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
norepinephrinex · 1 points
Thanks, well-appreciated.
u/MisterYouAreSoDumb · Ceretropic
Sorry, I just reread your comment, and I took it the wrong way. I read "haven't" as "have."
I was stating that there are no real US-based studies that deal with nootropics in healthy people. That was more hyperbole than anything, since there are a few of them out there. However, Russia does seem to do more healthy population studies, since they do not have the same patent system and FDA that we do. Also, it is becoming more common to see healthy population studies in recent years.
So there are studies that deal with nootropics in healthy humans. They are just more recent, and far less common than studies attempting to treat a disease. I don't want to perpetuate a fallacy that there are no healthy human studies.
There is also the issue of poor study design, but that is a whole other discussion.