http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Our gut feeling rarely lets us down, although we know very little about how it happens. As science discovers more about the connection between the gut and brain, the role of the little-known and rare enterochromaffin (EC) cells becomes central to our understanding of how the brain and gut communicate. We have all felt butterflies or that wrenching feeling in our stomach when we are anxious, and we also know that long term anxiety and depression often leads to various disorders of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. We have known for some time about that our mental state can affect the gut, and what we are discovering now with the help of modern research is how gut health affects the brain and general well-being. These days, it seems that what has been missing from this cyclic relationship is our understanding of EC cell functions.

Basic features of the gut-brain axis

To fully appreciate the role of EC cells, we have to delve into some basic underlying concepts and facts. Our gut has more neurons than our spine or peripheral nervous system—that is why it is also known as the second brain. These neurons have various functions, like controlling gut motility, protecting against irritants (through increased motility or vomiting), and many other still to be understood functionalities. These gut neurons mostly work independently from the brain, but when required, they send information and get feedback from the brain, thus functioning as a closed loop often called the gut-brain axis.

EC cells play a vital part in the gut-brain axis. These cells have receptors that are always listening to various activities in the gut and sending feedback to the brain and other neurons of the gut through chemical messengers or hormones. Although EC cells have functional similarities to glands, they are spread all over the digestive tract, and they form about one percent of the gut epithelium. Although one percent may sound small, EC cells secrete more than 30 kinds of hormones and neurotransmitters (this number will likely increase as more are identified). In fact, they secrete more than 90% of the body’s serotonin, a neurotransmitter well-known for its role in various mental states, including mental disorders like depression and anxiety.

Now, it is well understood that the communication between the brain and gut is double-sided, forming a loop. Thus, mental distress causes gut disorders, and gut disorders may influence mental states. Moreover, EC cells have a critical role in this entire axis.

Brain and GI disorders

Stress is known not only to cause GI disorders, but it also makes the symptoms worse. Stress and psychological factors change the movement of the GI tract, worsen inflammatory processes, and even increase susceptibility to various infections. In all of these processes, EC cells play a crucial role. The release of serotonin from EC cells is the key mechanism for controlling the motility of the gut. They can be stimulated due to local irritation, as well as through nerve supply, especially the

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

People who consume more than one diet soda a day are nearly three times more likely to develop dementia or stroke. Surprisingly, no such association was found for sugared drinks. These are the latest findings from a study published in the journal Stroke on the 20th of April 2017.

This study comprised of more than 4000 participants enrolled in the Framingham Heart Study Offspring Cohort. Dietary intake of sugared drinks and artificially sweetened drinks were recorded at 3 different time points over 10 years. Participants were followed up for another 10 years and were observed for the development of stroke or dementia.

Interestingly, the association between artificial sweeteners and the risk of stroke or dementia were not influenced by potentially confounding factors, such as age, gender, smoking status, physical activity levels, and total calorie intake. Despite this, the researchers concluded that pre-existing diabetes or hypertension may be partially to blame for the correlation between artificial sweeteners and dementia. However, it is unclear if patients with these conditions could in fact be consuming more artificial sweeteners in an attempt to reduce sugar intake.

Nevertheless, the abovementioned study fuels emerging concerns that artificial sweeteners may not be the ‘safe alternative’ to sugar. As the first study to associate diet sodas to dementia, it underscores the potential harm that artificial sweeteners may have on the brain.

Moderate amounts of glucose are important for ensuring proper brain function. As the only source of energy for brain cells, glucose is responsible for powering neurons and for producing neurotransmitters that are vital for neuron to neuron signalling in the brain. Brain cells that support and maintain the neurons, such as astrocytes and microglia, also depend on glucose.

Neurons are exquisitely sensitive to drops in glucose levels. Epileptic syndromes have been ascribed to neurons that are deficient for a protein called glucose transporter type 1 (GLUT1), rendering brain cells unable to draw up glucose from the blood. Neurological conditions such as migraines, strokes, and traumatic brain injury all have a component of altered glucose metabolism in the brain.

On the other side of the coin, too much of a good thing is never a good idea. Excessive sugar intake induces a myriad of diseases, such as type 2 diabetes mellitus, metabolic syndrome, dental problems, and many others. According to the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 2011–2014, half of all adults in the U.S. drank at least one sugary beverage a day.

What is behind our seemingly innate attraction to sweetness? The concept of ‘sugar addiction’ has stemmed from observing binging, withdrawal, and craving-like behavior in rats that were exposed to sugar. The current theory holds that intermittent, excessive sugar consumption causes altered neurochemical transmissions (one of them being a large release of the neurotransmitter dopamine) in the nucleus accumbens, the brain’s feelgood center. These brain changes are strikingly similar to those that occur in response to addictive drugs.

Excess amounts of sugar may also predispose us to developing brain diseases. Another study, which also utilized the data from the Framingham Heart Study Offspring cohort, discovered that people who drank two sugary drinks a day had lower total brain volume, smaller hippocampal volumes (an area of the brain responsible for forming memories), and poorer memory.

Given mankind’s insatiable appetite for sugar, artificial sweeteners were introduced to help the masses limit their sugar intake. Also known as low calorie sweeteners, FDA-approved artificial sweeteners include aspartame, neotame, acesulfame-K, sucralose, and saccharin. Low calorie sweeteners can be up to 13,000 times sweeter than regular sugar but with a fraction of the calories.

In recent years, evidence has sprung up rebutting the perceived beneficial health effects of artificial sweeteners. A large systemic review of 37 studies on these sweeteners revealed that increased intake actually resulted in increased weight and waist circumference, as well as higher occurrences of type 2 diabetes, obesity, metabolic syndrome, hypertension, and heart disease.

Furthermore, artificial sweeteners and regular sugar act differently on the brain. Brain scans of people who sipped regular sugary drinks showed stronger activation of more regions involved in reward centers compared to those who sipped drinks with sweeteners. This means that artificial sweeteners may not be as satisfying as regular sugar, leaving a person craving for more sweet foods that ultimately leads to a higher total calorie intake.

All these factors are especially worrying when taking into consideration the estimated 1 in 4 children and 2 in 5 adults who consume low calorie sweeteners on a daily basis.

Does this mean that artificial sweeteners do more harm than good? The jury’s still out on that one, as artificial sweeteners are helpful in certain populations, like diabetics. Regardless, both sugar and artificial sweeteners are best consumed in moderation—whether or not artificial sweeteners confer health benefits remains to be elucidated.

References

Pase M.P. et al. Sugar and artificially sweetened beverages and the risks of incident stroke and dementia. Stroke. 2017;48:1139-1146. Doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.116.016027.

Mergenthaler, P., Lindauer, U., Dienel, G. A., Meisel, A. Sugar for the brain: the role of glucose in physiological and pathological brain function. Trends in Neurosciences. 2013; 36(10):587–597. doi: 10.1016/j.tins.2013.07.001.

Rosinger A., Herrick K., Gahche J., Park S. Sugar-sweetened beverage consumption among US adults, 2011-2014. NCHS Data Brief. 2017 Jan;(270):1-8. PMID: 28135185

Avena, N. M., Rada, P., & Hoebel, B. G. Evidence for sugar addiction: Behavioral and neurochemical effects of intermittent, excessive sugar intake. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews. 2008; 32(1):20–39. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2007.04.019.

Pase M.P. et al. Sugary beverage intake and preclinical Alzheimer’s disease in the community. Alzheimers Dement. 2017 Mar 6. pii: S1552-5260(17)30050-X. doi: 10.1016/j.jalz.2017.01.024.

Bellisle F., Drewnowski A. Intense sweeteners, energy intake and the control of body weight. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2007; 61:691–700; doi: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602649.

Meghan B. Azad et al. Non-nutritive sweeteners and cardiometabolic health: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies. CMAJ July 17, 2017 189:E929-E939; doi: 10.1503/cmaj.161390.

Frank G.K. et al. Sucrose activates human taste pathways differently from artificial sweetener. Neuroimage. 2008 Feb 15;39(4):1559-69. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.10.061.

Sylvetsky AC, Jin Y, Clark EJ, Welsh JA, Rother KI, Talegawkar SA. Consumption of low-calorie sweeteners among children and adults in the United States. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2016.11.004.

Image via evelynlo/Pixabay.

Vía Brain Blogger http://ift.tt/2vdfxFc

via WordPress http://ift.tt/2vopFH0

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

The ability to multitask is usually viewed positively. But does it help in improving productivity? New research indicates that this is highly unlikely.

For years we have been hearing and being allured by the term multitasking, with many of us unwittingly believing that it is something supernatural and too good to neglect, and we ought to develop it in ourselves to succeed. But the question arises, is it as good as it sounds? What does the new research say? Is it possible for a person to concentrate and remain productive on several tasks at once?

Going through research articles can be perplexing for most of us, but most of the research seems to favor doing one task at a time. There are several downsides to multitasking, often resulting in decreased overall productivity and quality of work. A person who tries to finish one job at a time seems to do more at the end of the day. Multitasking could be valuable only to a certain extent if you are doing some simple tasks, but after a certain threshold productivity decreases and quality of work suffers. Multitasking often fails to improve productivity.

Ultimately, it depends on the kind of tasks you are doing. If a person is doing lots of jobs, that are simple and the person performing them is adept at them, then maybe yes, in some cases multitasking may be good, but mostly this is not the case. Some people are inherently inferior to others in multitasking. One thing that most scientific research demonstrates is that multitasking results in significant loss of accuracy. The more you multitask, the more errors you are bound to make, thereby leading to reduced overall productivity. Considering that in some cases performance errors can even be catastrophic, improved performance with most multitasking is a mere illusion that comes at the price of poor results and higher error rate.

Multitasking leads to mental overloading

When people are given various tasks, they need some time to switch to another function. This results in the loss of both time and productivity. This switching time is directly related to the complexity of the task. If the task is being switched to is complicated and less familiar, one needs more time then when attending to more familiar task. Thus multitasking can result in mental overloading in reconfiguring mental settings as one switches between tasks. Also one has to memorize more information while switching between the various functions, like the progress status of the previous task. Research shows that these short mental blocks between the switching can bring down productivity by as much as forty percent. Scheduling tasks can be more efficient in increasing productivity as compared with multitasking.

What about gender differences?

Women may be better at juggling between several tasks, but this is true only when the tasks are simple in nature, the kind of tasks achieved on a daily basis, that do not require much mental processing. Examples include cleaning the house and talking on the phone. But when multitasking involves more complex tasks, this gender difference becomes irrelevant. Therefore,  talking on the phone while driving is equally dangerous for both sexes. In fact, one study demonstrated that women dislike multitasking as much as the men do. Given a choice, women don’t seem to switch between several tasks more often than men. When multitasking, both genders perform equally poorly. Whether multitasking is done by free will or it has been forced due to job constraints does not seem to have any effect on productivity.

Who is multitasking and why?

One study focused on finding personality differences between self-proclaimed multitaskers and non-multitaskers. The study tried to find out why some people opt to multitask while other may avoid, and if the multitaskers are actually any good at multitasking. Results of the research were quite astonishing.

Most of the people who multitask are not necessarily good at it. In fact, the results pointed to the opposite: people who are good at multitasking usually avoid doing it. Generally, those who are impulsive sensation seekers tend to multitask. By multitasking, some of these people seem to gain pleasure. Another reason why certain people multitask is due to overbloated self-assessment. Individuals who more regularly multitask often overrate their capabilities and fail to understand that they are not better than others in multitasking.

Multitaskers make mistakes more often, and they seem to be less self-critical about their abilities, and they have lowered understanding of their errors and losses. Further, multitaskers are often people with attention deficits who have difficulty focusing on a single given task.

What we know so far about multitasking

• Multitasking decreases productivity in most cases, by as much as forty percent.
• Multitasking results in much higher error rates, which reduces productivity and can be harmful in some cases.
• There are no proven gender differences in efficient multitasking.
• Multitasking is often related to certain personality traits like being impulsive and sensation seeking.
• Multitaskers are not typically the people who are good at it.
• Multitaskers often lack the ability to concentrate properly on a given task.
• Effectiveness of multitasking depends on the complexity of the job, with multiple complex jobs being harder to do at the same time than multiple easy jobs.
• Scheduling the various tasks can increase productivity relative to multitasking.

Thus,  the existing research studies seem to favor doing tasks sequentially or one by one, rather than multitasking. Multitasking increases the risk of making mistakes, and this rule applies equally to both genders. Therefore, understanding the downsides of multitasking not only improves productivity, but might also save us from catastrophic errors.

References

Adler, R.F., Benbunan-Fich, R., 2012. Juggling on a high wire: Multitasking effects on performance. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 70, 156–168. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2011.10.003.

Buser, T., Peter, N., 2012. Multitasking. Exp. Econ. 15, 641–655. doi: 10.1007/s10683-012-9318-8.

Kc, D.S., 2013. Does Multitasking Improve Performance? Evidence from the Emergency Department. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag. 16, 168–183. doi: 10.1287/msom.2013.0464.

Multitasking: Switching costs [WWW Document], n.d. . http://www.apa.org. URL http://ift.tt/RXy6nh (accessed 7.22.17).

Sanbonmatsu, D.M., Strayer, D.L., Medeiros-Ward, N., Watson, J.M., 2013. Who Multi-Tasks and Why? Multi-Tasking Ability, Perceived Multi-Tasking Ability, Impulsivity, and Sensation Seeking. PLOS ONE 8, e54402. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054402.

Image via SerenaWong/Pixabay.

Vía Brain Blogger http://ift.tt/2w3J7wJ

via WordPress http://ift.tt/2w6Mu5s

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

In my previous article on the subject of nootropics, I was writing about brain enhancing effects of some medicines and natural compounds. There is, however, a large number of nootropics that received little recognition from official science and remain rather poorly studied. There is a good reason for this too – these compounds tend to be addictive or hallucinogenic. This article aims to cover what is known about the effects of these substances.

Nicotine

It is rather curious that nicotine, a well-known addictive component of tobacco smoke, was confirmed to have nootropic effect. The research into this property of nicotine was triggered by observations that ex-smokers tend to complain about the lack of concentration and general decline in various aspects of cognitive abilities. It turned out that nicotine does improve episodic and working memory, as well as attention. Nicotine doses delivered via patches had positive effects (improved performance in cognitive tests) in adults with mild cognitive disorders, as well as in healthy non-smokers.

Cannabis/marijuana and cognitive processes

People of artistic professions often claim that smoking pot helps creativity. There is scientific evidence to substantiate these claims. Cannabinoids seem to temporarily increase communication between the left and right hemispheres of the brain thus creating a state of hyperconnectivity and allowing a loose flow of associations. This may explain the heightened creativity individuals experience when using marijuana. Reports of positive benefits include improved mood, lower levels of anxiety, stress, and depression, improved focus and fewer distractions, improved reaction times, more creative thoughts, greater verbal fluency, and better calculative complexity. These effects are largely dose-dependent, and taking higher amounts may lead to the opposite effects including sluggishness, lack of focus, nervousness, and impaired memory formation and recall.

However, the negative long-term effects of cannabis on brain structure and function have been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt. In fact, cognitive decline associated with the use of cannabis is a serious medical problem, and lots of scientific research aims to gain insights into this problem and the potential approaches to reverse decline.

Grey area: Psychedelic drugs (LSD, mushrooms) in microdosing

Type “psychedelics” and “microdosing” in Google search, and you will be flooded with thousands of articles claiming that compounds like LSD and psilocybin (active component of magic mushroom) have almost miraculous effect on human cognitive abilities. It appears that many inventors, researchers and innovators use psychedelic compounds in very small doses, occasionally or regularly, to reach a state of enhanced consciousness, get into flow, and work more productively.

But here is a problem: not a single proper scientific publication supports these claims. There is a good reason for this: due to their well-known hallucinogenic properties and serious potential side effects, psychedelics like LSD are banned in most countries around the world. In fact, LSD was banned in the US and UK back in 1960s. This means that the only peer-reviewed published research that could inform on the actual measurable effects of psychedelics as a nootropic were done 50 years ago. The most commonly cited work (Harman, et. al. (1966) “Psychedelic Agents in Creative Problem-Solving: A Pilot Study.” Psychedelic Reports 19, 211-27.) was published in 1966. Although the findings reported in this publication are interesting, the quality of this work in terms of general organization, the use of suitable control subjects, and statistical power is hardly satisfactory.

The hallucinogenic properties of psychedelics are well documented. Microdosing of these compounds for enhancement of cognitive abilities, however, has not been investigated scientifically. This leave lots of space for imagination and conspiracy theories. There were repeated calls from the research community to lift the ban on research into psychedelics, but so far they seem to have fallen on deaf ears.

There are numerous evidences that psychedelics can be used to treat various psychiatric disorders. Some resent studies indicate that administration of psylobicin in moderate doses is not associated with any significant short-term or long-term risk. When it comes to cognitive enhancement, none of the available peer-reviewed scientific publications confirm or rule out such a phenomenon. One interesting resent publication claims that exposure to microdoses of psilocybin creates a state of hyperconnectivity in the brain. The findings from functional MRI experiments show:

“that the structure of the brain’s functional patterns undergoes a dramatic change post-psilocybin, characterized by the appearance of many transient structures of low stability and of a small number of persistent ones that are not observed in the case of placebo. This means that the psychedelic state is associated with a less constrained and more intercommunicative mode of brain function, which is consistent with descriptions of the nature of consciousness in the psychedelic state.”

In other words, the study indirectly points to the possibility of cognitive enhancement and creative stimulation under the influence of psychedelics. Nonetheless, a more definite confirmation of this phenomenon is yet to be published.

A word in defense of official science

People of a more adventurous nature tend to blame the science and medicine industry for slowness in recognizing the benefits of smart drugs. But let’s look at this problem from the perspective of researchers. Most drugs are safe, but from time to time people do experience serious side effects and even life-threatening complications. Nobody wants to be one of the unlucky few. If something goes wrong, you’ll have nobody but yourself to blame. Regulatory bodies can recommend any given substance for any particular use only when they have sufficient evidence that a) confirms its effectiveness and b) shows that its side effects are mild and manageable, and/or its benefits far exceed the potential complications associated with its use (i.e., the risk is worth taking).

Development of novel nootropics is hampered by research, validation, and regulatory challenges. The road from the research laboratory to FDA approval is difficult, long, and costly. Pharmacological enhancement of healthy populations is fraught with ethical and philosophical pushbacks. Therapeutic effects observed in cognitively impaired patients often contradict those in healthy populations. Even approved drugs have issues with side effects and large individual differences. The long-term effects of nootropics are typically unknown. Most importantly, there is still much to be learned about the cellular and molecular basis for the various aspects of cognition. Once they are better understood, pharmacologists will have much better ideas about the processes in the brain to target and how to do it.

It is easy to get carried away with the potential opportunities that nootropics might offer. But don’t forget classical approaches: proper diet and exercise DO enhance brain functions. Many famous thinkers and creative people benefited from simple regular physical activities. Charles Dickens was spending several hours every day walking, sometimes for as much as 20 or 30 miles. Aristotle and Ludwig Van Beethoven are two other famous people who were known for their habit of wondering around while thinking. Physical activity pumps blood through your body and helps to deliver more oxygen to your brain. Regular exercise and healthy diet also keep your blood vessels healthy ensuring that this vital oxygenation is not reduced as you get older. Your normal lifestyle is responsible for your basic level of cognitive abilities. Smart drugs can be used to spike it up from time to time, but if the basic level is low, the spikes won’t go that high anyway!

To sum it up, although an occasional joint may heighten your creativity, the regular use of cannabis is definitely not a good approach to enhance cognitive abilities. There is an acute lack of research on benefits (or absence of such) of psychedelics in cognitive enhancement. Virtually all online information on the benefits of psychedelics as cognitive enhancers are completely unsubstantiated by scientific evidence. Any positive or negative appraisals represent personal views of the articles’ authors rather than results of research studies. Your lifestyle influences you basic level of cognitive abilities – don’t ignore generally accepted good strategies.

References

Heishman SJ et al. (2010) Meta-analysis of the acute effects of nicotine and smoking on human performance. Psychopharmacology (2010) 210: 453. doi: 10.1007/s00213-010-1848-1

Newhouse P et al. (2012) Nicotine treatment of mild cognitive impairment: a 6-month double-blind pilot clinical trial. Neurology 78, 91-101. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e31823efcbb.

Wignall ND and de Wit H (2011) Effects of nicotine on attention and inhibitory control in healthy nonsmokers. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology 19, 183-191. doi: 10.1037/a0023292

Morgan CJ et al. (2010) Hyper-priming in cannabis users: a naturalistic study of the effects of cannabis on semantic memory function. Psychiatry Res 176, 213-218. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2008.09.002.

Giovanni Battistella G et al. (2014) Long-Term Effects of Cannabis on Brain Structure. Neuropsychopharmacology 39, 2041–2048; doi: 10.1038/npp.2014.67

Filbey FM et al. (2014) Long-term effects of marijuana use on the brain. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111, 16913–16918. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1415297111

Studerus E et al. (2010) Acute, subacute and long-term subjective effects of psilocybin in healthy humans: a pooled analysis of experimental studies. Journal of Psychopharmacology  25, 1434 – 1452. doi: 10.1177/0269881110382466

Petri G et al. (2014) Homological Scaffolds of Brain Functional Networks. J R Soc Interface 11, 20140873. doi: 10.1098/rsif.2014.0873

Image via Wunderela/Pixabay.

Vía Brain Blogger http://ift.tt/2ffmCOl

via WordPress http://ift.tt/2vzAERQ

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

In my previous article on the subject of nootropics, I was writing about brain enhancing effects of some medicines and natural compounds. There is, however, a large number of nootropics that received little recognition from official science and remain rather poorly studied. There is a good reason for this too – these compounds tend to be addictive or hallucinogenic. This article aims to cover what is known about the effects of these substances.

Nicotine

It is rather curious that nicotine, a well-known addictive component of tobacco smoke, was confirmed to have nootropic effect. The research into this property of nicotine was triggered by observations that ex-smokers tend to complain about the lack of concentration and general decline in various aspects of cognitive abilities. It turned out that nicotine does improve episodic and working memory, as well as attention. Nicotine doses delivered via patches had positive effects (improved performance in cognitive tests) in adults with mild cognitive disorders, as well as in healthy non-smokers.

Cannabis/marijuana and cognitive processes

People of artistic professions often claim that smoking pot helps creativity. There is scientific evidence to substantiate these claims. Cannabinoids seem to temporarily increase communication between the left and right hemispheres of the brain thus creating a state of hyperconnectivity and allowing a loose flow of associations. This may explain the heightened creativity individuals experience when using marijuana. Reports of positive benefits include improved mood, lower levels of anxiety, stress, and depression, improved focus and fewer distractions, improved reaction times, more creative thoughts, greater verbal fluency, and better calculative complexity. These effects are largely dose-dependent, and taking higher amounts may lead to the opposite effects including sluggishness, lack of focus, nervousness, and impaired memory formation and recall.

However, the negative long-term effects of cannabis on brain structure and function have been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt. In fact, cognitive decline associated with the use of cannabis is a serious medical problem, and lots of scientific research aims to gain insights into this problem and the potential approaches to reverse decline.

Grey area: Psychedelic drugs (LSD, mushrooms) in microdosing

Type “psychedelics” and “microdosing” in Google search, and you will be flooded with thousands of articles claiming that compounds like LSD and psilocybin (active component of magic mushroom) have almost miraculous effect on human cognitive abilities. It appears that many inventors, researchers and innovators use psychedelic compounds in very small doses, occasionally or regularly, to reach a state of enhanced consciousness, get into flow, and work more productively.

But here is a problem: not a single proper scientific publication supports these claims. There is a good reason for this: due to their well-known hallucinogenic properties and serious potential side effects, psychedelics like LSD are banned in most countries around the world. In fact, LSD was banned in the US and UK back in 1960s. This means that the only peer-reviewed published research that could inform on the actual measurable effects of psychedelics as a nootropic were done 50 years ago. The most commonly cited work (Harman, et. al. (1966) “Psychedelic Agents in Creative Problem-Solving: A Pilot Study.” Psychedelic Reports 19, 211-27.) was published in 1966. Although the findings reported in this publication are interesting, the quality of this work in terms of general organization, the use of suitable control subjects, and statistical power is hardly satisfactory.

The hallucinogenic properties of psychedelics are well documented. Microdosing of these compounds for enhancement of cognitive abilities, however, has not been investigated scientifically. This leave lots of space for imagination and conspiracy theories. There were repeated calls from the research community to lift the ban on research into psychedelics, but so far they seem to have fallen on deaf ears.

There are numerous evidences that psychedelics can be used to treat various psychiatric disorders. Some resent studies indicate that administration of psylobicin in moderate doses is not associated with any significant short-term or long-term risk. When it comes to cognitive enhancement, none of the available peer-reviewed scientific publications confirm or rule out such a phenomenon. One interesting resent publication claims that exposure to microdoses of psilocybin creates a state of hyperconnectivity in the brain. The findings from functional MRI experiments show:

“that the structure of the brain’s functional patterns undergoes a dramatic change post-psilocybin, characterized by the appearance of many transient structures of low stability and of a small number of persistent ones that are not observed in the case of placebo. This means that the psychedelic state is associated with a less constrained and more intercommunicative mode of brain function, which is consistent with descriptions of the nature of consciousness in the psychedelic state.”

In other words, the study indirectly points to the possibility of cognitive enhancement and creative stimulation under the influence of psychedelics. Nonetheless, a more definite confirmation of this phenomenon is yet to be published.

A word in defense of official science

People of a more adventurous nature tend to blame the science and medicine industry for slowness in recognizing the benefits of smart drugs. But let’s look at this problem from the perspective of researchers. Most drugs are safe, but from time to time people do experience serious side effects and even life-threatening complications. Nobody wants to be one of the unlucky few. If something goes wrong, you’ll have nobody but yourself to blame. Regulatory bodies can recommend any given substance for any particular use only when they have sufficient evidence that a) confirms its effectiveness and b) shows that its side effects are mild and manageable, and/or its benefits far exceed the potential complications associated with its use (i.e., the risk is worth taking).

Development of novel nootropics is hampered by research, validation, and regulatory challenges. The road from the research laboratory to FDA approval is difficult, long, and costly. Pharmacological enhancement of healthy populations is fraught with ethical and philosophical pushbacks. Therapeutic effects observed in cognitively impaired patients often contradict those in healthy populations. Even approved drugs have issues with side effects and large individual differences. The long-term effects of nootropics are typically unknown. Most importantly, there is still much to be learned about the cellular and molecular basis for the various aspects of cognition. Once they are better understood, pharmacologists will have much better ideas about the processes in the brain to target and how to do it.

It is easy to get carried away with the potential opportunities that nootropics might offer. But don’t forget classical approaches: proper diet and exercise DO enhance brain functions. Many famous thinkers and creative people benefited from simple regular physical activities. Charles Dickens was spending several hours every day walking, sometimes for as much as 20 or 30 miles. Aristotle and Ludwig Van Beethoven are two other famous people who were known for their habit of wondering around while thinking. Physical activity pumps blood through your body and helps to deliver more oxygen to your brain. Regular exercise and healthy diet also keep your blood vessels healthy ensuring that this vital oxygenation is not reduced as you get older. Your normal lifestyle is responsible for your basic level of cognitive abilities. Smart drugs can be used to spike it up from time to time, but if the basic level is low, the spikes won’t go that high anyway!

To sum it up, although an occasional joint may heighten your creativity, the regular use of cannabis is definitely not a good approach to enhance cognitive abilities. There is an acute lack of research on benefits (or absence of such) of psychedelics in cognitive enhancement. Virtually all online information on the benefits of psychedelics as cognitive enhancers are completely unsubstantiated by scientific evidence. Any positive or negative appraisals represent personal views of the articles’ authors rather than results of research studies. Your lifestyle influences you basic level of cognitive abilities – don’t ignore generally accepted good strategies.

References

Heishman SJ et al. (2010) Meta-analysis of the acute effects of nicotine and smoking on human performance. Psychopharmacology (2010) 210: 453. doi: 10.1007/s00213-010-1848-1

Newhouse P et al. (2012) Nicotine treatment of mild cognitive impairment: a 6-month double-blind pilot clinical trial. Neurology 78, 91-101. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e31823efcbb.

Wignall ND and de Wit H (2011) Effects of nicotine on attention and inhibitory control in healthy nonsmokers. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology 19, 183-191. doi: 10.1037/a0023292

Morgan CJ et al. (2010) Hyper-priming in cannabis users: a naturalistic study of the effects of cannabis on semantic memory function. Psychiatry Res 176, 213-218. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2008.09.002.

Giovanni Battistella G et al. (2014) Long-Term Effects of Cannabis on Brain Structure. Neuropsychopharmacology 39, 2041–2048; doi: 10.1038/npp.2014.67

Filbey FM et al. (2014) Long-term effects of marijuana use on the brain. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111, 16913–16918. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1415297111

Studerus E et al. (2010) Acute, subacute and long-term subjective effects of psilocybin in healthy humans: a pooled analysis of experimental studies. Journal of Psychopharmacology  25, 1434 – 1452. doi: 10.1177/0269881110382466

Petri G et al. (2014) Homological Scaffolds of Brain Functional Networks. J R Soc Interface 11, 20140873. doi: 10.1098/rsif.2014.0873

Image via Wunderela/Pixabay.

Vía Brain Blogger http://ift.tt/2ffmCOl

via WordPress http://ift.tt/2wsoAhv

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

In my previous article on the subject of nootropics, I was writing about brain enhancing effects of some medicines and natural compounds. There is, however, a large number of nootropics that received little recognition from official science and remain rather poorly studied. There is a good reason for this too – these compounds tend to be addictive or hallucinogenic. This article aims to cover what is known about the effects of these substances.

Nicotine

It is rather curious that nicotine, a well-known addictive component of tobacco smoke, was confirmed to have nootropic effect. The research into this property of nicotine was triggered by observations that ex-smokers tend to complain about the lack of concentration and general decline in various aspects of cognitive abilities. It turned out that nicotine does improve episodic and working memory, as well as attention. Nicotine doses delivered via patches had positive effects (improved performance in cognitive tests) in adults with mild cognitive disorders, as well as in healthy non-smokers.

Cannabis/marijuana and cognitive processes

People of artistic professions often claim that smoking pot helps creativity. There is scientific evidence to substantiate these claims. Cannabinoids seem to temporarily increase communication between the left and right hemispheres of the brain thus creating a state of hyperconnectivity and allowing a loose flow of associations. This may explain the heightened creativity individuals experience when using marijuana. Reports of positive benefits include improved mood, lower levels of anxiety, stress, and depression, improved focus and fewer distractions, improved reaction times, more creative thoughts, greater verbal fluency, and better calculative complexity. These effects are largely dose-dependent, and taking higher amounts may lead to the opposite effects including sluggishness, lack of focus, nervousness, and impaired memory formation and recall.

However, the negative long-term effects of cannabis on brain structure and function have been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt. In fact, cognitive decline associated with the use of cannabis is a serious medical problem, and lots of scientific research aims to gain insights into this problem and the potential approaches to reverse decline.

Grey area: Psychedelic drugs (LSD, mushrooms) in microdosing

Type “psychedelics” and “microdosing” in Google search, and you will be flooded with thousands of articles claiming that compounds like LSD and psilocybin (active component of magic mushroom) have almost miraculous effect on human cognitive abilities. It appears that many inventors, researchers and innovators use psychedelic compounds in very small doses, occasionally or regularly, to reach a state of enhanced consciousness, get into flow, and work more productively.

But here is a problem: not a single proper scientific publication supports these claims. There is a good reason for this: due to their well-known hallucinogenic properties and serious potential side effects, psychedelics like LSD are banned in most countries around the world. In fact, LSD was banned in the US and UK back in 1960s. This means that the only peer-reviewed published research that could inform on the actual measurable effects of psychedelics as a nootropic were done 50 years ago. The most commonly cited work (Harman, et. al. (1966) “Psychedelic Agents in Creative Problem-Solving: A Pilot Study.” Psychedelic Reports 19, 211-27.) was published in 1966. Although the findings reported in this publication are interesting, the quality of this work in terms of general organization, the use of suitable control subjects, and statistical power is hardly satisfactory.

The hallucinogenic properties of psychedelics are well documented. Microdosing of these compounds for enhancement of cognitive abilities, however, has not been investigated scientifically. This leave lots of space for imagination and conspiracy theories. There were repeated calls from the research community to lift the ban on research into psychedelics, but so far they seem to have fallen on deaf ears.

There are numerous evidences that psychedelics can be used to treat various psychiatric disorders. Some resent studies indicate that administration of psylobicin in moderate doses is not associated with any significant short-term or long-term risk. When it comes to cognitive enhancement, none of the available peer-reviewed scientific publications confirm or rule out such a phenomenon. One interesting resent publication claims that exposure to microdoses of psilocybin creates a state of hyperconnectivity in the brain. The findings from functional MRI experiments show:

“that the structure of the brain’s functional patterns undergoes a dramatic change post-psilocybin, characterized by the appearance of many transient structures of low stability and of a small number of persistent ones that are not observed in the case of placebo. This means that the psychedelic state is associated with a less constrained and more intercommunicative mode of brain function, which is consistent with descriptions of the nature of consciousness in the psychedelic state.”

In other words, the study indirectly points to the possibility of cognitive enhancement and creative stimulation under the influence of psychedelics. Nonetheless, a more definite confirmation of this phenomenon is yet to be published.

A word in defense of official science

People of a more adventurous nature tend to blame the science and medicine industry for slowness in recognizing the benefits of smart drugs. But let’s look at this problem from the perspective of researchers. Most drugs are safe, but from time to time people do experience serious side effects and even life-threatening complications. Nobody wants to be one of the unlucky few. If something goes wrong, you’ll have nobody but yourself to blame. Regulatory bodies can recommend any given substance for any particular use only when they have sufficient evidence that a) confirms its effectiveness and b) shows that its side effects are mild and manageable, and/or its benefits far exceed the potential complications associated with its use (i.e., the risk is worth taking).

Development of novel nootropics is hampered by research, validation, and regulatory challenges. The road from the research laboratory to FDA approval is difficult, long, and costly. Pharmacological enhancement of healthy populations is fraught with ethical and philosophical pushbacks. Therapeutic effects observed in cognitively impaired patients often contradict those in healthy populations. Even approved drugs have issues with side effects and large individual differences. The long-term effects of nootropics are typically unknown. Most importantly, there is still much to be learned about the cellular and molecular basis for the various aspects of cognition. Once they are better understood, pharmacologists will have much better ideas about the processes in the brain to target and how to do it.

It is easy to get carried away with the potential opportunities that nootropics might offer. But don’t forget classical approaches: proper diet and exercise DO enhance brain functions. Many famous thinkers and creative people benefited from simple regular physical activities. Charles Dickens was spending several hours every day walking, sometimes for as much as 20 or 30 miles. Aristotle and Ludwig Van Beethoven are two other famous people who were known for their habit of wondering around while thinking. Physical activity pumps blood through your body and helps to deliver more oxygen to your brain. Regular exercise and healthy diet also keep your blood vessels healthy ensuring that this vital oxygenation is not reduced as you get older. Your normal lifestyle is responsible for your basic level of cognitive abilities. Smart drugs can be used to spike it up from time to time, but if the basic level is low, the spikes won’t go that high anyway!

To sum it up, although an occasional joint may heighten your creativity, the regular use of cannabis is definitely not a good approach to enhance cognitive abilities. There is an acute lack of research on benefits (or absence of such) of psychedelics in cognitive enhancement. Virtually all online information on the benefits of psychedelics as cognitive enhancers are completely unsubstantiated by scientific evidence. Any positive or negative appraisals represent personal views of the articles’ authors rather than results of research studies. Your lifestyle influences you basic level of cognitive abilities – don’t ignore generally accepted good strategies.

References

Heishman SJ et al. (2010) Meta-analysis of the acute effects of nicotine and smoking on human performance. Psychopharmacology (2010) 210: 453. doi: 10.1007/s00213-010-1848-1

Newhouse P et al. (2012) Nicotine treatment of mild cognitive impairment: a 6-month double-blind pilot clinical trial. Neurology 78, 91-101. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e31823efcbb.

Wignall ND and de Wit H (2011) Effects of nicotine on attention and inhibitory control in healthy nonsmokers. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology 19, 183-191. doi: 10.1037/a0023292

Morgan CJ et al. (2010) Hyper-priming in cannabis users: a naturalistic study of the effects of cannabis on semantic memory function. Psychiatry Res 176, 213-218. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2008.09.002.

Giovanni Battistella G et al. (2014) Long-Term Effects of Cannabis on Brain Structure. Neuropsychopharmacology 39, 2041–2048; doi: 10.1038/npp.2014.67

Filbey FM et al. (2014) Long-term effects of marijuana use on the brain. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111, 16913–16918. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1415297111

Studerus E et al. (2010) Acute, subacute and long-term subjective effects of psilocybin in healthy humans: a pooled analysis of experimental studies. Journal of Psychopharmacology  25, 1434 – 1452. doi: 10.1177/0269881110382466

Petri G et al. (2014) Homological Scaffolds of Brain Functional Networks. J R Soc Interface 11, 20140873. doi: 10.1098/rsif.2014.0873

Image via Wunderela/Pixabay.

Vía Brain Blogger http://ift.tt/2ffmCOl

via WordPress http://ift.tt/2v5UyRi