Comment · Tue, December 20, 2022 · ND Owner
Cognance: waste of money
Original post in this thread
Neurogence · 33 points
I had taken a break from all nootropics for about two years or so. Recently I got back into dabbling, and saw quite a few positive posts on cognance. So I decided to try it out. I've been taking it for about two weeks now with no noticeable results. I tried to increase it to 200mg but still not noticing anything.
Originally, I had stopped taking mostly all nootropics due to lack of effects. I'm afraid all these new substances also have very negligible effects. I've tried hundreds of nootropics. The substance I've benefitted from the most is aniracetam, but I don't know where to find it these days.
How are you all experiencing positive and even "tangible" effects from substances like cognance? Is this all placebo? I don't buy the idea that everyone's biology is different. Substances that are effective have an effect on mostly everyone (example, caffeine). Whether positive or negative, you will feel something from caffeine. But most of the nootropics out there I barely feel anything from them. At this point I don't know what the difference is between something like cognance and a sugar pill.
What they were answering
alainneedle1 · 8 points
All of this make sense BUT serious large scale controlled research on a specific product have to be conducted on human, and not animals, to make any determination good or bad on a specific product for human consumption, too many health supplement companies may/will state some research benefits that may happened from a specific product and at the same time will omit to say that the benefit in question was found by doing such research on rats.
Yes, a product MAY have beneficial effects on a specific individual/human like Inflammation, Oxidation, Cardiovascular, & Memory Support that we see advertised on the bottle but what about detrimental effect, I don't see them written on the bottle like "May cause high blood pressure".
How can one conclude that a product has only beneficial and no detrimental effect on himself or the other way around without systematic testing like blood testing for specific markers like the liver, heart or kidney every lets say 4 weeks, there is a reason why this disclaimer below is on every Nootropic or any other supplement manufacturer product right?
DISCLAIMER: Always consult with a qualified health physician before taking any new dietary supplement. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any diseases. These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.
Now don't get…
u/MisterYouAreSoDumb · ND Owner
Even large scale placebo-controlled research on humans only pertains to the individuals in the sample. That doesn't preclude you individually from getting a side effect from that very same compound that didn't show up in the study. Every doctor in the world will tell you that you have to try out a medication yourself before you know how you personally will react to it. Also, almost every human clinical study ever done is on a single thing. You don't see stack studies out there assessing large combos of things together. At most you see limited studies on combos of 2-3 things, max. So how would one have an idea how they are going to react to a combo of things together based on the research alone? How would one know their diet is not causing them side effects without regular blood work? Even then, blood work is just a limited snapshot. It's not the end all and be all of effects. You can't reliably measure neurotransmitters in the brain with a blood test. Sometimes self-reporting is the best tool we have available to judge if something works. Hand waving away every single anecdote because you don't have a large scale direct data on it is just as silly as taking all the anecdotes you read as absolute fact. Again, it's not 100% one or the other. You need some nuance.
How can one conclude that a product has only beneficial and no detrimental effect on himself or the other way around without systematic testing like blood testing for specific markers like the liver, heart or kidney every lets say 4 weeks, there is a reason why this disclaimer below is on every Nootropic or any other supplement manufacturer product right?
You literally can't without trying things yourself, just like you can't know how eating watermelon will affect you until you eat some. How can anyone conclude that eating watermelon will only be beneficial to them, and have no detrimental effect on himself? Does one need to have regular blood testing after every change in their diet, or can people be expected to self-assess their responses, then address it with further testing if they notice something significant? Expecting that everything you add into your life will have direct large scale research for your specific case is just impractical.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not writing this to bash Nootropic or any other health supplement company but lets all be serious here, anecdotal experience is not conclusive in any way, shape or form and will always be and stay inconclusive.
No evidence is 100% conclusive in any way. It's just another piece of the puzzle. A single large scale placebo controlled human study on something is also not conclusive. It's just another data set to try to push our understanding forward. Even then, it doesn't mean it is applicable to you as an individual. I'm not sure of the significance of all the bolding you did of random words above. However, even you recently made the argument that sometimes we have to make decisions based on the anecdotes we have available.
https://www.reddit.com/r/NootropicsDepot/comments/yyovr5/update_on_ecdysteronetongkat_ali/ixckr0y/
I did not find any studies on the dosage impact of moonshine to the human body but I've read a lot of anecdotal stories of peoples drinking it to be able to evaluate the impact on them, good or bad, so I can make an educated decision as to why I should or should not drink it.
If all anecdotes are bullshit, how can this statement of yours be rectified with your quest for only making decisions based off large scale clinical research? Are you just picking and choosing when the argument suits you, or am I genuinely missing something here? Sometimes we have to use the data we have available to make decisions, then try things out ourselves to really see how we as individuals respond to something. Sometimes human clinical data on the specific thing we are taking doesn't exist yet. Tongkat ali was used for hundreds of years before modern clinical studies were run. Lion's mane mushroom was used for thousands of years in traditional Chinese medicine, long before modern science existed.