show very modest effect sizes. Which if you've spent any time doing science you know it means most like the effect is BS and likely due to publication biases. The only things with convincing evidence seem to be caffeine, modafinil, and long-term use of bacopa. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, I will concede that.
Then there's the fact that nootropics, by their very nature, have a very robust placebo effect. So we can pretty much disregard all anecdotal reports that we see here. That leaves us with practically nothing to go on. Just venting, not trolling.
What they were answering
Direct reply to the original post — see the thread post above.
u/MisterYouAreSoDumb · Ceretropic
Expectations are never going to meet reality, the vast majority of the time. People need to really come at this from a curiosity and education standpoint.
That being said, grouping all nootropics together does them a disservice. Many nootropics do not meet people's expectations, but some exceed them. Just because there is very little evidence for something like coluracetam, does not mean that every nootropic is devoid of evidence. I'm getting pretty damn good placebo effects from rhodiola, SEMAX, tianeptine, memantine, etc.