Nicotine Normalizes Brain Activity Deficits That Are Key to Schizophrenia(neurosciencenews.com)
neurosciencenews.com
Nicotine Normalizes Brain Activity Deficits That Are Key to Schizophrenia
http://neurosciencenews.com/schizophrenia-nicotine-brain-activity-5995/
245 comments
For anyone interested in continued reading, I highly suggest the prolific Gwern[0] and his compendium on nootropic dosing[1], and specifically nicotine[2] as it related to the post above.
-
[Scoping urls for ease]
0. https://www.gwern.net/
1. https://www.gwern.net/Nootropics
2. https://www.gwern.net/Nootropics#nicotine-gum
-
[Scoping urls for ease]
0. https://www.gwern.net/
1. https://www.gwern.net/Nootropics
2. https://www.gwern.net/Nootropics#nicotine-gum
Take-away from that is to look up the literature /before/ carrying out the self-experimentation. It could have saved the nasty experience with the retina cyst which sounds very nasty.
I guess we normally only get to hear of the self-experiments with great results and advances for science and medicine. The not-so-good results can tend to get buried both figuratively and literally.
Hope you're fully recovered.
I guess we normally only get to hear of the self-experiments with great results and advances for science and medicine. The not-so-good results can tend to get buried both figuratively and literally.
Hope you're fully recovered.
At the same time, I would not restrict what a grown rational and self-aware human (emphasize rational and self-aware) is and isn't allowed to do with themselves. See biohackers, attempts at cyborg conversion, and Dallas Buyers Club. I don't recommend it. But whatever, they are individual agents. Of course, if they're actively promoting misinformation, especially that which affects people negatively, as Ron Woodroof apparently did with AIDS drugs, that's another story....
I'm sure someone who's never exercised before could die of cardiac arrest as soon as they step on a treadmill.
I think it's slightly disingenuous to suggest that one should never take risks because there are possible downsides.
Nicotine exists in tomatoes, potatoes, etc. Should I remove these from my diet because they contain nicotine, which might possibly cause a cyst in my retina? Surely, we would both agree that argument is nonsensical.
I think it's slightly disingenuous to suggest that one should never take risks because there are possible downsides.
Nicotine exists in tomatoes, potatoes, etc. Should I remove these from my diet because they contain nicotine, which might possibly cause a cyst in my retina? Surely, we would both agree that argument is nonsensical.
> Surely, we would both agree that argument is nonsensical.
It's nonsensical because the dose of nicotine in either is basically zero, unless you're eating pounds of raw tomato leaves.
It's nonsensical because the dose of nicotine in either is basically zero, unless you're eating pounds of raw tomato leaves.
Lots of unhealthy or actually poisonous chemicals exists in your tomatoes, but in very low levels... dosage is what makes the difference...
>The real problem would happen if I was under stress, my BP would spike to dangerous levels when it never had done before. I also felt that I would get stressed more easily.
That's pretty characteristic of out-of-control blood pressure.
That's pretty characteristic of out-of-control blood pressure.
Have a doctor prescribe you a battery of kidney tests as this is one of the first organs damaged by high blood pressure.
How many of those 2mg nicotine gums did you chew during a day? I am asking because the stimulating effects appear to exist during microdosing of nicotine, e.g. 1mg for those who have not been exposed to nicotine before.
Not GP but as someone who's never smoked, 2mg is quite a bit and I've rarely found myself taking more than one per day (after lunch), pretty much never more than two. I've never found a gum that was less than 2mg though (I've only seen 2mg and 4mg). I did it for a few years, completely stopped when I had access to nap rooms at work since I didn't have to push through that post-lunch crash anymore.
Nicotine also accelerates cancer growth. Specifically, nicotinic acetylcholine receptor overstimulation is associated with growth and metastasis of pancreatic cancer [1]. Thus, I'd say that nicotine is unhealthy for long-term chronic use. Caffeine, on the other hand, has shown long-term health benefits in studies.[2]
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26264026
[2] http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/16/14285210/coffee-caffeine-i...
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26264026
[2] http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/16/14285210/coffee-caffeine-i...
Note that this risk is likely considerably smaller for nicotine gum and patch users [1], though:
>Indeed, although ST studies indicate that ST increases the risk of oral cavity and pancreatic cancer, at least for some forms of ST (9–11), both are substantially less than the risk of these cancers from smoking (11, 12). The former risk seems to be a consequence of exposure to tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNA) because in Sweden, where ST products are produced in a way to substantially reduce TSNAs, the risk of oral cavity cancer does not seem to be increased (11).
>Still, it should be noted that the risk of pancreatic cancer from low-TSNA tobacco is substantially lower than from smoking, and so this comparison adds reassurance for the long-term safety of NRT.
>A smoking cessation study by Stepanov and colleagues, however, showed that NNK metabolites were not detectable in persons using NRT (34, 35). However, they did find intermittently high levels of NNN similar to baseline smoking levels among some oral NRT users and in 1 of 9 persons using the NRT patch (36). Although these data indicate a potential cancer risk to NRT users, especially oral users, it is important to realize that NNN is only one of the TSNAs in cigarette smoke, let alone of the many other tobacco smoke carcinogens, and so in this context the risk, if any, seems small compared with continued smoking.
[1] http://cancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org/content/4/1...
>Indeed, although ST studies indicate that ST increases the risk of oral cavity and pancreatic cancer, at least for some forms of ST (9–11), both are substantially less than the risk of these cancers from smoking (11, 12). The former risk seems to be a consequence of exposure to tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNA) because in Sweden, where ST products are produced in a way to substantially reduce TSNAs, the risk of oral cavity cancer does not seem to be increased (11).
>Still, it should be noted that the risk of pancreatic cancer from low-TSNA tobacco is substantially lower than from smoking, and so this comparison adds reassurance for the long-term safety of NRT.
>A smoking cessation study by Stepanov and colleagues, however, showed that NNK metabolites were not detectable in persons using NRT (34, 35). However, they did find intermittently high levels of NNN similar to baseline smoking levels among some oral NRT users and in 1 of 9 persons using the NRT patch (36). Although these data indicate a potential cancer risk to NRT users, especially oral users, it is important to realize that NNN is only one of the TSNAs in cigarette smoke, let alone of the many other tobacco smoke carcinogens, and so in this context the risk, if any, seems small compared with continued smoking.
[1] http://cancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org/content/4/1...
Nicotine also triggers a spike in blood sugar, which isn’t great for pancreatic health either.
Smoking is my "afterburner" - the ace in the hole. I love the smell of smoke - better if mixed with chocolate and coffee - but I have asthma and it comes back if I smoke more than two days in a row. So I keep this treat for the moments that I need to overcome some extra mental challenge, work all night long, etc. Or, sometimes, to get a "high". Before anyone asks, I do it very infrequently - thrice a year at the most.
And this is why vaping should be banned in enclosed public spaces, especially offices.
I'm completely against the rudeness of vaping in the situations you describe, but studies (easy google search with many results) show that second hand vapor is harmless.
I added this link to another comment, but I'll link it here as well.
http://notblowingsmoke.org/
I added this link to another comment, but I'll link it here as well.
http://notblowingsmoke.org/
I think it's just a bit rude. You can take a time out and do it somewhere where other people don't have to smell your latest strawberry liquid. I vape, smoke and do snus.. Not st the same time.
Remember when second-hand smoke was harmless?
Because someone who chewed nicotine gum got a cyst we should ban vaping in offices? I'm not sure I follow.
People shouldn't vape in offices for the same reason they shouldn't pass gas. It smells and it's rude.
Nicotine is odorless, as are propylene glycol and glycerin (the other components of the liquid).
Many liquids do have flavor components added, but odor is not an inherent part of vaping.
Many liquids do have flavor components added, but odor is not an inherent part of vaping.
If I were picking an analogy for the office, making popcorn in a small office space on a regular basis, would be it. The smell will linger for hours and it covers a wide area.
Are you under the impression that it's possible to not pass gas? I mean, it can be pretty unpleasant, yeah, but I can't actually shut down my digestive system on command.
I have the ability to make my way to the restroom prior to passing gas.
Do you have the ability to be a productive human being while visiting the bathroom every 5-10 minutes, depending on how your digestion is doing that day? Maybe you only fart three times a day, that's great for you, but it really doesn't work that way for many people.
This reminds me of a guy who thought that it was rude when people sneezed loudly...
This reminds me of a guy who thought that it was rude when people sneezed loudly...
More room on the outside compared to the inside...
Why not just get more, higher quality sleep? It provides all of the upsides that you mention with no downsides.
You make it sound as though sleep quality were something everyone has control over, which is not at all the case.
Actually, most people could get more sleep of they chose to. Or at least they could get more rest. Stop watching shows and movies, put down your phone, close your eyes, shut up and sleep.
"Most people" being defined as those without physiological nor psychological effects on their quality of sleep, I presume.
Not parent, but nothing I have tried improves my sleep. Baseline is just bad. Exercise, meditation, alarms – nothing works. The only thing that raised the baseline was quitting caffeine.
The thing that finally worked for me was blackout curtains in my room. I didn't realize just how much the incoming light from outside my window was affecting my sleep. In pitch black darkness, I'm out like a light and have the deepest sleep imaginable. (It's so effective that I have to set an alarm to wake myself up, otherwise I'll stay asleep for 10-12 hours)
I'm able to replicate this somewhat using a sleeping mask, but I find most of them pretty uncomfortable; I like to sleep on my side, and that doesn't work terribly well when something's on my face.
Full disclosure here of course, I work an evening shift (12pm-11pm) so I'm used to going to sleep much later in the evening. Even still, I often found difficulty falling asleep due to light bleed from the lights around my apartment, and I feel like this contributed to my sleeping issues more than the sunlight in the morning, which my body's clock seems to have adjusted to on its own. (I still naturally wake up around 10-11am even without blackout curtains.)
I'm able to replicate this somewhat using a sleeping mask, but I find most of them pretty uncomfortable; I like to sleep on my side, and that doesn't work terribly well when something's on my face.
Full disclosure here of course, I work an evening shift (12pm-11pm) so I'm used to going to sleep much later in the evening. Even still, I often found difficulty falling asleep due to light bleed from the lights around my apartment, and I feel like this contributed to my sleeping issues more than the sunlight in the morning, which my body's clock seems to have adjusted to on its own. (I still naturally wake up around 10-11am even without blackout curtains.)
>In pitch black darkness, I'm out like a light and have the deepest sleep imaginable. (It's so effective that I have to set an alarm to wake myself up, otherwise I'll stay asleep for 10-12 hours)
This could be a sign you're not getting much restful sleep and that you may need those 10 - 12 hours to pay back sleep debt.
This could be a sign you're not getting much restful sleep and that you may need those 10 - 12 hours to pay back sleep debt.
That 80's show married with children have an episode where the kids instantly go to sleep if someone puts a cloth over their eyes. I've been using that with great success on myself for more than a decade now :)
Hey, thanks. After bloviating that I've tried everything--you made me a liar. I do need to try that.
I grew up in a house that had the massively thick kind of exterior blinds everywhere, the ones that really make your room pitch dark ("Außenrolläden" in my native language). After moving out from my parent's house I have lived in several places, but often in older buildings without decent blinds. I didn't realize the influence this may have had on me before a temporary room mate pointed out that the room is far too bright for her at night.
Sleeping masks did not help me too, so I got thick blackout curtains for my next flat, and the first effect was that I suddenly had vivid dreams again regularly, which I only had occasionally in the years before. I am considerably more alert during the day now. In retrospect I indeed must have felt constantly slightly tired for years during the day, after sleeping in such rooms.
It is possibly dangerous to sleep in even slightly light rooms. The lowered levels of melatonin are correlated to several bad illnesses (just look it up). I push my SO who still sleeps in a too bright apartment to regularly wear his sleeping mask at least, but people who have never slept in really dark rooms for prolonged time may simply not have the experience points here.
Sleeping masks did not help me too, so I got thick blackout curtains for my next flat, and the first effect was that I suddenly had vivid dreams again regularly, which I only had occasionally in the years before. I am considerably more alert during the day now. In retrospect I indeed must have felt constantly slightly tired for years during the day, after sleeping in such rooms.
It is possibly dangerous to sleep in even slightly light rooms. The lowered levels of melatonin are correlated to several bad illnesses (just look it up). I push my SO who still sleeps in a too bright apartment to regularly wear his sleeping mask at least, but people who have never slept in really dark rooms for prolonged time may simply not have the experience points here.
Mine did as well. I absolutely loved them. When I was having our house built in America I tried everything I knew to get them built in. Apparently they are a fire hazard(1) here and so are not permitted by code.
(1) Then again, the house I lived in that had them was nearly 100% concrete as most houses in Germany were. American houses, not so much. Sure would be useful here in Florida come hurricane season though.
(1) Then again, the house I lived in that had them was nearly 100% concrete as most houses in Germany were. American houses, not so much. Sure would be useful here in Florida come hurricane season though.
Light hitting the skin also affects melatonin levels, so just using a sleeping mask isn't a full solution.
Have you tried reducing carb intake? Particularly in the later part of the day. I've gone "keto" 3 times for about 6 months each, and my sleep is always excellent during those periods. When I looked into it I found that elevated insulin levels throughout the night can disrupt sleep.
Yes. Totally did not work, but I genuinely appreciate the suggestion
I understand completely. I have a sleep disorder where most of my sleep is as it should be, but when I enter REM, I "wake up" throughout the REM portion of the sleep cycle. The end result is I get very little REM sleep leaving me constantly exhausted. Changes to diet (including making sure I quit eating earlier in the day, for example, cutting out caffeine and alcohol, etc.) haven't made any difference, and neither have changes to the bedroom - making it darker, getting a new bed, and all that.
Right now I'm taking Gabapentin, which helps a little. So far the sleep specialists I'm working with (both a neurologist and a psychiatrist) haven't been able to find anything that helps more.
Right now I'm taking Gabapentin, which helps a little. So far the sleep specialists I'm working with (both a neurologist and a psychiatrist) haven't been able to find anything that helps more.
I'm convinced that if it were suddenly discovered today, nicotine would be hailed as a miracle drug.
It has several properties. It's both a stimulant and a relaxant. It helps you focus without burning out your neurons and inducing psychosis like amphetamines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine#Psychoactive_effects
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine#Enhancing_performance
While there is some risk to it, the actual danger (cancer, heart attack, stroke) from smoking is due to the tar content and other products of combustion from burning tobacco. While nicotine doesn't help blood pressure, it's not the killer that smoking is. It's also somewhat carcinogenic -- again, not as much as tobacco smoke and tar itself. You can find 80 and 90 year old smoking, but you can't really find elderly using cocaine, for example. As far as drugs go, it's relatively safe, for the benefits that it provides.
Also, there are several MAOIs in tobacco smoke. MAOIs are used as last-line anti-depressants, because of their side-effects when taken in large doses. But with tobacco products, a user basically gets a tritrateable MAOI.
If we suddenly discovered nicotine today, I'm convinced that either it or a close chemical cousin would be a the next miracle drug for anxiety and depression.
Perhaps there is a molecular relative of nicotine that could be employed as such, perhaps with less side-effects.
It has several properties. It's both a stimulant and a relaxant. It helps you focus without burning out your neurons and inducing psychosis like amphetamines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine#Psychoactive_effects
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine#Enhancing_performance
While there is some risk to it, the actual danger (cancer, heart attack, stroke) from smoking is due to the tar content and other products of combustion from burning tobacco. While nicotine doesn't help blood pressure, it's not the killer that smoking is. It's also somewhat carcinogenic -- again, not as much as tobacco smoke and tar itself. You can find 80 and 90 year old smoking, but you can't really find elderly using cocaine, for example. As far as drugs go, it's relatively safe, for the benefits that it provides.
Also, there are several MAOIs in tobacco smoke. MAOIs are used as last-line anti-depressants, because of their side-effects when taken in large doses. But with tobacco products, a user basically gets a tritrateable MAOI.
If we suddenly discovered nicotine today, I'm convinced that either it or a close chemical cousin would be a the next miracle drug for anxiety and depression.
Perhaps there is a molecular relative of nicotine that could be employed as such, perhaps with less side-effects.
> Also, there are several MAOIs in tobacco smoke. MAOIs are used as last-line anti-depressants, because of their side-effects when taken in large doses. But with tobacco products, a user basically gets a tritrateable MAOI.
Reversible MAOIs are safer than the irreversible ones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase_inhibitor#Re...
There were some articles in the Boston Globe in 2000 that pointed out that the SSRI Prozac was known to contribute to suicides. I think it was a mistake to allow this drug onto the market.
> If we suddenly discovered nicotine today, I'm convinced that either it or a close chemical cousin would be a the next miracle drug for anxiety and depression.
Niacinamide (Nicotinamide) is somewhat similar to Nicotine.
Reversible MAOIs are safer than the irreversible ones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase_inhibitor#Re...
There were some articles in the Boston Globe in 2000 that pointed out that the SSRI Prozac was known to contribute to suicides. I think it was a mistake to allow this drug onto the market.
> If we suddenly discovered nicotine today, I'm convinced that either it or a close chemical cousin would be a the next miracle drug for anxiety and depression.
Niacinamide (Nicotinamide) is somewhat similar to Nicotine.
Considering these striking homologies, the craving for
nicotine might be due, in part, to a misplaced "hunger"
for the nutrient, vitamin B3, [...]I've always wondered: how do they establish a drug causes suicide? I mean they're not literally giving people suicidal thoughts. How do they make people more prone to suicide?
As far as I'm aware, the currently prevailing theory is that many deeply depressed people may be be having suicidal thoughts, but their depression is also so strong that they don't have the energy and/or motivation to actually go through with it. Apathy is winning. As the drugs start to lift you out of the hole of apathy, you suddenly start to have more energy and motivation, but you're still depressed. So you still are suicidal but now you have the ability to go through with it.
This sounds like an apologist's explanation for an inconvenient truth. Sounds reasonable, but falls apart when confronted with actual data.
(Edit: I'm sure you were paraphrasing what you'd read somewhere.)
Here's a quote from the Boston Globe's 5/7/2000 article:
>> Three years before Prozac received approval by the US Food and Drug Administration in late 1987, the German BGA, that country’s FDA equivalent, had such serious reservations about Prozac’s safety that it refused to approve the antidepressant based on Lilly’s studies showing that previously nonsuicidal patients who took the drug had a fivefold higher rate of suicides and suicide attempts than those on older antidepressants, and a threefold higher rate than those taking placebos.
>> Lilly’s own figures, in reports made available to the Globe, indicate that 1 in 100 previously nonsuicidal patients who took the drug in early clinical trials developed a severe form of anxiety and agitation called akathisia, causing them to attempt or commit suicide during the studies.
-- http://ahrp.org/prozac-revisited-concerns-about-suicides-sur... (I don't know anything about this site, but I've read the quote elsewhere so I'm sure it's a true copy of what the Globe actually printed).
(Edit: I'm sure you were paraphrasing what you'd read somewhere.)
Here's a quote from the Boston Globe's 5/7/2000 article:
>> Three years before Prozac received approval by the US Food and Drug Administration in late 1987, the German BGA, that country’s FDA equivalent, had such serious reservations about Prozac’s safety that it refused to approve the antidepressant based on Lilly’s studies showing that previously nonsuicidal patients who took the drug had a fivefold higher rate of suicides and suicide attempts than those on older antidepressants, and a threefold higher rate than those taking placebos.
>> Lilly’s own figures, in reports made available to the Globe, indicate that 1 in 100 previously nonsuicidal patients who took the drug in early clinical trials developed a severe form of anxiety and agitation called akathisia, causing them to attempt or commit suicide during the studies.
-- http://ahrp.org/prozac-revisited-concerns-about-suicides-sur... (I don't know anything about this site, but I've read the quote elsewhere so I'm sure it's a true copy of what the Globe actually printed).
Oh yeah, it was definitely just something I've heard a bunch of times, and not something I'd personally looked up the research on. Thank you for the links.
I think you're combining Prozac's increased-suicide effect and the well-known danger zone of depression recovery:
https://youtu.be/NOAgplgTxfc?t=480
I suppose there could be something in Prozac being an engine of recovery without support (or suicide watch), essentially launching people into the danger zone, but I don't know.
https://youtu.be/NOAgplgTxfc?t=480
I suppose there could be something in Prozac being an engine of recovery without support (or suicide watch), essentially launching people into the danger zone, but I don't know.
Reports of users. If users report suicidal thoughts during tests and in "the field", then the drug is said to be connected to suicides when users of it end up offing themselves.
The official term is "increased risk of suicide", with the reasoning being suicidal thoughts is a necessary precursor to suicide. But nobody's death certificate actually says that a prescription drug was the cause of death, when it was a suicide.
The official term is "increased risk of suicide", with the reasoning being suicidal thoughts is a necessary precursor to suicide. But nobody's death certificate actually says that a prescription drug was the cause of death, when it was a suicide.
Drugs are tested on healthy people first. If healthy people with previously no thought of suicide suddenly starts feeling suicidal when in a clinical trial of a drug, it could be outside influence and a huge coincidence, but likely not.
This makes me wonder what the modern world would look like if all "recreational drugs" suddenly disappeared, and so all the people who were implicitly, unknowingly self-medicating for a mental illness by using recreational drugs, suddenly weren't. What percentage of the population would go from seemingly neurotypical, to perceivably mentally ill? How much more common would conditions like schizophrenia be?
The older I get, the more "neurotypical" becomes synonymous for capitalism-compatible.
No matter the size of your parachute/coping mechanism, if you fall on Jupiter, it's not the (decelerated) fall that kills you, it's the jostling torture of simultaneously hitting fluid from under you, and being crushed by the weight of fluid above.
No matter the size of your parachute/coping mechanism, if you fall on Jupiter, it's not the (decelerated) fall that kills you, it's the jostling torture of simultaneously hitting fluid from under you, and being crushed by the weight of fluid above.
I'm inclined to agree with you. ADHD seems to be simply a code word for prescribing amphetamines to people who are confronted by the genuinely boring reality of sitting in the same room with the same people who do nothing and go nowhere for years on end.
Unfortunately other economies and models of social order demand similarly horrific obedience, and capitalism is not alone. It's just the thing we got stuck with.
Feels like a prison on both sides of the bars.
Unfortunately other economies and models of social order demand similarly horrific obedience, and capitalism is not alone. It's just the thing we got stuck with.
Feels like a prison on both sides of the bars.
> ADHD seems to be simply a code word for prescribing amphetamines to people who are confronted by the genuinely boring reality of sitting in the same room with the same people who do nothing and go nowhere for years on end.
No. I have ADHD. The most obvious symptom has nothing to do with "being bored"—it's that I can't gather the motivation to practice any skill that I'm not already naturally good at, even when I really really want to be good at that skill. Similarly, I can't take care of pets, or even plants; I can't be anywhere on time; and I forget at least one thing I absolutely need to bring with me every time I leave the house. (Also, I'm absolutely never able to decide where to go to eat, rather than only unable to do so when worn out from work.)
Just as a clinically depressed person will still experience subjectively negative qualia even in a perfect world, a person with ADHD will be unable to remain focused on working toward even what they would subjectively consider the most wonderfully worthwhile goals.
ADHD medication allows me (that is, the part of my brain that holds my sense of identity) to take control of what "I" (that is, the part of my brain that decides whether things are worth doing right now) want to do with my life. If I (brain piece #1) am the rider of an extremely petulant horse (brain piece #2), the medication is a spur on the boot of #1, by which #2 can be brought to heel.
(Now, my case is probably unusual: I went to a psychiatrist after taking an ADHD self-assessment as an adult, rather than being diagnosed as a child. But I assure you that there is at least a core group of people within the "diagnosed with ADHD" group who, like me, consider their ADHD a thing they suffer from just as much as clinical depression is for those who have it, and would find it just as much of an obstacle to enjoying their lives even if they lived alone in a cabin in the woods.)
No. I have ADHD. The most obvious symptom has nothing to do with "being bored"—it's that I can't gather the motivation to practice any skill that I'm not already naturally good at, even when I really really want to be good at that skill. Similarly, I can't take care of pets, or even plants; I can't be anywhere on time; and I forget at least one thing I absolutely need to bring with me every time I leave the house. (Also, I'm absolutely never able to decide where to go to eat, rather than only unable to do so when worn out from work.)
Just as a clinically depressed person will still experience subjectively negative qualia even in a perfect world, a person with ADHD will be unable to remain focused on working toward even what they would subjectively consider the most wonderfully worthwhile goals.
ADHD medication allows me (that is, the part of my brain that holds my sense of identity) to take control of what "I" (that is, the part of my brain that decides whether things are worth doing right now) want to do with my life. If I (brain piece #1) am the rider of an extremely petulant horse (brain piece #2), the medication is a spur on the boot of #1, by which #2 can be brought to heel.
(Now, my case is probably unusual: I went to a psychiatrist after taking an ADHD self-assessment as an adult, rather than being diagnosed as a child. But I assure you that there is at least a core group of people within the "diagnosed with ADHD" group who, like me, consider their ADHD a thing they suffer from just as much as clinical depression is for those who have it, and would find it just as much of an obstacle to enjoying their lives even if they lived alone in a cabin in the woods.)
Dude.
Meanwhile, the relief you describe is the very premise of stimulant addiction. Stimulants make people feel like capable superheroes on the up, and miserable incompetant failures on the comedown.
That is how speed works. That's why people like it. You don't have a disability. You just like speed. Everyone likes speed. Lab animals like speed, and they have no social obligations.
If you ever learned how to cook meth, while taking your meds, you'd probably never come back.
I can't gather the motivation to practice any
skill that I'm not already naturally good at,
even when I really really want to be good at
that skill.
Similarly, I can't take care of pets, or even
plants;
I can't be anywhere on time;
and I forget at least one thing I absolutely
need to bring with me every time I leave the
house.
Meanwhile, the relief you describe is the very premise of stimulant addiction. Stimulants make people feel like capable superheroes on the up, and miserable incompetant failures on the comedown.
That is how speed works. That's why people like it. You don't have a disability. You just like speed. Everyone likes speed. Lab animals like speed, and they have no social obligations.
If you ever learned how to cook meth, while taking your meds, you'd probably never come back.
Glad the internet doctor could chime in and try their hardest to shame someone after they just emotionally opened up about their personal struggles in a relevant open forum.
You come off like you carry a grudge!
"Man up snowflake, life is tough."
You come off like you carry a grudge!
"Man up snowflake, life is tough."
*WHOOP* *WHOOP* Pull over, shame police!
From 1990 forward I watched a trend of chemical leashes swallow up perfectly normal kids, to test subordination to parent/teacher/doctor control and extract bragging rights while keeping up with the Joneses. Loads of high school classmates got shamed by their parents into "just say no" prescription drug doublespeak, because B+ just isn't good enough.
Before there was the prescription opioid pill crisis, there was the prescription pep pill crisis, masquerading as the "you are mentally ill and need a chemical crutch to be normal" crisis. I didn't start that trend. I didn't invent it. I didn't make money off it.
Point your shame finger at the real enemy, if you can guess where to find it.
Not saying amphetamine is necessary the best solution, but ADHD is a real and debilitating condition for a lot of people across all ages.
It's not just "being bored"; it creates serious difficulty in day-to-day and long-term functioning.
It's not just "being bored"; it creates serious difficulty in day-to-day and long-term functioning.
it creates serious difficulty in day-to-day
and long-term functioning.
Being a worker bot is not the benchmark of normalcy. It's simply the burden we are saddled with by others.
Although the answer to this question is mostly unknowable, I think that, as an inquiry, it represents a far more compelling approach to mental health than the current system, for at least two reasons:
1) The current approach completely disregards the data point of, "which psychoactives have worked for you (and presumably, those similarly situated to you) in the past?" This seems so absolutely reckless it's amazing it continues.
2) The current approach regards some portion of the population as "normal," and attempts to treat the rest. By looking instead at diet (ie, "self-medicating") as a spectrum, along which a great many healthy approaches lie, we respect and leverage the underlying psychological diversity of the population.
1) The current approach completely disregards the data point of, "which psychoactives have worked for you (and presumably, those similarly situated to you) in the past?" This seems so absolutely reckless it's amazing it continues.
2) The current approach regards some portion of the population as "normal," and attempts to treat the rest. By looking instead at diet (ie, "self-medicating") as a spectrum, along which a great many healthy approaches lie, we respect and leverage the underlying psychological diversity of the population.
The effect on the underlying conditions are relatively small - otherwise we would have noticed that nicotine is a cure for schizophrenia.
So the addicted will get slightly improvements from their drug. Some of them enough to reduce their chance of a clinical diagnosis.
Most people won't be close enough to (the very blurry) line to swap between diagnosed and subclinical.
So the addicted will get slightly improvements from their drug. Some of them enough to reduce their chance of a clinical diagnosis.
Most people won't be close enough to (the very blurry) line to swap between diagnosed and subclinical.
Well we might have noticed it a lot earlier if psychiatrists did a better job of listening to their patients instead of scribbling a prescription and telling them to come back in 3 months. My last psychiatrist is regarded as one of the leading researchers in his sub-specialty and did very little to earn the $500/hour I was paying him.
Your comment assumes the psychiatric profession is generally meretricious and evidence-driven. Many psychiatric patients' experience suggests otherwise.
Your comment assumes the psychiatric profession is generally meretricious and evidence-driven. Many psychiatric patients' experience suggests otherwise.
Sorry to hear about your psychiatrist. I suspect this falls into the university trap: "Great" professors are in fact great researchers; there's comparatively little reward in being a great teacher (or listener to your patients).
Hmm perhaps also because smoking behavior probably doesn't change much without accompanying lifestyle changes and confounding factors.
Still we didn't have schizophrenics who happened to pick up smoking and were completely cured, right? (right?) So the magnitude of effect is helpful, but not curative.
Hmm perhaps also because smoking behavior probably doesn't change much without accompanying lifestyle changes and confounding factors.
Still we didn't have schizophrenics who happened to pick up smoking and were completely cured, right? (right?) So the magnitude of effect is helpful, but not curative.
You might want to look up the meaning of meretricious :)
Alcohol: Anxiety disorders
Marijuana: OCD
Caffeine: ADHD
Marijuana: OCD
Caffeine: ADHD
I think people are dismissing / overlooking your comment, but I've seen exactly this time and time again.
Anecdotally: I developed a drinking problem in my first few years of work, which I used to deal with anxiety and depression as I failed to find my feet and seriously questioned dropping out of software development.
I was eventually diagnosed with ADHD (inattentive) and through treatment, experienced a complete life change.
I stopped drinking excessively, then almost completely. I never tried to address the problem directly, I just lost any desire to drink outside of a normal social context. Even then, I rarely have more than 2-3 in a night.
I'm on stimulants for treatment, but take breaks some weekends and over holidays. I've always been a coffee drinker, but now I'm conscious of how much I'm drawn to it for the positive effects I see.
I honestly think it was the only reason I got through university (before diagnosed / treated for ADHD). I was using caffeine in the same way I use my current medication, to fill the same gaps.
I don't want to comment on the effectiveness of self medication, or anything diagnosis related. I just find it interesting the correlation between certain personality types and the class of drugs they seem to be drawn to. I think it offers a lot of psychological insight we haven't really looked at in detail.
Anecdotally: I developed a drinking problem in my first few years of work, which I used to deal with anxiety and depression as I failed to find my feet and seriously questioned dropping out of software development.
I was eventually diagnosed with ADHD (inattentive) and through treatment, experienced a complete life change.
I stopped drinking excessively, then almost completely. I never tried to address the problem directly, I just lost any desire to drink outside of a normal social context. Even then, I rarely have more than 2-3 in a night.
I'm on stimulants for treatment, but take breaks some weekends and over holidays. I've always been a coffee drinker, but now I'm conscious of how much I'm drawn to it for the positive effects I see.
I honestly think it was the only reason I got through university (before diagnosed / treated for ADHD). I was using caffeine in the same way I use my current medication, to fill the same gaps.
I don't want to comment on the effectiveness of self medication, or anything diagnosis related. I just find it interesting the correlation between certain personality types and the class of drugs they seem to be drawn to. I think it offers a lot of psychological insight we haven't really looked at in detail.
Everyone taking opiates would be depressed but nobody would be sure if it was pre-existing depression or Post-Acute Withdrawal Syndrome.
In general, it can sometimes be difficult to differentiate drug withdrawal from re-emergence of a pre-existing condition.
In general, it can sometimes be difficult to differentiate drug withdrawal from re-emergence of a pre-existing condition.
My understanding is that the association between marijuana use and anxiety is way way higher than between alcohol and anxiety
I think the idea is that if people didn't have access to alcohol, many of them would realize they have no good way to calm their nerves, and therefore realize they have anxiety issues.
I know, and I'm saying that's more so the case for marijuana than alcohol. I've been smoking weed recreationally since college and still enjoy doing so, but the only time Ive done it more than once a week for an extended period of time was during an inordinately stressful time at work a few years ago (right before I ended up quitting and taking a sabbatical to travel). Alcohol is ubiquitous and easy to get, so it's by far the most common for self-medicating many things, but in the hypothetical we're talking about availability isn't relevant.
Or just MJ for everything
My thought as well, but it's worth it to keep in mind young people probably shouldnt, along with those predisposed to schizophrenia and similar disorders, though I suspect certain strains or alternative cannabanoids out of the hundreds in addition to thc/cbd might be useful.
If you can recommend a strain that helps with ADHD while still allowing you to be alert and cognizant, I would really like to know. I've been looking for years.
https://www.leafly.com/news/strains-products/best-cannabis-s...
I have had the most success with vaping green crack at 210C. Oil concentrates also work, but I tend to overshoot the functional sweet spot and end up recreationally high.
Smoking was much harder to nail down. It worked occasionally, enough to justify buying the vape... But the vape is way better.
I have had the most success with vaping green crack at 210C. Oil concentrates also work, but I tend to overshoot the functional sweet spot and end up recreationally high.
Smoking was much harder to nail down. It worked occasionally, enough to justify buying the vape... But the vape is way better.
I have had some success with 'blueberry' indica strains (named for their fragrant characteristics I believe). I can be incredibly productive with this in the right environment (quiet, minimal interruptions, physically comfortable). But it's harder to shift focus and social interaction (even with intimates) is more of a chore. I don't know that it helps with adhd so much as alleviating anxiety enough to let me focus on what I want to think about.
Try TrueOG.
“This defines a completely novel strategy for medication development,” says lead author
As someone with schizoaffective problems and raging ADHD, I find quotes like this acutely annoying. I've told every psychiatrist I'eve ever dealt with about the experiential costs/benefits of smoking (and consuming various other recreational drugs). They all nod sagely and say things like 'but smoking is bad' (no shit Sherlock!) while making absolutely zero effort to measure or help me track any of this. Every mentally ill person I've known has said much the same thing. Of all the medical professionals I've ever dealt with, psychiatrists are the laziest and least imaginative.
Edited to add that I quit tobacco ~7 years ago using chantix, which I totally recommend. Unfortunately my mental ilnesses have become harder to deal with over the same period. The last time I reached out to my psychiatrist he said he hadn't seen me in so long that he didn't have room in his practice for me any more. What an asshole.
As someone with schizoaffective problems and raging ADHD, I find quotes like this acutely annoying. I've told every psychiatrist I'eve ever dealt with about the experiential costs/benefits of smoking (and consuming various other recreational drugs). They all nod sagely and say things like 'but smoking is bad' (no shit Sherlock!) while making absolutely zero effort to measure or help me track any of this. Every mentally ill person I've known has said much the same thing. Of all the medical professionals I've ever dealt with, psychiatrists are the laziest and least imaginative.
Edited to add that I quit tobacco ~7 years ago using chantix, which I totally recommend. Unfortunately my mental ilnesses have become harder to deal with over the same period. The last time I reached out to my psychiatrist he said he hadn't seen me in so long that he didn't have room in his practice for me any more. What an asshole.
I have never been addicted to cigarettes and do not smoke but I do chew nicotine gum all the time for ADD (and yes there is a difference between ADHD and ADD).
I took me a while to figure out that nicotine is a superior stimulant over caffeine, adderall, ritalin and even chocolate extract (albeit chocolate was surprisingly effective).
The big plus with nicotine is that it doesn't have the after downer that the above stimulants have. Particularly adderall.. it honestly shocks me that I was given that drug as a child.
The jury still seems to be out on how dangerous nicotine is (the actual substance and not all the crap you get with tobacco products).
I took me a while to figure out that nicotine is a superior stimulant over caffeine, adderall, ritalin and even chocolate extract (albeit chocolate was surprisingly effective).
The big plus with nicotine is that it doesn't have the after downer that the above stimulants have. Particularly adderall.. it honestly shocks me that I was given that drug as a child.
The jury still seems to be out on how dangerous nicotine is (the actual substance and not all the crap you get with tobacco products).
> (and yes there is a difference between ADHD and ADD).
Not anymore. Under the new classifications, there is only ADHD. However, ADHD can come in three forms - "Predominantly Inattentive", "Predominantly Hyperactive", or "Combined".[0] So, confusingly, a person can have ADHD without any symptoms of hyperactivity, in which case they are diagnosed with "Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder - Primarily Inattentive".
The differential diagnosis between the three types is time-consuming and oftentimes not worth the trouble or expense except in more severe cases, so it's common for doctors either to subjectively apply the one they feel fits the individual without comprehensive testing, or to default to "Combined".
[0] It's actually slightly more complicated than that, depending on whether you use ICD-9, ICD-10 or the DSM V, but ICD-10 and the DSM V both agree that ADHD is the canonical term, and ADD is "deprecated" (to appropriate the software terminology).
Not anymore. Under the new classifications, there is only ADHD. However, ADHD can come in three forms - "Predominantly Inattentive", "Predominantly Hyperactive", or "Combined".[0] So, confusingly, a person can have ADHD without any symptoms of hyperactivity, in which case they are diagnosed with "Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder - Primarily Inattentive".
The differential diagnosis between the three types is time-consuming and oftentimes not worth the trouble or expense except in more severe cases, so it's common for doctors either to subjectively apply the one they feel fits the individual without comprehensive testing, or to default to "Combined".
[0] It's actually slightly more complicated than that, depending on whether you use ICD-9, ICD-10 or the DSM V, but ICD-10 and the DSM V both agree that ADHD is the canonical term, and ADD is "deprecated" (to appropriate the software terminology).
>The big plus with nicotine is that it doesn't have the after downer that the above stimulants have.
What do you mean by this? Caffeine withdrawal over nicotine withdrawal seems like a no brainer to me with what I've seen from smokers, but I don't smoke so I can't say first hand.
What do you mean by this? Caffeine withdrawal over nicotine withdrawal seems like a no brainer to me with what I've seen from smokers, but I don't smoke so I can't say first hand.
Caffeine withdrawal, out of the many types, is my least favorite to experience.
Nicotine withdrawal (non-tobacco) is nearly unnoticeable, while nicbacco withdrawal can be a little annoying. Although, while I smoked for years, I never smoked more than a pack or two pipes full a week, so perhaps it scales.
Neither compares to the full on pounding headaches, teeth grinding, and occasional auditory hallucinations that can accompany cold turkey, n pots a day caffeine withdrawal.
I rate caffeine easily on par with opiates in terms of the length and discomfort of their withdrawal.
Nicotine withdrawal (non-tobacco) is nearly unnoticeable, while nicbacco withdrawal can be a little annoying. Although, while I smoked for years, I never smoked more than a pack or two pipes full a week, so perhaps it scales.
Neither compares to the full on pounding headaches, teeth grinding, and occasional auditory hallucinations that can accompany cold turkey, n pots a day caffeine withdrawal.
I rate caffeine easily on par with opiates in terms of the length and discomfort of their withdrawal.
I think that @agentgt was talking about "coming down" from the high (or effects of the drug), and not withdrawal symptoms.
As another commenter alluded to I was referring to the crash or hangover.
As for withdrawal I don't think I have ever felt it with nicotine but it might be because I just don't ever do enough (the most pieces of gum I have had in one day is 40mg of nicotine.. ie 10 pieces). I have had a nicotine hangover with cigars but this is usually because alcohol is involved as well as I believe cigars lower intake of oxygen (just a theory.. probably wrong).
Caffeine withdrawal is awful.. absolutely awful for me. Headaches for days. I usually give up and pound 4 ibuprofen with a large cup of coffee.
As for withdrawal I don't think I have ever felt it with nicotine but it might be because I just don't ever do enough (the most pieces of gum I have had in one day is 40mg of nicotine.. ie 10 pieces). I have had a nicotine hangover with cigars but this is usually because alcohol is involved as well as I believe cigars lower intake of oxygen (just a theory.. probably wrong).
Caffeine withdrawal is awful.. absolutely awful for me. Headaches for days. I usually give up and pound 4 ibuprofen with a large cup of coffee.
Thanks for sharing your experience. As a substance nerd I find all this info very helpful and illuminating. Are you familiar with Erowid?
I tried a bunch of supplements and herbs. Some worked, some had nasty side effects, and most did squat.
The short list is I tried: Piractem, GABA, Rhodila Rosea, Cocamine (chocolate extract), gluractone (red bull ingredient), various ephedrine like stuff, various methly caffeine things (ie green tea), Yohimbine (I highly recommend you never ever take this).
I used to have lab like jars of the stuff at work and my coworkers would call me "the mad scientist".
Nothing worked better than exercise, sleep, nicotine, staying hydrated, and coffee. Strategic fasting is also effective but you have to be careful with that as well (ie intermittent fasting).
The other issue with trying weird stuff is we know a lot (longitudinal study wise) about nicotine. We don't for lots of natural supplements (just my 2 cents). I also can't stress it enough... do not take Yohimbine.. (that stuff should be illegal).
EDIT for Yohimbine explanation (I can't reply to ducttapemaster):
Yohimbine made me extremely lightheaded, extremely anxious, extremely nauseous and I could not sleep for 3 days and I think it was only 5 mg of HCL. I would rather have kidney stones again than go through Yohimbine...
The sick part is I have tried it multiple times (I guess to be scientific about it :) ).
The short list is I tried: Piractem, GABA, Rhodila Rosea, Cocamine (chocolate extract), gluractone (red bull ingredient), various ephedrine like stuff, various methly caffeine things (ie green tea), Yohimbine (I highly recommend you never ever take this).
I used to have lab like jars of the stuff at work and my coworkers would call me "the mad scientist".
Nothing worked better than exercise, sleep, nicotine, staying hydrated, and coffee. Strategic fasting is also effective but you have to be careful with that as well (ie intermittent fasting).
The other issue with trying weird stuff is we know a lot (longitudinal study wise) about nicotine. We don't for lots of natural supplements (just my 2 cents). I also can't stress it enough... do not take Yohimbine.. (that stuff should be illegal).
EDIT for Yohimbine explanation (I can't reply to ducttapemaster):
Yohimbine made me extremely lightheaded, extremely anxious, extremely nauseous and I could not sleep for 3 days and I think it was only 5 mg of HCL. I would rather have kidney stones again than go through Yohimbine...
The sick part is I have tried it multiple times (I guess to be scientific about it :) ).
In regards to Yohimbine, I'll heed your experienced words should I ever come across, I won't partake. Wow, just googling it: "It is a veterinary drug used to reverse sedation in dogs and deer."
It's interesting that you can basically reap all the benefits of nicotine without any of the carcinogens. Do you feel at all like it's difficult to step away from?
I really like your list of "nothing worked better than ~" it makes sense and it's interesting how the more we pay attention to our bodies the better we feel and are.
It's interesting that you can basically reap all the benefits of nicotine without any of the carcinogens. Do you feel at all like it's difficult to step away from?
I really like your list of "nothing worked better than ~" it makes sense and it's interesting how the more we pay attention to our bodies the better we feel and are.
> It's interesting that you can basically reap all the benefits of nicotine without any of the carcinogens. Do you feel at all like it's difficult to step away from?
I have a somewhat armchair biologist theory (based on anecdotes and light research) that much of addiction is based on genetics, social, and timing. I wasn't exposed to nicotine during my formative years and thus (just guessing) that I do not feel any addiction what so ever to nicotine (if it isn't nicotine but tobacco that causes it I have smoked cigars so I have done the raw stuff as well).
That being said I almost cannot go a night with out having one or two drinks and I have to have my morning coffee. I really wish I could stop drinking alcohol (calorie reasons) but I like beer and wine so much for the taste.
I have a somewhat armchair biologist theory (based on anecdotes and light research) that much of addiction is based on genetics, social, and timing. I wasn't exposed to nicotine during my formative years and thus (just guessing) that I do not feel any addiction what so ever to nicotine (if it isn't nicotine but tobacco that causes it I have smoked cigars so I have done the raw stuff as well).
That being said I almost cannot go a night with out having one or two drinks and I have to have my morning coffee. I really wish I could stop drinking alcohol (calorie reasons) but I like beer and wine so much for the taste.
do not take Yohimbine
I do not recall the manufacture but it was a very small white pill (I have seen the extract pills you might be referring to which are reddish).
I just don't think I can try the experiment again but I'm fairly sure it was the yohimbine (this was after repeated tries of different products).
I just don't think I can try the experiment again but I'm fairly sure it was the yohimbine (this was after repeated tries of different products).
Yohimbine is a horrible experience. Used clinically to induce anxiety attacks, and does so very well.
Wow, why would you want/need to induce an anxiety attack?
Not a real answer but I consider myself lucky I had my first one in the ER (which I was in at the time for other reasons). The medical staff could in a calm and collected manner explain to me exactly what I was experiencing and what mechanisms in my body was activating and it all became so much easier to deal with.
I can only imagine having your first one alone or among inexperienced people and how much more horrifying that must be.
I can only imagine having your first one alone or among inexperienced people and how much more horrifying that must be.
Out of curiosity, what was your experience with Yohimbine? Why was it so bad?
What's a duct-ape and how did you learn to control them?
As another ADD-diagnosed person, my understanding is the current consensus is that ADD is simply a different manifestation of ADHD. That is to say, same underlying root cause, so treatment can be similar.
Didn't know about the nicotine angle though, kind of interested in the research on this.
Didn't know about the nicotine angle though, kind of interested in the research on this.
Yes that is correct. The only reason why I sort of take issue with it is being grouped with people that are bouncing of the wall.
That is during elementary school I was grouped with kids that had ADD/ADHD for some counselors/teachers/doctors to learn about us. There was clearly two groups. The kids like me (ADD) staring at the ceiling fans, flowers, whatever and the other kids (ADHD) who were running around trying to tear apart the fans, flowers and whatever.
The problem with getting the label of ADHD is that all of the sudden people suddenly think they observe hyperactive behavior with you. That is they associate hyperactivity with you. So anytime you express an idea excitedly or thoughts come quickly and you are trying to express them to some one (which is challenging particularly if you are an introvert) people call it hyperactive behavior.... the same word for behavior such as running around punching kids, tearing shit up and acting like a 2 year old. Hopefully you understand why I don't like the association even it if is academically correct.
That is during elementary school I was grouped with kids that had ADD/ADHD for some counselors/teachers/doctors to learn about us. There was clearly two groups. The kids like me (ADD) staring at the ceiling fans, flowers, whatever and the other kids (ADHD) who were running around trying to tear apart the fans, flowers and whatever.
The problem with getting the label of ADHD is that all of the sudden people suddenly think they observe hyperactive behavior with you. That is they associate hyperactivity with you. So anytime you express an idea excitedly or thoughts come quickly and you are trying to express them to some one (which is challenging particularly if you are an introvert) people call it hyperactive behavior.... the same word for behavior such as running around punching kids, tearing shit up and acting like a 2 year old. Hopefully you understand why I don't like the association even it if is academically correct.
I'm sorry for this rude person but are there, or why, so any Americans with adhd. I don't know anyone having it here and I meet a lot of Hackers... The population should be similar. Here it feels like everyone has it or knows about it.
I think it's more a perception because America is more progressive about mental health care than most countries (maybe thanks to big pharma, I don't know though). It's extremely likely for ADHD to be under-reported in other countries because of the lack of screening for this sort of thing.
In my experience in other countries, the primary difficulty for ADHD support groups is that many country's medical institutions do not even acknowledge ADHD as a thing.
Some of these institutions acknowledge, but seem to believe that the condition disappears when you turn 18.
Many of the regulatory institutions don't allow stimulants to be used for treatment, either.
This is mostly an anti-scientific position. ADHD is extremely well-researched. Its (medication-based, not CBT) treatment is the most effective of any mental illness, more so than "understood" things like depression.
I'm biased, but I think a lot of places are still in denial about ADHD. There's way too much research around the illness and its effects and treatment.
In my experience in other countries, the primary difficulty for ADHD support groups is that many country's medical institutions do not even acknowledge ADHD as a thing.
Some of these institutions acknowledge, but seem to believe that the condition disappears when you turn 18.
Many of the regulatory institutions don't allow stimulants to be used for treatment, either.
This is mostly an anti-scientific position. ADHD is extremely well-researched. Its (medication-based, not CBT) treatment is the most effective of any mental illness, more so than "understood" things like depression.
I'm biased, but I think a lot of places are still in denial about ADHD. There's way too much research around the illness and its effects and treatment.
I don't argue with my diagnosis (in high school), but I disagree very much with the immediate decision to medicate. I felt very strongly at the time that the whole point was to sell medicine to my parents (Vyvance in my case).
It was just, "oh, his GPA's low? Seems like he can't focus? Here are some amphetamines, have a nice day!", with zero follow up about whether the medication was doing its job (didn't matter -- I never took it anyway).
It was just, "oh, his GPA's low? Seems like he can't focus? Here are some amphetamines, have a nice day!", with zero follow up about whether the medication was doing its job (didn't matter -- I never took it anyway).
Before I quit I used patches for a while with only minor side-effects - slight upset stomach and night sweats, which are certainly no worse than any of the various amphetamine analogs I've been prescribed. I quit nicotine completely though because I always went back to smoking due to the extremely fast uptake. I'm not sure about whether I want to get back on it, or whether it would even work any more.
> Of all the medical professionals I've ever dealt with, psychiatrists are the laziest and least imaginative.
Also the ones with the most power over patients.
A dangerous combination in my opinion.
Also the ones with the most power over patients.
A dangerous combination in my opinion.
Better to be lazy with your power than proactive. First do no harm.
Even more dangerous when you consider this paper. [1]
In particular, see point two, "Psychology is less politically diverse than ever". Academic psychology seems to lean Democrat by a ratio of 14:1! Fourteen to one! That kind of bias is ridiculous when you consider the power they have over their patients and the politically-infused repercussions of their diagnosis. Case in point: gun ownership.
[1]: http://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/09/14/bbs-paper-on-lack-of-...
In particular, see point two, "Psychology is less politically diverse than ever". Academic psychology seems to lean Democrat by a ratio of 14:1! Fourteen to one! That kind of bias is ridiculous when you consider the power they have over their patients and the politically-infused repercussions of their diagnosis. Case in point: gun ownership.
[1]: http://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/09/14/bbs-paper-on-lack-of-...
Don't scientists and medical people in general tend to lean left?
It's perhaps not too surprising that people who care enough about medicine to make a career of it don't much like the party that, broadly, tends to cut public medical coverage. Gay people lean left for a similar reason.
It's perhaps not too surprising that people who care enough about medicine to make a career of it don't much like the party that, broadly, tends to cut public medical coverage. Gay people lean left for a similar reason.
Here's a relevant article I found. It's definitely not true that all doctors trend left, but it is true that psychiatrists trend left.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/upshot/your-surgeon-is-pr...
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/upshot/your-surgeon-is-pr...
[deleted]
Psychologists have different training then psychiatrist do, a psychiatric degree requires an MD first. Generally psychologists do not prescribe medicine. So this paper does not really apply to psychiatrists. Also more highly educated people vote as democrats more often.
That site, the linked paper, the vague 'membership' definition, is complete trash.
> complete trash
That's not constructive at all. This kind of response is against HN guidelines.
This group/site entirely consists of university professors, all of whom are named on the site [1]. The basis for post I linked to was a paper that was published in Cambridge's Behavioral and Brain Sciences journal [2], and was written by one of the authors.
You're entitled to disagree with it, but the burden of proof is on you.
[1]: http://heterodoxacademy.org/about-us/
[2]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain...
That's not constructive at all. This kind of response is against HN guidelines.
This group/site entirely consists of university professors, all of whom are named on the site [1]. The basis for post I linked to was a paper that was published in Cambridge's Behavioral and Brain Sciences journal [2], and was written by one of the authors.
You're entitled to disagree with it, but the burden of proof is on you.
[1]: http://heterodoxacademy.org/about-us/
[2]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain...
>Of all the medical professionals I've ever dealt with, psychiatrists are the laziest and least imaginative.
This matches my experiences pretty exactly. It's even worse knowing that psychiatry is not as scientific in some contexts as I've been lead to believe.
This matches my experiences pretty exactly. It's even worse knowing that psychiatry is not as scientific in some contexts as I've been lead to believe.
Smoking is not the only way you can get nicotine. Have you considered trying nicotine chewing gum or similar?
I find nicotine gum helpful personally.
I find nicotine gum helpful personally.
I've never smoked but I keep nicotine gum on hand. I find it great for long drives at night when I don't want caffeine. 2mg of nicotine perks me right up for a couple hours
IMO Vaping is a far safer alternative to smoking for getting nicotine.
Just to chime in. If you have concerns because you've heard that "vaping is bad", do some research into it. While there are billboards and other advertisements against vaping in the USA, Public Health England says that vaping is at least 95% healthier [1].
http://notblowingsmoke.org/
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e-cigarettes-around-95-le...
http://notblowingsmoke.org/
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e-cigarettes-around-95-le...
Just because it's better doesn't mean it's good. Inhaling large amounts of steam or smoke is bad for your lungs, even if it doesn't contain any carcinogens. Also, nicotine is addictive, so taking it "just because" is a bad idea (taking it to treat something is a different story, obviously). Of course, if you're looking to intake nicotine for some reason, vaping is vastly superior to smoking.
"5 people killed in riot" is still a 95% improvement over "100 people killed in riot" but that doesn't make it a good thing.
"5 people killed in riot" is still a 95% improvement over "100 people killed in riot" but that doesn't make it a good thing.
Yes, nothing is better than breathing fresh air. 100% agree.
That being said.. people are going to do it anyways. Sugar, caffeine, McDonalds, and hundreds of other things on the list that are not great for you but people do anyways.
If people are going to do it, why not choose the healthiest way to do it?
That being said.. people are going to do it anyways. Sugar, caffeine, McDonalds, and hundreds of other things on the list that are not great for you but people do anyways.
If people are going to do it, why not choose the healthiest way to do it?
I actually don't think vaping is good because it allows the nicotine user to never realise it's possible to get over their addiction instead requiring constant replacement of smoking. This is not needed if they accept fully the difficulty of giving up but realise that every exertion of will power promotes their escape and weakens smokings hold on the user.
Counter arguments.
1. Many people that vape use it as a method to wean themselves off of nicotine completely. Since you can adjust the level of nicotine, they just use less and less until they aren't having any at all. Out of people I know that vape 3 have quit vaping/nicotine completely after a year or two, 1 vapes with no nicotine, and I vape with 1mg/ml of nicotine.
2. If someone has tried to quit smoking but keeps falling back, isn't vaping a better alternative? If someone is going to be addicted to nicotine, isn't it better that they vape rather than smoke since the harm is drastically less?
1. Many people that vape use it as a method to wean themselves off of nicotine completely. Since you can adjust the level of nicotine, they just use less and less until they aren't having any at all. Out of people I know that vape 3 have quit vaping/nicotine completely after a year or two, 1 vapes with no nicotine, and I vape with 1mg/ml of nicotine.
2. If someone has tried to quit smoking but keeps falling back, isn't vaping a better alternative? If someone is going to be addicted to nicotine, isn't it better that they vape rather than smoke since the harm is drastically less?
I just believe vaping makes it harder to quit for me; it is better if instead I can convince myself that it's a process that takes time but I'm improving at. For example hardly wanting to smoke after a delicious dinner tonight is great progress, if I'd have vaped I would have got a nicotine hit that wasn't as enjoyable as smoking and I would have wanted to smoke keeping me trapped in the idea I need a puff to be happy.
While I certainly don't encourage anyone to just start vaping for the sake of it, there is noting good about putting anything into your lungs other than air. But if you have tried everything else to quit smoking and nothing has worked. Vaping can help. I've seen quite a few who have just given up on the idea of quitting smoking simply because there was no alternative to the nicotine addiction. It can be a life saver in those cases.
True, but being healthier than smoking is not exactly a high bar.
If you must take nicotine as a nootropic, take it orally. Vaping is much more addictive than letting a 2mg lozenge slowly dissolve. Relative addictiveness of different ROAs is directly correlated with how quickly the drug takes effect, and when you vape the nicotine hits your bloodstream within seconds.
Also I can't mention enough that if you take an MAOI you should stay far away from nicotine.
If you must take nicotine as a nootropic, take it orally. Vaping is much more addictive than letting a 2mg lozenge slowly dissolve. Relative addictiveness of different ROAs is directly correlated with how quickly the drug takes effect, and when you vape the nicotine hits your bloodstream within seconds.
Also I can't mention enough that if you take an MAOI you should stay far away from nicotine.
"Also I can't mention enough that if you take an MAOI you should stay far away from nicotine."
Can you explain more? You mean in addiction terms (I'd agree) or something else?
Can you explain more? You mean in addiction terms (I'd agree) or something else?
You can vape with no nicotine at all, or you can vape from 0.1mg/ml all the way past 50mg/ml if you wanted to. "Vaping is much more addictive" is like saying sugar is more addicting from a glass of chocolate milk than than it is from a bag of gummy worms.
And I'd say 95% healthier is a pretty good margin.
And I'd say 95% healthier is a pretty good margin.
You should understand that different drug delivery methods will have different impacts on a drug's half life and effect (intensity) on your body. Inhaling is more powerful than taking orally. Shooting up is more powerful than inhaling.
Inhaling cigarette smoke is an almost instant intake of nicotine. Vaping it is not nearly so. It’s still an open question as to why, but the current thought is because the atomized liquid droplets are much, much larger than the smoke particulates that come from burning tobacco. The atomized liquid doesn’t make it into the alveoli where it directly enters the bloodstream. Instead, the vapor coats the bronchial and nasal passages and is slowly absorbed that way.
There’s still debate as to whether the bulk of the nicotine is even absorbed in the lungs vs. deposited vapor in the nasal and oral mucosa. But whatever the route, vaping is significantly slower than smoking—something that a lot of “switchers” don’t appreciate. (They don’t get the instant gratification that they did when taking that first drag off of a cigarette.)
I don’t mean to refute your point. The hierarchy of drug intake is legitimate. But vaping is more like “inhalation*” with an asterisk. Maybe faster than a lozenge or patch, but definitely slower than smoking it.
There’s still debate as to whether the bulk of the nicotine is even absorbed in the lungs vs. deposited vapor in the nasal and oral mucosa. But whatever the route, vaping is significantly slower than smoking—something that a lot of “switchers” don’t appreciate. (They don’t get the instant gratification that they did when taking that first drag off of a cigarette.)
I don’t mean to refute your point. The hierarchy of drug intake is legitimate. But vaping is more like “inhalation*” with an asterisk. Maybe faster than a lozenge or patch, but definitely slower than smoking it.
Well no, vaping is more addictive because inhalation as an ROA is more addictive. This is a well studied effect.
On the other hand, I would say smoking crack is much more addictive than snorting cocaine but that's just my opinion. Maybe someone with more exerience could weigh in?
I would tend to agree that lozenges might be a better option, unfortunately for myself I get hiccups from the lozenges and nightmares from patches so I have made the choice to vape over smoking. I am a bit concerned with the glycerin and glycol that is enentering my bloodstream may be causing me to gain weight but that might just be me self medicating with food aswell. Hands down vaping is better than smoking as a nicotine delivery method..imho
part of the problem with this is that, from what i've heard, the actual action of putting the cigarette to your mouth is addictive as well. in many cases, people will advise smokers to do the action with a pen or some such to help with that. i can only imagine that vaping would be even closer, and help even more
Based on what?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4110871/
"Currently available evidence indicates that electronic cigarettes are by far a less harmful alternative to smoking and significant health benefits are expected in smokers who switch from tobacco to electronic cigarettes."
"Currently available evidence indicates that electronic cigarettes are by far a less harmful alternative to smoking and significant health benefits are expected in smokers who switch from tobacco to electronic cigarettes."
Common sense
Common sense tells me that inhaling any foreign chemical in high concentrations and habitually is not a good idea.
We're comparing vaping to smoking, not vaping to being sober.
[deleted]
These days, I would think they would recommend vaping over smoking. Vaping is apparently much safer, and only contains nicotine (plus glycerin/glycols). In my experience, cigarettes are much more relaxing and calming than vapes. I would think that the other compounds in cigarettes add to the overall soothing effect. Something about pure nicotine doses like through vapes just doesn't feel as good as a cigarette. One of my friends with cancer said the same thing about THC pills compared to smoking marijuana...
There's been a kneejerk reaction to ban e-cigarettes in English MH hospitals. Justifications vary from "we don't know it's safe", "we think the nicotine is harmful unless it's being used to quit smoking and also being tapered down", to "The batteries are dangerous".
This ban isn't just on actively vaping inside the hospital, but having the unpowered device, or vaping in the hospital grounds.
This ban isn't just on actively vaping inside the hospital, but having the unpowered device, or vaping in the hospital grounds.
Some big colleges in the US are banning vaping on school grounds (indoors and outdoors). I think it's a reasonable rule to have for a hospital or laboratory, where the environment needs to be as controlled and contaminant-free as possible. Nicotine being fundamentally bad? Unstable batteries? That does seem a bit kneejerk, and unsubstantiated. Some airplanes or confined environments ban heavy perfume, out of respect for people with asthma and sinus issues. This is a much more justifiable reason IMHO. Either way, banning it outdoors seems a bit far... it seems like less work to equate vaping with smoking, instead of actually treating it as its own thing.
> Edited to add that I quit tobacco ~7 years ago using chantix, which I totally recommend. Unfortunately my mental ilnesses have become harder to deal with over the same period.
I learned from someone here (about 4 months ago [1]) that nicotine is not so addictive by itself. It is the combination of MAOI-like chemicals in tobacco that makes it hard for smokers to quit. MAOI's were the "first generation" anti-depressants. They were reasonably effective, but caused high blood pressure when combined with fine aged cheese.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12527585
No new drugs are needed to help "schizophrenics", the industry just needs to implement what's already known. For example, niacinamide [2] is a form of Vitamin B-3 that many people find helps reduce their need for tobacco. It is structurally similar to nicotine.
[2] https://purebulk.com/niacinamide-powder/
I learned from someone here (about 4 months ago [1]) that nicotine is not so addictive by itself. It is the combination of MAOI-like chemicals in tobacco that makes it hard for smokers to quit. MAOI's were the "first generation" anti-depressants. They were reasonably effective, but caused high blood pressure when combined with fine aged cheese.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12527585
No new drugs are needed to help "schizophrenics", the industry just needs to implement what's already known. For example, niacinamide [2] is a form of Vitamin B-3 that many people find helps reduce their need for tobacco. It is structurally similar to nicotine.
[2] https://purebulk.com/niacinamide-powder/
>but caused high blood pressure when combined with fine aged cheese.
Are you serious about this?
Are you serious about this?
It's true. If the MAO-I acts on both MAO-A and MAO-B, that is it is non-selective, then the tyramine in the cheese can cause a hypertensive crisis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase_inhibitor#Hy...
Edit: spelling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase_inhibitor#Hy...
Edit: spelling
People taking MAOIs need to follow a careful diet to avoid many types of food.
http://www.gloshospitals.nhs.uk/SharePoint110/Antibiotics%20...
http://www.gloshospitals.nhs.uk/SharePoint110/Antibiotics%20...
Your psychiatrist runs a practice and you're mad that they are practicing rather than researching? That seems like an unrealistic expectation. If your doc was doing more research, then they probably wouldn't be practicing as much. It's like asking you to be a professional developer and do cutting edge CS research -- that's pretty rare.
Tracking nicotine vs your mood strikes me as being "research" -- especially since there wasn't a previously-known scientific correlation, as demonstrated by the recently-published results! Instead... I'd be glad that there is finally some evidence to explain your observations, and be hopeful that it results in new treatments.
(Also: Pawning off laziness onto others is a cop out. You could've pushed the research forward by doing more than just telling your doctor. But you didn't, I presume. Why is that...?)
Tracking nicotine vs your mood strikes me as being "research" -- especially since there wasn't a previously-known scientific correlation, as demonstrated by the recently-published results! Instead... I'd be glad that there is finally some evidence to explain your observations, and be hopeful that it results in new treatments.
(Also: Pawning off laziness onto others is a cop out. You could've pushed the research forward by doing more than just telling your doctor. But you didn't, I presume. Why is that...?)
They're called analysts for a reason, their daily work is much closer to research than refactoring code for yet another form-based web app.
Humans seem to innately require a kind of redemptive soteriology. For many cultures, this was the role of the shaman/medicine man. Insofar as therapists/psychologists/psychiatrists now fill that niche, it would seem right that they offer the analysand new/fruitful/exploratory possibilities, rather than mere regurgitation.
A critic of capitalism might consider both the psychiatrist's laziness and your own dismissive tone products of an unexamined assumption that the "division of labor" optimally solves all problems economic and existential alike. The division of labor works well on the assembly line, but does it work well for the health of the human being, especially psychological?
Indeed, therapy / psychology / psychiatry are the closest analogs to modern-day shamanism -- and there's a lot of room for improvement.
Unfortunately, those fields are bound by professional regulations that prevent "experimentation". Which makes the difference between diagnosis & treatment -vs- research pretty clearly defined. The latter has vastly different requirements (eg. double-blind studies, IRB approvals, etc, etc).
I think it's a perfectly reasonable state of affairs to have psychiatrists sit somewhere on the "practice <---> research" spectrum. Don't like that your psychiatrist sits on the practice part of the scale? Find a different provider.
Unfortunately, those fields are bound by professional regulations that prevent "experimentation". Which makes the difference between diagnosis & treatment -vs- research pretty clearly defined. The latter has vastly different requirements (eg. double-blind studies, IRB approvals, etc, etc).
I think it's a perfectly reasonable state of affairs to have psychiatrists sit somewhere on the "practice <---> research" spectrum. Don't like that your psychiatrist sits on the practice part of the scale? Find a different provider.
I don't believe he is mad that his psychiatrist is not doing academic research, but instead mad that he is not listening to his claims about smoking having a benefit to his mental illness.
To be fair, it is very easy to dismiss what crazy people believe.
Not just psychiatrists. A significant proportion of M.D.s of all subspecialties are surprisingly uncurious and unwilling to listen seriously to patient symptom reports (even detailed reports of careful observations), whenever anything doesn’t match their narrow past experience. Instead of admitting they just haven’t seen anything similar before or suggesting ways to follow up with research literature etc., doctors often second-guess their patients’ reports in such cases and chase people away with speculation about hypochondria, etc.
I think medical school / career pressures do a good job of selecting strongly for folks good at following instructions and memorizing information provided by some authority at the expense of curiosity or critical thinking. This works great when someone goes in for a common condition and needs routine treatment, but can get pretty frustrating for patients suffering from anything atypical.
Or maybe I’m being unfair and this is just true of people in general.
I think medical school / career pressures do a good job of selecting strongly for folks good at following instructions and memorizing information provided by some authority at the expense of curiosity or critical thinking. This works great when someone goes in for a common condition and needs routine treatment, but can get pretty frustrating for patients suffering from anything atypical.
Or maybe I’m being unfair and this is just true of people in general.
Or maybe the doctors are rational, and patients are just generally less reliable than medical authorities are. Additionally, it's very hard to tell reliable patients from unreliable patients, and personal bias ends up playing a huge role.
> Your psychiatrist runs a practice and you're mad that they are practicing rather than researching?
I just write code and I have to research stuff, why oh why would mental health professionals not be required to do so?
I just write code and I have to research stuff, why oh why would mental health professionals not be required to do so?
Because when you're a medical professional you can lose your licence for experimenting on patients.
There's a big difference between "reading research papers" and "doing research." The former is expected. The latter generally is not. Most professional computer scientists do not write peer-reviewed papers in top academic journals during the course of normal professional development. (There's a big difference!)
Your code does not need to go through the FDA nor cost millions of dollars to run a valid trial.
He could work for NASA in which case his code would go through millions of dollars of analysis before it's run. ;)
A doctor should be quite curious about a something that might alleviate a common and serious ailment. Other things to do might be having a look in recent literature if 'nicotine' and 'schizophrenia' show up in the same paper, ping a colleague in research, or alternatively, explain the error of OP's reasoning in simple terms.
More fundamentally, an educated person should be able to have two different ideas in their head at the same time without having to suppress or reject one or the other:
a) nicotine is unhealthy
b) nicotine can be a cure
More fundamentally, an educated person should be able to have two different ideas in their head at the same time without having to suppress or reject one or the other:
a) nicotine is unhealthy
b) nicotine can be a cure
So... bear with me: Patient comes in and says "I noticed that nicotine helps with my symptoms." Doctor does some searches & reading and sees no results (because this study hadn't been published yet). Doctor tells patient, "There is no published, scientific evidence between nicotine use and treatment of schizophrenia. But there is evidence that smoking is bad."
That seems perfectly reasonable for a practicing doctor before this study was published. How can you be mad at that?! Do you thoroughly research every correlation you encounter in your field of expertise when you have other clients & projects to address?
(It seems reasonable to me.)
That seems perfectly reasonable for a practicing doctor before this study was published. How can you be mad at that?! Do you thoroughly research every correlation you encounter in your field of expertise when you have other clients & projects to address?
(It seems reasonable to me.)
A reasonable reaction would be 'tell me about the difference it makes to your symptomology' and maybe helping the patient figure out a way to track this systematically. Likewise I would have thought that mentioning my extensive experience of psychedelic drugs (also now suddenly fashionable) would have merited something other than 'uhuh', such as questions about how the temporary improvement in mood manifested or how long it lasted. I manage to have very interesting conversations on subjects I know nothing about by the simple method of asking people questions about the domain knowledge they've acquired, and I doubt that any psychiatrist has ever lost their license for listening too closely to their patients.
That reaction makes a lot of sense. Indeed, that would be the most effective method!
Fascinating story. Sorry it has become tougher since quitting--a near Sophie's Choice predicament.
I find M.D.'s to be alarmingly low in intellectual curiosity.
I find M.D.'s to be alarmingly low in intellectual curiosity.
The stakes are pretty high to get "curious" with applying medical treatments. So it's not surprising that the field selects (or teaches) them to dampen their curiosity. There's malady A whose treatment options are {a,b,c..}. The algorithm of treating the malady doesn't align itself with being curious. From an outsider, it seems like the difficulty in being an MD lies in knowing all the maladies and correctly applying their respective treatments (while not making mistakes).
You make an excellent point, but usually I can have a good conversation with a doctor about a physical malady, and once they work out that I'm not a hypochondriac or trying to impress them consultations have been very productive. I picked my last psychiatrist partly because he had a decent publishing record and I thought he would have some academic curiosity - and for all I know maybe he does, but he doesn't share it with his patients :)
Agree 100%. It is not that I am asking them to come up with unproven, novel treatments, merely to think the problem through a little bit more.
Are there not alternatives to smoking for taking nicotine?
Oh there are, but I was really really hooked on smoking. Until I quit I would keep going back to for the speed of the hit, sorta like a junkie who couldn't give up the needle.
Funnily enough I've never had problems with more stereotypically addictive drugs like cocaine. Maybe it's because of being exposed so much earlier or something.
Funnily enough I've never had problems with more stereotypically addictive drugs like cocaine. Maybe it's because of being exposed so much earlier or something.
Unfortunately many Chantix users suffer from intense side-effects, and many have committed suicide.
My 2C.. Our system doesn't provide the testing and data to make accurate, choices to build upon. We are at the mercy of over worked Drs, who look at basic tests, and often just have a minute to review at most. Our health is bound to the sheer luck of drawing a Dr who reads between the lines and can spot/sympathize/analyze our various issue(s).
My hypothesis is that there is too much variance in day to day life, activity, stress, food and liquid intake. In order to really test something I'd like to limit variables by using health apps for BP and HR, limiting diet by using something like Soylent for a month. That would establish the baseline test, then implement the change/drug/supplement, and test daily or weekly.
FWIW Yohimbe made me feel like shit. I would caution anyone looking at quick fixes without reading and setting up groundwork to accurately test yourself, even if its only anecdotal.
Why do I say we need to personally track things? There's a lot to learn. Is your system starved for, or already flooded with the element you're about to consume? Is your system lacking a precursor? Is your system failing downstream to break something else down which is causing a cascading build up? Everybody up-regulates and down-regulates stimulants, catacholamines, etc at different rates. Are you able to break it down from it's required co-factors upstream or downstream? As for Yohimbe, our adrenergic receptors are part of the puzzle there.
Many people have metabolic enzymatic variances, deficiencies, to full blown impairment and we all have changing levels of receptors. Some elements cross the blood brain barrier, some don't. Some people can benefit from a supplement, or an enzyme but to others it's actually detrimental since it may block another pathway. Even commonly known Dopamine and Serotonin require various ingredients that may or may not be present in our systems such as dopamine beta hydroxylase, LDopa, BH4, etc. Various receptor density in any area can impact both the uptake and down regulation, while cascading their impact neighboring systems.
We as humans, are all very different on what works, and what doesn't. It sucks, and it's amazing.
My hypothesis is that there is too much variance in day to day life, activity, stress, food and liquid intake. In order to really test something I'd like to limit variables by using health apps for BP and HR, limiting diet by using something like Soylent for a month. That would establish the baseline test, then implement the change/drug/supplement, and test daily or weekly.
FWIW Yohimbe made me feel like shit. I would caution anyone looking at quick fixes without reading and setting up groundwork to accurately test yourself, even if its only anecdotal.
Why do I say we need to personally track things? There's a lot to learn. Is your system starved for, or already flooded with the element you're about to consume? Is your system lacking a precursor? Is your system failing downstream to break something else down which is causing a cascading build up? Everybody up-regulates and down-regulates stimulants, catacholamines, etc at different rates. Are you able to break it down from it's required co-factors upstream or downstream? As for Yohimbe, our adrenergic receptors are part of the puzzle there.
Many people have metabolic enzymatic variances, deficiencies, to full blown impairment and we all have changing levels of receptors. Some elements cross the blood brain barrier, some don't. Some people can benefit from a supplement, or an enzyme but to others it's actually detrimental since it may block another pathway. Even commonly known Dopamine and Serotonin require various ingredients that may or may not be present in our systems such as dopamine beta hydroxylase, LDopa, BH4, etc. Various receptor density in any area can impact both the uptake and down regulation, while cascading their impact neighboring systems.
We as humans, are all very different on what works, and what doesn't. It sucks, and it's amazing.
All very good points. I do feel that part of the problem is attitudinal - I am from Europe and have been to psychiatrists in 2 countries with public health systems as well as privately here (where I paid out of pocket without even asking for a discount).
Of course psychiatrists have a difficult job - there isn't a simple blood test for many mental conditions, for example, so starting out by compiling checklists is almost unavoidable. But none of the psychiatrists whose care I've ever been under (8 or 9 I think) has ever done so much as a blood draw or discussed even the possibility of doing a brain scan, or well, anything.
At best I've gotten confirmation for the research I did on the internet or in the library, and while I'm sure it's very annoying to have patients with no medical degree coming in and asking half-baked questions about this or that study, I don't feel very sympathetic considering that it's really the psychiatrist's job to apprise the patient of those options, or at least to take the patients' reports and suggestions seriously and work wit the information available.
While I'm (obviously) pissed off about all this, at the same time I consider myself very lucky - I live in the age of the internet and despite having a lot of mental problems I'm also smart and discriminating so at least I'm able to exert some influence over my own treatment. Most people with mental illness enjoy no such advantages. My best friend suffered a psychotic break about a year ago and was institutionalized for most of a month, right here in the Bay Area. Conditions were better than a jail, but not much. I was especially struck by the dire low quality of the food; how can you expect people to get better when their nutrition is such an obviously low priority?
I'm going to shut up now - as you can see I have a vested interest in this topic and the inequities anger me so much that it doesn't make for good conversation. Apologies to my fellow HNers who may have found this difficult to read.
Of course psychiatrists have a difficult job - there isn't a simple blood test for many mental conditions, for example, so starting out by compiling checklists is almost unavoidable. But none of the psychiatrists whose care I've ever been under (8 or 9 I think) has ever done so much as a blood draw or discussed even the possibility of doing a brain scan, or well, anything.
At best I've gotten confirmation for the research I did on the internet or in the library, and while I'm sure it's very annoying to have patients with no medical degree coming in and asking half-baked questions about this or that study, I don't feel very sympathetic considering that it's really the psychiatrist's job to apprise the patient of those options, or at least to take the patients' reports and suggestions seriously and work wit the information available.
While I'm (obviously) pissed off about all this, at the same time I consider myself very lucky - I live in the age of the internet and despite having a lot of mental problems I'm also smart and discriminating so at least I'm able to exert some influence over my own treatment. Most people with mental illness enjoy no such advantages. My best friend suffered a psychotic break about a year ago and was institutionalized for most of a month, right here in the Bay Area. Conditions were better than a jail, but not much. I was especially struck by the dire low quality of the food; how can you expect people to get better when their nutrition is such an obviously low priority?
I'm going to shut up now - as you can see I have a vested interest in this topic and the inequities anger me so much that it doesn't make for good conversation. Apologies to my fellow HNers who may have found this difficult to read.
It's a business. They aren't going to risk their career to help you.
I had a conversation with a psychiatrist who had done Skype sessions with patients while he was in Australia. That was okay with his malpractice insurance. He turned me down on the grounds that his insurance wouldn't cover the patient being remote. He was willing to take a risk on a former patient that was interested in remote sessions. For what its worth I would be willing to sign away my rights for progressive care.
I had a conversation with a psychiatrist who had done Skype sessions with patients while he was in Australia. That was okay with his malpractice insurance. He turned me down on the grounds that his insurance wouldn't cover the patient being remote. He was willing to take a risk on a former patient that was interested in remote sessions. For what its worth I would be willing to sign away my rights for progressive care.
Perhaps there are others in more need of his services than you. No need to call him an asshole, you aren't entitled to his services.
For those who have seen severe mental illness up close, this is not surprising in the least. Many, many people with schizophrenia or other disorders characterized by psychosis self-medicate heavily with cigarettes. Huddled masses of patients smoking outside are fixtures of most psychiatric treatment facilities.
It's not particularly surprising, but it's good to have the evidence.
> Huddled masses of patients smoking outside are fixtures of most psychiatric treatment facilities.
It's a bit more complicated than "self treating with nicotine". A number of people go into hospital as non-smokers and come out as addicted smokers.
Smoking cessation combined with decent occupational therapy is important to reduce harm.
The knee-jerk banning of vaping in many hospitals is a bit worrying.
> Huddled masses of patients smoking outside are fixtures of most psychiatric treatment facilities.
It's a bit more complicated than "self treating with nicotine". A number of people go into hospital as non-smokers and come out as addicted smokers.
Smoking cessation combined with decent occupational therapy is important to reduce harm.
The knee-jerk banning of vaping in many hospitals is a bit worrying.
Well, its the same thing in prisons, so I always assumed its boredom/stress relief as the explanation for chain smoking.
Err... you may have a significant overlap in the Venn diagram between prison population and people with schizophrenia. It's long known that mentally ill people make up a large part of the prison population.
The same applies to office buildings
I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that those people are medicating the condition with nicotine. It is incredibly useful (anecdotally at least) in dealing with stress which is probably higher in people with mental issues.
Original DOI link:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nm.4274
Edit: Please read abandonliberty's comment below before reading mine. I didn't properly elucidate the position on the harms v. benefits tradeoff (net harm) the way abandonliberty did.
My own opinion: it wouldn't be terribly surprising to see many harmful substances only be harmful to a majority subset of a population space, though that's why the scheduling system (theoretically) exists -- to allow drugs to be classified based on harm v. benefit to various populations. Whether Nicotine should be scheduled is... well, given the number of people addicted to it, probably not the easiest conversation to have. I originally thought it was Schedule II (high abuse potential but with some medical benefit, which would certainly fit our potential future understanding of nicotine based on studies like this), but it turns out my original hunch was faulty googling.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nm.4274
Edit: Please read abandonliberty's comment below before reading mine. I didn't properly elucidate the position on the harms v. benefits tradeoff (net harm) the way abandonliberty did.
My own opinion: it wouldn't be terribly surprising to see many harmful substances only be harmful to a majority subset of a population space, though that's why the scheduling system (theoretically) exists -- to allow drugs to be classified based on harm v. benefit to various populations. Whether Nicotine should be scheduled is... well, given the number of people addicted to it, probably not the easiest conversation to have. I originally thought it was Schedule II (high abuse potential but with some medical benefit, which would certainly fit our potential future understanding of nicotine based on studies like this), but it turns out my original hunch was faulty googling.
Unfortunately drug schedules aren't evidence based, and there's no evidence based measurement for "potential for abuse" in use by the DEA or FDA.
[deleted]
Clarifying: Nicotine harms everyone. Net harm to a schizophrenic may be negative, but they are still harmed.
"Self-medication hypotheses" exist for many abused substances. Rather than accusing the addicted of poor education, self control, or intelligence it argues (with mounting evidence) that there is a structural or genetic issue that contributes for some addictions.
Ideally we would figure out the mechanism of action and design something with less negative life altering side-effects.
There's always an opportunity to examine freedom of choice/free will for the more philosophic among us :)
"Self-medication hypotheses" exist for many abused substances. Rather than accusing the addicted of poor education, self control, or intelligence it argues (with mounting evidence) that there is a structural or genetic issue that contributes for some addictions.
Ideally we would figure out the mechanism of action and design something with less negative life altering side-effects.
There's always an opportunity to examine freedom of choice/free will for the more philosophic among us :)
"Nicotine harms everyone. Net harm to a schizophrenic may be negative, but they are still harmed."
This is also true of chemotherapy and many of the tricyclics.
This is also true of chemotherapy and many of the tricyclics.
Bullshit. Nicotine in itself doesn't harm anyone, that's completely made up. On the contrary, a lot of people would be helped by getting more Nicotine into their system, preferably from eating veggies rather than smoking it.
The burden of proof is on you here. If you're going to argue something at odds with the medical profession and most published research, you better have some solid facts from reliable sources.
Keep in mind that most of this published research is about smoking cigarettes (using "nicotine" as a metonymy).
> Nicotine in itself doesn't harm anyone, that's completely made up.
Unless you take too much or have an intolerance. Sweeping statements about neurotoxins usually ignore their complex effects.
Unless you take too much or have an intolerance. Sweeping statements about neurotoxins usually ignore their complex effects.
That Schizophrenia patients smoke a lot is well known. I guess this explains it.
The other weird Schizophrenia fact is that blind people are never Schizophrenic. Congenital Blindness, that is. Poking your eyes out won't cure Schizophrenia once you have it.
The other weird Schizophrenia fact is that blind people are never Schizophrenic. Congenital Blindness, that is. Poking your eyes out won't cure Schizophrenia once you have it.
This is odd. I've met a blind schizophrenic.
Edit: ah, "congenital" blindness. The person I met lost their sight very early in life, I think immediately after birth.
Edit: ah, "congenital" blindness. The person I met lost their sight very early in life, I think immediately after birth.
> blind people are never Schizophrenic
That is an interesting observation. Do you have a source?
That is an interesting observation. Do you have a source?
Thank you, very exciting.
[deleted]
Until the site recovers from the hug of death, here's a cache: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http:/...
[deleted]
thanks!
It won't really be a surprise, when science learns that most "harmful addictive" substances can improve aspects of brain function for many people.
I think this comes back to the old expression that The dose makes the poison (or: "All things are poison and nothing is without poison; only the dose makes a thing not a poison").
So, the idea that vaporizing a small amount of nicotine daily may be beneficial for certain conditions, does not contradict the idea that sucking down 20-30 unfiltered cigarettes a day is probably a net harm in all cases.
Science understands this already. Government and society, not so much. Even serious research is pretty much banned with certain substances, which seems ridiculous to me.
So, the idea that vaporizing a small amount of nicotine daily may be beneficial for certain conditions, does not contradict the idea that sucking down 20-30 unfiltered cigarettes a day is probably a net harm in all cases.
Science understands this already. Government and society, not so much. Even serious research is pretty much banned with certain substances, which seems ridiculous to me.
Cigarettes are very harmful and addictive.
Nicotine is only somewhat addictive and even less harmful.
Nicotine is only somewhat addictive and even less harmful.
Nicotine is the addictive agent in cigarettes, but not much of the harm.
Isn't nicotine rather weakly addictive alone, and only significantly addictive when combined with other stuff in tobacco?
https://www.gwern.net/Nicotine#addictiveness
https://www.gwern.net/Nicotine#addictiveness
That's what I've heard too. Not that I've studied the science.
Isn't it more the delivery mechanism than the drug itself?
After lung disease, the second largest consequence of tobacco smoking is heart disease, which is due to the nicotine itself.
That hasn't been unequivocably established. For example, a 2016 review article "Cardiovascular Toxicity of Nicotine: Implications for Electronic Cigarette Use" published in Trends in Cardiovascular Medicine (http://sci-hub.cc/10.1016/j.tcm.2016.03.001) concluded:
> Studies of the pharmacology and toxicology of nicotine in animals and some epidemiologic studies in people support the biological plausibility that nicotine contributes to acute cardiovascular events in smokers with underlying CVD, and exerts pharmacologic effects that could contribute to accelerated atherogenesis. Short-term nicotine use, such as nicotine medication to aid smoking cessation, appears to pose little cardiovascular risk, even to patients with known CVD. Longer term nicotine use, such as in ST users, appears not accelerate atherogenesis, but may contribute to acute cardiovascular events in the presence of CVD.
"may contribute to acute cardiovascular events in the presence of CVD" is a far cry from being the sole (or even principle) cause of smoking-related cardiovascular disease.
> Studies of the pharmacology and toxicology of nicotine in animals and some epidemiologic studies in people support the biological plausibility that nicotine contributes to acute cardiovascular events in smokers with underlying CVD, and exerts pharmacologic effects that could contribute to accelerated atherogenesis. Short-term nicotine use, such as nicotine medication to aid smoking cessation, appears to pose little cardiovascular risk, even to patients with known CVD. Longer term nicotine use, such as in ST users, appears not accelerate atherogenesis, but may contribute to acute cardiovascular events in the presence of CVD.
"may contribute to acute cardiovascular events in the presence of CVD" is a far cry from being the sole (or even principle) cause of smoking-related cardiovascular disease.
It looks like about 1/3 of smoking-related deaths are due more to the nicotine than the smoke: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/heal...
That's much higher than I'd assumed, and bad news for those who want to claim that e-cigarettes are essentially safe.
EDIT: DanBC points out below[1] that it's wrong to assume the cardiovascular disease is caused primarily by nicotine, which is how I came to think it was about 1/3. So I retract this interpretation, but leave it up for posterity :)
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13467235
That's much higher than I'd assumed, and bad news for those who want to claim that e-cigarettes are essentially safe.
EDIT: DanBC points out below[1] that it's wrong to assume the cardiovascular disease is caused primarily by nicotine, which is how I came to think it was about 1/3. So I retract this interpretation, but leave it up for posterity :)
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13467235
I couldn't find that evidence anywhere in your link. A report by Public Health England estimated e-cigarettes to be at least 95% less harmful than combustible tobacco.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...
The report you linked does not explain the 95% number, and following their citations bottomed out in articles that don't contain that number either. I'd need to spend more time looking through those before I'd feel comfortable saying that no existence for the 95% harm reduction claim can be found in the tree of citations spinning out from the PHE report, but please be aware that as of now you have not provided evidence for that claim. I'd be pleased if you would, since it would probably save me a lot of time later.
Thanks, this is more clear and straightforward about where they got that number, though the relevant citation ends up being the same as in the longer document.
The evidence cited in that summary is the study 'Estimating the Harms of Nicotine-Containing Products Using the MCDA Approach'[1]. If you read that paper, I guarantee you will find yourself much less confident in the 95% harm reduction claim. Briefly, here's the method they employed:
* Convene a panel of "international experts" in a two day workshop. * Ask each participant to separately rate how harmful they believe each type of nicotine-containing product is, on a scale of 0 (no harm) - 100 (cigarettes). * Weight/average the scores and publish the results
In case anyone is inclined to think that counts as "evidence", be aware that the authors of that study don't:
"A limitation of this study is the lack of hard evidence for the harms of most products on most of the criteria"
They fail to mention in particular the lack of long-term evidence for some of the products, which have not been available long enough to properly measure.
In any case, I am aware that vaping nicotine is much safer than combusting tobacco (though I think the latter is a lot yummier). However, I found this to be an interesting case study in how a report can pull out precise and scientific-looking numbers like 95% and trust that people for the most part will take that at face value without looking into the scientific validity of the claim.
[1] http://www.karger.com/article/FullText/360220
The evidence cited in that summary is the study 'Estimating the Harms of Nicotine-Containing Products Using the MCDA Approach'[1]. If you read that paper, I guarantee you will find yourself much less confident in the 95% harm reduction claim. Briefly, here's the method they employed:
* Convene a panel of "international experts" in a two day workshop. * Ask each participant to separately rate how harmful they believe each type of nicotine-containing product is, on a scale of 0 (no harm) - 100 (cigarettes). * Weight/average the scores and publish the results
In case anyone is inclined to think that counts as "evidence", be aware that the authors of that study don't:
"A limitation of this study is the lack of hard evidence for the harms of most products on most of the criteria"
They fail to mention in particular the lack of long-term evidence for some of the products, which have not been available long enough to properly measure.
In any case, I am aware that vaping nicotine is much safer than combusting tobacco (though I think the latter is a lot yummier). However, I found this to be an interesting case study in how a report can pull out precise and scientific-looking numbers like 95% and trust that people for the most part will take that at face value without looking into the scientific validity of the claim.
[1] http://www.karger.com/article/FullText/360220
Which part of your link, or the large surgeon general's report, say that "about 1/3 of smoking related deaths are due more to the nicotine than the smoke"?
Out of 480,317 deaths attributed to cigarette smoking, 160K were due to cardiovascular diseases and metabolic diseases. 160/480 = .3333
This calculation makes the charitable assumption that none of the deaths categorized as Cancer were due to the nicotine itself. The categories are Cancer, Cardiovascular Diseases and Metabolic Diseases, Respiratory Diseases, Perinatal Conditions, Residential Fires, Secondhand Smoke.
This calculation makes the charitable assumption that none of the deaths categorized as Cancer were due to the nicotine itself. The categories are Cancer, Cardiovascular Diseases and Metabolic Diseases, Respiratory Diseases, Perinatal Conditions, Residential Fires, Secondhand Smoke.
Why are you assuming all the cardiovascular disease was caused by nicotine? That doesn't seem to be what the full report is saying, although maybe I missed it.
Why are you assuming the nicotine is solely to blame, and not for example the carbon monoxide?
Page 419:
> The 2010 Surgeon General’s report reviewed in great detail the mechanisms by which cigarette smoking leads to CHD; Figure 8.3 provides an overview of the mechanisms considered (Benowitz 2003). In addition to supporting the findings of previous reports, the 2010 report concluded that smoking produces insulin resistance that, together with chronic inflammation, can accelerate the development of both macrovascular and microvascular complications, including nephropathy, and the use of nicotine replacement and medications to aid smoking cessation in smokers with CHD produces far less risk than continued smoking.
Page 420:
> Nicotine is a sympathomimetic agent that increases heart rate and cardiac contractility, transiently increasing blood pressure and constricting coronary arteries (see Chapter 5). Nicotine may also contribute to endothelial dysfunction, insulin resistance, and lipid abnormalities. However, international epidemiologic evidence, and data from clinical trials of nicotine patches, suggests that chemical components in smoke other than nicotine are more important in elevating the risk of death from MI and stroke
Why are you assuming the nicotine is solely to blame, and not for example the carbon monoxide?
Page 419:
> The 2010 Surgeon General’s report reviewed in great detail the mechanisms by which cigarette smoking leads to CHD; Figure 8.3 provides an overview of the mechanisms considered (Benowitz 2003). In addition to supporting the findings of previous reports, the 2010 report concluded that smoking produces insulin resistance that, together with chronic inflammation, can accelerate the development of both macrovascular and microvascular complications, including nephropathy, and the use of nicotine replacement and medications to aid smoking cessation in smokers with CHD produces far less risk than continued smoking.
Page 420:
> Nicotine is a sympathomimetic agent that increases heart rate and cardiac contractility, transiently increasing blood pressure and constricting coronary arteries (see Chapter 5). Nicotine may also contribute to endothelial dysfunction, insulin resistance, and lipid abnormalities. However, international epidemiologic evidence, and data from clinical trials of nicotine patches, suggests that chemical components in smoke other than nicotine are more important in elevating the risk of death from MI and stroke
> Why are you assuming the nicotine is solely to blame, and not for example the carbon monoxide?
Good point, thanks.
I will relax my assumption to "some of the cardiovascular disease is caused by nicotine," and admit that I don't have enough information to know what percentage of smoking deaths are attributable to just the nicotine.
Do you happen to know if they've figured this out?
Good point, thanks.
I will relax my assumption to "some of the cardiovascular disease is caused by nicotine," and admit that I don't have enough information to know what percentage of smoking deaths are attributable to just the nicotine.
Do you happen to know if they've figured this out?
I don't know.
I am uncomfortable with some of the other comments in this thread saying that nicotine is harmless. :-/
I am uncomfortable with some of the other comments in this thread saying that nicotine is harmless. :-/
Well. Vapers gonna vape :)
Nicotine is one of my favorite drugs, which is why I personally keep a safe distance from it. E-cigarettes may be worse for you than a glass of water, but I am pretty happy about all the lives they're saving as they replace regular cigarettes.
Nicotine is one of my favorite drugs, which is why I personally keep a safe distance from it. E-cigarettes may be worse for you than a glass of water, but I am pretty happy about all the lives they're saving as they replace regular cigarettes.
Away with your nuances, we must stay 'on message' and the message is 'psychoactive substances are always bad'. :P
Relevant SSC post on the topic: http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/01/11/schizophrenia-no-smokin....
Might be because of niacin too, here is the informative article:
http://www.orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v13n05.shtml
http://www.orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v13n05.shtml
I'm surprised that no one has pointed out that tobacco absorbs lithium from the ground can be found in smoking tobacco [1]. Lithium is also used as an anti-psychotic medication.
1: http://www.europsy-journal.com/article/S0924-9338(16)00128-0...
1: http://www.europsy-journal.com/article/S0924-9338(16)00128-0...
Targacept was a biotech company that spun off from RJ Reynolds [1] with the goal of making drugs related to nicotine that would help with schizophrenia and other psychiatric/neurological disorders. They tried really hard, and it didn't work [2].
[1] http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/rj-reynolds-tobacco-...
[2] http://www.journalnow.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-targa...
[1] http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/rj-reynolds-tobacco-...
[2] http://www.journalnow.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-targa...
I've been thinking this for some time, nicotine is the only thing that make me feel normal. You wouldn't think it would take so long to figure this out
Can anyone with access to the paper give a few technical details? The abstract mentions "Chronic nicotine administration" does this mean the nicotine dosage is high enough to not be a viable basis for treatment?
The linked article claims that this could be a basis for new drug research, which sounds exciting, but how much do we already know about drugs that affect the nicotinic receptors?
The linked article claims that this could be a basis for new drug research, which sounds exciting, but how much do we already know about drugs that affect the nicotinic receptors?
I'm sure that means "smoking or equivalent".
Full article:
http://sci-hub.cc/10.1038/nm.4274
Try to look up this article(by doi) on sci-hub.cc
Ok, early days, but does this mean nicotine gum or vaping with an E-liquid with nicotine could be used for Schizophrenia treatment?
This is at the intersection of several of my interests.
The idea that nicotine improves cognition in schizophrenia is not new and, indeed, several drugs inspired by this idea (nicotinic agonists) are currently in the pipeline for the treatment of ADHD, schizophrenia, and depression. [1]
In this paper, the researchers are focused on a polymorphism in the CHRNA5 gene. Pulling up my 23andme data, this mutation (rs16969968) looks common, listed at 45% of the population. I have one of the "bad" alleles and, personally, use nicotine as a stimulant every once in a while and find it more effective than coffee but less effective than adderall.
If you are interested in this sort of research, I recommend getting part of your genome sequenced with 23andme [2] and then running your data through Promethease [3]. But, remember, don't take anything too seriously -- most of this isn't settled science.
There is also some evidence that nicotine may function as a "nootropic," i.e. a drug that enhances cognition even in the healthy. Nick Bostrom mentions using nicotine and caffeine to aid writing his book Superintelligence.
Contrary to what you might believe, nicotine is probably not all that bad for you, or even that addictive when not used in combination with an MAOI. The best review of this is, as usual, by Gwern. [4]
Finally, I want to mention a few other interesting properties of nicotine:
- The drug seems to more strongly reinforce behaviors done while under the influence of it than it reinforces "taking nicotine" (addiction). This may make it useful for implementing positive habits. e.g. I often chew half a piece of nicotine gum while running in an attempt to solidify my exercise routine.
- One study suggests that, at least in mice, nicotine administration results in long-term upregulation of reward sensitivity. [5]
Huge disclaimer here at the bottom: if this post convinces you to experiment with nicotine, please do not start with vaping. The near-instant reinforcement of inhaling a stimulant makes it much more addictive. Stick with gum, or a tincture. [6]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotinic_agonist#Current_stat... [2] https://www.23andme.com/ [3] https://promethease.com/ [4] https://www.gwern.net/Nicotine [5] http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v31/n6/full/1300905a.html [6] https://www.reddit.com/r/Nootropics/comments/3lvkmc/nicotine...
The idea that nicotine improves cognition in schizophrenia is not new and, indeed, several drugs inspired by this idea (nicotinic agonists) are currently in the pipeline for the treatment of ADHD, schizophrenia, and depression. [1]
In this paper, the researchers are focused on a polymorphism in the CHRNA5 gene. Pulling up my 23andme data, this mutation (rs16969968) looks common, listed at 45% of the population. I have one of the "bad" alleles and, personally, use nicotine as a stimulant every once in a while and find it more effective than coffee but less effective than adderall.
If you are interested in this sort of research, I recommend getting part of your genome sequenced with 23andme [2] and then running your data through Promethease [3]. But, remember, don't take anything too seriously -- most of this isn't settled science.
There is also some evidence that nicotine may function as a "nootropic," i.e. a drug that enhances cognition even in the healthy. Nick Bostrom mentions using nicotine and caffeine to aid writing his book Superintelligence.
Contrary to what you might believe, nicotine is probably not all that bad for you, or even that addictive when not used in combination with an MAOI. The best review of this is, as usual, by Gwern. [4]
Finally, I want to mention a few other interesting properties of nicotine:
- The drug seems to more strongly reinforce behaviors done while under the influence of it than it reinforces "taking nicotine" (addiction). This may make it useful for implementing positive habits. e.g. I often chew half a piece of nicotine gum while running in an attempt to solidify my exercise routine.
- One study suggests that, at least in mice, nicotine administration results in long-term upregulation of reward sensitivity. [5]
Huge disclaimer here at the bottom: if this post convinces you to experiment with nicotine, please do not start with vaping. The near-instant reinforcement of inhaling a stimulant makes it much more addictive. Stick with gum, or a tincture. [6]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotinic_agonist#Current_stat... [2] https://www.23andme.com/ [3] https://promethease.com/ [4] https://www.gwern.net/Nicotine [5] http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v31/n6/full/1300905a.html [6] https://www.reddit.com/r/Nootropics/comments/3lvkmc/nicotine...
If I'm reading it correctly, the 'A' genotype is bad, for those who want to check for themselves:
https://you.23andme.com/tools/data/?query=rs16969968
https://you.23andme.com/tools/data/?query=rs16969968
> If you are interested in this sort of research, I recommend getting part of your genome sequenced with 23andme
I just want to point out the last time I read 23andme ToS, they claim ownership over the data and the right to onsell it. Just a warning for anyone concerned about privacy.
I just want to point out the last time I read 23andme ToS, they claim ownership over the data and the right to onsell it. Just a warning for anyone concerned about privacy.
Thanks for this comprehensive overview and the sensible caveats.
Cached page:
https://archive.is/riIDg
https://archive.is/riIDg
I wonder if this could be related https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/155/8/732/65654/Parkins...
Maybe the movie Sleeper wasn't just a comedy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2fYguIX17Q&t=208
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2fYguIX17Q&t=208
I've long suspected that nicotine has a net benefit effect on cognition.
I'm curious to see if there will be a new line of nACHr drugs that can potentially enhance cognition.
I'm curious to see if there will be a new line of nACHr drugs that can potentially enhance cognition.
[deleted]
I was intrigued by reports that nicotine can improve cognition in otherwise healthy people so I read through as many studies/articles I could find online. After deciding that I'd done enough research I took the plunge and began self experimenting with 2mg gum. I took it daily throughout the day at regular-ish intervals for around 2-3 months.
The affects I experienced were as follows:
* it had a positive impact on my focus
* it provided a boost to my wakefulness if I had a bad night's sleep
* my brain felt like it would "tighten up" while I was taking it
* my body felt like it was experiencing higher blood pressure
Short term I was happy with the results.
I am a fit and healthy, non-smoking, cognitively normal (afaik) middle aged male.
After almost 3 months of taking nicotine gum I developed a cyst in one of my retinas brought on by "high pressure damage to the blood vessels".
When I measured my blood pressure, my base pressure had increased by ~10% (as compared to pre-experiment, measured over several days). The real problem would happen if I was under stress, my BP would spike to dangerous levels when it never had done before. I also felt that I would get stressed more easily.
My blood pressure took a few weeks to drop back to normal. I didn't have any withdrawal symptoms save for the sensation of chewing gum.
I won't be repeating this experiment.
Sharing this story in case you're considering long term usage, whether for medical or experimental purposes.
Medical literature seems to support this experience (although supposedly the effect is smaller in women, sorry couldn't find the source for this particular point):
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12356338
edit: spelling