I am doing research on the effects of Adderall. This is hardly difficult given the vast amount of studies and research available online. Along with reading litterature on the topic, i have also had discussions with both a clinical psychologist and a biological psychologist.

For the most part, the studies and research on the benefits of Adderall for the treatment of ADHD, narcolepsy, and to a lesser extent, depression are all comparable. The difficult part was finding credible information on the use of Adderall for individuals without the disorders it is approved to treat, or "normal" people for lack of a better term.

The information describing the non-prescribed use of Aderall all come from two sources. First are the research and studies with similar drugs but at exponentially higher doses and the subjects being animals(not humans). The second source is the media, who provide a lack of factual information for their exagerated claims.

The purpose of this post is to recieve some usefull information and maybe even some links to references that are relevant. I will start by writing out the ideas i have formed on this topic so far at this point in my research. Whether someone agrees or disagrees with anything i write makes no difference to me. I am just looking for informative responses and other people's perspectives. If anything i write is incorrect, please correct it and clarify what the error is.

My thoughts:
Adderall's effectiveness in treating disorders such as ADHD is certainly clear. To use an analogy, one could say someone afflicted with ADHD (given the scale of 1-10) perfoms at an effeciency level of 4. With the help of medication such as Adderall, this individual is able to increase their effeciency level to anywhere from a 5 up to as high as a 10 depending on environmental, biological, and personal conditions. Another factor that is dependant on the individual are the risks and side effects, but Adderall has proven to mostly produce side effects that are inconvenient at worst and usually very mild.

Now, take an individual who is not afflicted by ADHD and naturally performs at an effeciency level of a 7. With the addition of Adderall, this person could increase their effeciency level to anywhere from an 8 to as high as a 10.

In the first case, the medication is essentially necessary for this individual. In the second case, this person can function productively without medication and it is completely unnecessary.

Yes all this is obvious, onto the discussion.

Considered this: If a medication can provide positive results in an individuals life, then the necessity of the medication is irrelivent unless dangerous and/or damaging effects can come of its use.

In response to this, the risks and side effects of the drugs would be the first thing to consider. But, as stated above, the risks and side effects of Adderall are mostly very mild and inconvenient at worst. The interesting part would be whether or not the risks and side effects would be any different for people who did not need the medication, the "normal" people. I have yet to see information providing a difference in side effects between ADHD Adderall users and "normal" users since it seems this information either doesn't exist or is not easily accessible. So essentially, if one were to inquire about the benefits Adderall could offer them, all that would need to be done is for the individual to assess the negetive aspects of the medication in terms of side effects and compare those to the benefits provided by the medication. Once the individual analyzes the pros and cons, they can make the decision on whether or not the medication would be beneficial for them. **

One problem i ran into stemmed from what the risks and side effects actually are with this medication. The possible physical side effects are undeniable, they are just pure fact. On the other hand, the psychological effects are somewhat ambiguous. It is completely irrelevant that i have yet to see information providing a difference in side effects between ADHD Adderall users and "normal" users. Therefore, the magnitude at which the Adderall affects the neurotransmitters and the brain chemistry in general could be very different in an ADHD subject vs the "normal" subject. If in fact its neurological effects are significantly different, then the risks and side effects would differ too, especially in the long term. Even so, this realization would still need additional information to define the different effects as negetive, positive, or neutral.

After much personal research, i had a conversation with a biological psychologist in an effort to locate information on the different effects of the medication on "normal" individual and to fnid out why such studies were difficult to find. I was told that a study like that would be somewhat unethical and therefore couldn't really be conducted. This kind of shocked me since so much could be learned by such a study and the risk for the participants is much lower than other types of research done on humans, but then again im not familiar with research ethics so i guess i can't really speak on that. Research aside, i asked her personal opinion on the topic and surprisingly was met with a non-biased view but the information still failed to explain much more than i already knew.

Next i talked with a clinical psychologist and presented my views. In her responses, the focus was put toward the fact that the drug has a high propensity for addiction and abuse. This is also undeniable and i agreed with her when she cited this as one of the major risks of the drug. Obviously one could compare this to alcohol and other legal substances with high propensity for abuse and addiction. This would lead to the fact that addiction is highly dependant on one's personality and not the actual substance in most cases, but never the less risk of amphetamine addiction and abuse is not a trivial fact whatsoever.

The last concern i want to address before i wrap up with my conclusion is the posible desensitization of the dopamine receptors after prolonged use. Many have posted in other threads that after discontinuing their Adderall, they had a period of fatige, depression, and/or other symptoms. Permanent damage to neurotransmitter receptors and the brain chemistry in general is a great concern, but from what i understood after a bit of research is that something like this is temporary and the receptor sites and brain chemestry go back to their original states. The big question would be: Does the length/dose influence the recovery period and if so, is there a point at which permanent damage can be done? From my conversation with the clinical psychologist, i was informed that the brain can recover from pretty much anything, including most drugs even at higher doses.

So i would believe that thereputic dosing over long periods of time would only result in minor "withdrawl" symptoms for a short period of time after discontinued use and minimal if any permanent change in brain chemistry. I am not saying this as fact and this exact concept is something i am constantly researching and trying to learn more about.

Well, the truth is, all i can accurately conclude from my research thus far is that studies need to be done to determine the effect of Adderall on "normal" individuals. Theoretically, i have concluded that Adderall can be a usefull tool depending on the individual depending on their health, state of mind, and propensity for additcion. Dont take this to mean i believe something like Adderall should be over the counter, that would be absurd. But what i DO believe that an adult should be able to use Adderall under the guidance of a physician and provided they meet evaluation criteria health wise. This way, just like with ADHD patients, a propper dose can be configured and any side effects of the drug can be addressed and evaluated.

**This analysis is assumed to be done along with the prescribing physician.

Adderall is a nasty drug to a lot of those who have been prescribed them and so being one of those people, don't mess around with it

Adderall is a nasty drug to a lot of those who have been prescribed them and so being one of those people, don't mess around with it
This post was not asking whether or not i should slef administer adderall, which is what i assume you mean when you say "mess around with it".

The purpose is to generate discussion, whether for or against, my theory which is: The risks and side effects of the drug at thereputic doses are minimal for most while the benefits are potentially high. Given this, an individual (without ADHD) along with their physician could configure an optimal dose that would minimize negetive effects and maximize the benefits. The same process that is doen for someone with ADHD, just applied to a "normal" person to increase their effeciency.

I dont consider your reply as for or against my theory since it seems you misunderstood my post or the reason for it. In addition, your self proclaimed abuse of stimulants could be a cause for such a "nasty" experience with adderall and even that aside, your comment is based on personal experience with the drug, at quite high doses i might add, and does not help clarify any of the reasons Adderall would or would not be beneficial to a non-ADHD individual.

In other words, what your saying applys to someone with ADHD and someone without ADHD in equal respects.

I didn't read it enough sorry

The purpose is to generate discussion, whether for or against, my theory which is: The risks and side effects of the drug at thereputic doses are minimal for most while the benefits are potentially high.
I would agree that the actual "risks" (i.e., having a heart attack) are infrequent. However, the side potential side effects are not insubstantial. If, at the end of your first highly productive day as a recreational Adderall user, you find yourself lying awake all night, you will find that your next day will be quite unproductive. If that leads you to ingest more than the therapeutic dose in order to function normally, you will have defeated your own purpose. If you're not taking it for a medical condition, it's not medicine.

I would agree that the actual "risks" (i.e., having a heart attack) are infrequent. However, the side potential side effects are not insubstantial. If, at the end of your first highly productive day as a recreational Adderall user, you find yourself lying awake all night, you will find that your next day will be quite unproductive. If that leads you to ingest more than the therapeutic dose in order to function normally, you will have defeated your own purpose. If you're not taking it for a medical condition, it's not medicine.Taking the same dose everyday yields a benefit...

Interesting thesis, I think what you are studying is an important and often neglected area of research. I have also been wondering about long term effects of adderall use, although less so now that I no longer take it. Brain chemistry is a complicated beast to understand. I would consult a neurobiology textbook for the closest approximation of truth as to the role and function of dopamine receptors. You may be able to use your knowledge from that to put together some results with other info you pick up. Also, I think meta-analyses of long-term clinical trials would be invaluable, if they exist. Clinical trials would give you a great idea of whether long term usage is problematic from. My sense of cell biology tells me that the dopamine receptors which would be desensitized would eventually go back to normal as when the [amphetamine] goes down, over time fewer receptors would be present thus avoiding de-sensitization, similar to the beta-adrenergic receptor and caffeine (a good comparison model). I would suspect there to be a genetic and age-related dependence which could effect your conclusions. Also, I would investigate the role of Norepiniphrine and whether its re-uptake blockage is problematic over long periods of time. Additionally, I've found the role of NDMA Antagonists interesting as they seemingly effect tolerance to Adderall. Just some thoughts of my own, please correct if I'm wrong on any facets, I've lost my fluence in this field. Good luck!

Do ADHD drugs help "normal" people?

Depends on who you ask. There is a study (abstract below) with ritalin which shows that if a so-called "normal" (non ADDer) has a relatively lousy memory, that ritalin actually helps them remember certain things. If, conversely, they have a relatively good memory to start with, the same dose of ritalin can actually harm their performance.

This is a relatively well-documented effect, usually referred to in terms of the effects of arousal on cognitive performance: There is an optimal level of arousal (or in the case of ritalin, optimal dopamine levels) under which people generally perform well . . . if they're bored or sleepy, performance suffers. Performance also suffers if they are really stressed out (or are overly stimulated by dopamine). So people who are already performing at "optimal" levels actually probably won't be helped by ADHD drugs, and may even perform worse than the would otherwise, whereas individuals who may not be ADHD, but still have memory/attention "issues" may actually be helped by the drugs in a similar manner.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/61/YerkesDodsonLawGraph.png


Methylphenidate enhances working memory by modulating discrete frontal and parietal lobe regions in the human brain.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=10704519&query_hl=11&itool=pubmed_docsum

University of Cambridge, Department of Psychiatry, Cambridge, CB2 2QQ, United Kingdom.

. . .The beneficial effects of methylphenidate on working memory were greatest in the subjects with lower baseline working memory capacity. This is to our knowledge the first demonstration of a localization of a drug-induced improvement in SWM performance in humans and has relevance for understanding the treatment of AD/HD.

PMID: 10704519 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

I would agree that the actual "risks" (i.e., having a heart attack) are infrequent. However, the side potential side effects are not insubstantial. If, at the end of your first highly productive day as a recreational Adderall user, you find yourself lying awake all night, you will find that your next day will be quite unproductive. If that leads you to ingest more than the therapeutic dose in order to function normally, you will have defeated your own purpose. If you're not taking it for a medical condition, it's not medicine.Your assumption on the effects of the drug are not limited to what you refer to as "recreational" use.

Insomnia is common with prescribed users, especially in the begining of treatment and usually is resolved by adjusting the times of the dosing. Furthermore, a prescribed user would have the same feeling the next day, would that lead them to increase their dose as well? The same regiment in terms of upping dosages that is applied to ADHD patients could be applied to non-ADHD patients.

Also, your argument suggests that after taking a theraputic dosage, one might need to take more than a theraputic dose in the future otherwise they would not function normally. Therefore, recreational use, even at theraputic doses, would lead to a decrease in the natural abilities an individual possesed prior to any interaction with adderall. So your saying Adderall use, once discontinued, could prove to have decreased one's cognitive abilities, the very thing the Adderall was used to enhance in the first place?

Well that is just false, but the closes thing to this that is true would be the crash one would experience after somewhat prolonged use of adderall, even at theraputic doses that did not increase. Still, this crash would be temporary and theoretically the person would have the potential to perform at the same level they had been able to prior to their adderall use. Furthermore, this is likely true for both ADHD and non ADHD subjects.

Do ADHD drugs help "normal" people?

Depends on who you ask. There is a study (abstract below) with ritalin which shows that if a so-called "normal" (non ADDer) has a relatively lousy memory, that ritalin actually helps them remember certain things. If, conversely, they have a relatively good memory to start with, the same dose of ritalin can actually harm their performance.

This is a relatively well-documented effect, usually referred to in terms of the effects of arousal on cognitive performance: There is an optimal level of arousal (or in the case of ritalin, optimal dopamine levels) under which people generally perform well . . . if they're bored or sleepy, performance suffers. Performance also suffers if they are really stressed out (or are overly stimulated by dopamine). So people who are already performing at "optimal" levels actually probably won't be helped by ADHD drugs, and may even perform worse than the would otherwise, whereas individuals who may not be ADHD, but still have memory/attention "issues" may actually be helped by the drugs in a similar manner.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/61/YerkesDodsonLawGraph.png


Methylphenidate enhances working memory by modulating discrete frontal and parietal lobe regions in the human brain.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=10704519&query_hl=11&itool=pubmed_docsum

University of Cambridge, Department of Psychiatry, Cambridge, CB2 2QQ, United Kingdom.

. . .The beneficial effects of methylphenidate on working memory were greatest in the subjects with lower baseline working memory capacity. This is to our knowledge the first demonstration of a localization of a drug-induced improvement in SWM performance in humans and has relevance for understanding the treatment of AD/HD.

PMID: 10704519 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Thanks for the reference. This is the first study i have seen in which RX stimulants have been administered to non-ADHD participants.

I would love to see a similar study focusing on all the cognitive benefits, not just memory, but i have yet to find such research.

I do believe that many people would not benefit from this medication. Some in this group would include individuals already performing at a very high effeciency in their lives. These people would almost certainly not even consider supplementing with such a drug anyway.

As this study shows, there will be many people who would not benefit from the drug, and those who can benfit from it might feel the side effects they experience outweigh the benefits. Once again though, i must say that much of this applys to ADHD patients and non AHDH patients alike.

Poker, I don't have this with me, but you can search for it... It's something with ADD meds being given to ADD and non-ADD people and there is a break off point between focus and mania with dose... basically given the right dose everyone can have improved focus, but if you go beyond that point you experience the extreme energy (excess talking, running around).

Pokerpro, there's plenty of literature out there; you just have to know where and how to look (and be able to understand "science talk", which is not always English, I know!).

If you do a search for {Clark CR methylphenidate} <CLARK methylphenidate CF>at www.pubmed.org (http://www.pubmed.org/) (type what's inside the {}'s exactly), you'll get 4 articles dealing with methylphenidate (Ritalin) in normal people. If it's too hard to understand, I can try to translate some of it.

Pokerpro, there's plenty of literature out there; you just have to know where and how to look (and be able to understand "science talk", which is not always English, I know!).

If you do a search for {Clark CR methylphenidate} <CLARK CF methylphenidate>at www.pubmed.org (http://www.pubmed.org/) (type what's inside the {}'s exactly), you'll get 4 articles dealing with methylphenidate (Ritalin) in normal people. If it's too hard to understand, I can try to translate some of it.Thanks for this info, although i dont know how closely ritalin is related to adderall, this is very usefull in my research.

Here is the link:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16035144&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum

Here is the study:

The effects of methylphenidate (MPH) on 32 healthy human male volunteers (aged 18 to 25 years, mean age=22.26) were examined using a within-subject design. Each participant attended six testing periods, held once per week. Within each testing period, three repeat testing sessions were undertaken: pre-medication, on-medication and two hours post-medication. In these sessions, dose was manipulated (placebo, 5 mg, 15 mg or 45 mg) according a double-blind placebo design. In this report, we focus on behavioral, autonomic arousal (heart rate, skin conductance) and psychophysiological (ERP) data acquired during the working memory task. We found increased autonomic arousal (heart rate, skin conductance and blood pressure) with MPH. A linear reduction in reaction time, omission errors and target P3 latency, and a corresponding increase in background P3 amplitude was observed with increased MPH dose. The relationship between these measures supported an increase in performance and underlying brain function with MPH. To our knowledge, this is the first paper to use behavioral, arousal and electrophysiological measures in an integrative approach to study the effects of MPH on healthy adults

********

What i need help in understanding is how the statements i have italicized lead to the conclusion that i highlighted in Bold, since the italicized statements have a negative connotation where as the bold come off as positive. This is an obvious result to my lack of knowledge in the terms being used so clarification of what this study ultimately shows would be much appreciated.

Poker, I don't have this with me, but you can search for it... It's something with ADD meds being given to ADD and non-ADD people and there is a break off point between focus and mania with dose... basically given the right dose everyone can have improved focus, but if you go beyond that point you experience the extreme energy (excess talking, running around).
This is what i am ultimately searching for, and if such a study exists then further research should be put forth in discovering the effects of these drugs over long periods of times in terms of theraputic doses. If there are no additional risks or dangers for non-add individuals than there are for ones with add, then there should be no ethical reason for holding back such a person from consulting with their doctor to find an optimal dose to increase their cognative abilities.

"Reduction in reaction time" = the subjects were able to respond more quickly
"Reduction in omissions" = the subjects made fewer errors (they missed fewer trials, i.e. they were able to pay attention better)
"P3 latency and amplitude" I'm not 100% familiar with this; it's a particular form of brain activity that occurs when one is paying attention, so not only are the subjects getting better behaviourally, their brains also show positive responses to the drug.

"Reduction in reaction time" = the subjects were able to respond more quickly
"Reduction in omissions" = the subjects made fewer errors (they missed fewer trials, i.e. they were able to pay attention better)
"P3 latency and amplitude" I'm not 100% familiar with this; it's a particular form of brain activity that occurs when one is paying attention, so not only are the subjects getting better behaviourally, their brains also show positive responses to the drug.
thx for the link + clarification

I do believe that many people would not benefit from this medication. Some in this group would include individuals already performing at a very high effeciency in their lives. These people would almost certainly not even consider supplementing with such a drug anyway.
Don't forget about us high performers that are efficient producers but need to work much harder to get positive results and yes, Adderall helps me gets past difficult challenges that I face in my life.

Yes, my brain may not function at it's potential for average, boring task's as a "normal" brain but don't forget that it also reaches levels and areas that a "normal" mundane brain cannot.

Do the side effects outweigh the benefits? Sometimes, but at this point for me, the scale tips towards the benefits.

S

So i would believe that thereputic dosing over long periods of time would only result in minor "withdrawl" symptoms for a short period of time after discontinued use and minimal if any permanent change in brain chemistry. I am not saying this as fact and this exact concept is something i am constantly researching and trying to learn more about.
You're oversimplifying things quite a bit. You need to read about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity

Amphetamines create over time new connections in our brain and isnt very selective about it. D-amp is like a dopamine shotgun blast to the brain, theres dopamine everywhere which can be both good and bad. Good because it helps people like us by getting dopamine into our prefrontal cortex and helping our cognitive functioning bad because this non-selectivity can lead to things like psychosis. On the flip side this makes amphetamines less desirable as a drug of abuse compared to say opiates which target your reward system selectively.

I'd also suggest investigating other amphetamine preparations as adderall is a very weird engineered mish-mash of isnomers and amphetamine types and dont represent D-amphetamine or D-methamphetamine very well.

You're oversimplifying things quite a bit. You need to read about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity

Amphetamines create over time new connections in our brain and isnt very selective about it. D-amp is like a dopamine shotgun blast to the brain, theres dopamine everywhere which can be both good and bad. Good because it helps people like us by getting dopamine into our prefrontal cortex and helping our cognitive functioning bad because this non-selectivity can lead to things like psychosis. On the flip side this makes amphetamines less desirable as a drug of abuse compared to say opiates which target your reward system selectively.

I'd also suggest investigating other amphetamine preparations as adderall is a very weird engineered mish-mash of isnomers and amphetamine types and dont represent D-amphetamine or D-methamphetamine very well.
Thx for your reply. When you say "people like us" when refering to the benefits of d-amp i assume you mean an individual with ADHD?

Also, im not sure if you meant D-amp specifically or all amphetamines when you were describing the effect of dopamine activitiy in terms of a "shot gun blast". If you meant that this action is specific of D-amp could you refer me to material that explains that? If you mean that in terms of amphetamines in general, then i would assume that goes for all stimulants and many other medications. Wouldnt anything that increases dopamine levels have to act as a "shot gun blast" or do most medication localize the areas at which the dopamine is to be released?

Also, in terms of investigating other amphetamine preperations, wouldn't adderall be the optimul one for my theory since the combinations of the ingredients are suppose to produce the least amount of side effects?

I could very well be way off but i believe a good way to learn is for one to express what he thinks he knows to be true and either be corrected or confirmed.

Also, im not sure if you meant D-amp specifically or all amphetamines when you were describing the effect of dopamine activitiy in terms of a "shot gun blast". If you meant that this action is specific of D-amp could you refer me to material that explains that? If you mean that in terms of amphetamines in general, then i would assume that goes for all stimulants and many other medications. Wouldnt anything that increases dopamine levels have to act as a "shot gun blast" or do most medication localize the areas at which the dopamine is to be released?

Also, in terms of investigating other amphetamine preperations, wouldn't adderall be the optimul one for my theory since the combinations of the ingredients are suppose to produce the least amount of side effects?

I could very well be way off but i believe a good way to learn is for one to express what he thinks he knows to be true and either be corrected or confirmed.Adderall is composed of both amphetamine isnomers D-amp and L-amp (this is one of its huge faults) as L-amp is mostly a peripheral stimulant which raises your heart rate/blood pressure and in general creates quite a different experiance from plain D-amp. This gives the medication a "speedy" quality that some find uncomfortable. L-amp also has about 1/3rd the CNS stimulating properties and is generally regarded as a waste bi-product of d-amp synthesis.

All amphetamines have the shotgun blast dopamine effect, theres no selective amphetamines unless you count MDMA which was engineered to work its magic on serotonin transporter cells rather than DAT cells (dopamine transporters).

Essentially how all amphetamines work is by infiltrating DAT cells and causing them through all sorts of complicated chain reactions to spew out all the dopamine it was moving to be reuptaked. Now normally the brain at this point would start a process called dopamine transferase where the dopamine is broken down into adrenaline > NE > epinephrine but amphetamine is tricky and suppreses this to a degree so your brains neuronal cleft floods with dopamine and its not getting broken down or reuptaked because the amphetamine is hijacking DAT cells. This causes a very non-selective effect.

Back to Adderall, adderall has been around since the 60s as a failed weight loss drug called oberon which shire bought the rights to sometime in the 90s. Its a weird mixture of amphetamine salts in an attempt to make it last longer than plain d-amp but in reality it lasts about 4 hours and then you get an hour or two of physical twitchiness, the L-amp was included in the formula because supposedly it further depresses the appetite of dieters and lasts a bit longer than d-amp. This has led to a less than stellar safety record and adderall being banned in canada (im not sure if it still is). Regardless shire has pretty much sold the rights to adderall to Barr and are releasing a new d-amp based product that has some gobbity gook on it that only makes the amphetamine active when it touchs a stomach enzyme (so kids cant iv/snort their medications).

Adderall is composed of both amphetamine isnomers D-amp and L-amp (this is one of its huge faults) as L-amp is mostly a peripheral stimulant which raises your heart rate/blood pressure and in general creates quite a different experiance from plain D-amp. This gives the medication a "speedy" quality that some find uncomfortable. L-amp also has about 1/3rd the CNS stimulating properties and is generally regarded as a waste bi-product of d-amp synthesis.

All amphetamines have the shotgun blast dopamine effect, theres no selective amphetamines unless you count MDMA which was engineered to work its magic on serotonin transporter cells rather than DAT cells (dopamine transporters).

Essentially how all amphetamines work is by infiltrating DAT cells and causing them through all sorts of complicated chain reactions to spew out all the dopamine it was moving to be reuptaked. Now normally the brain at this point would start a process called dopamine transferase where the dopamine is broken down into adrenaline > NE > epinephrine but amphetamine is tricky and suppreses this to a degree so your brains neuronal cleft floods with dopamine and its not getting broken down or reuptaked because the amphetamine is hijacking DAT cells. This causes a very non-selective effect.

Back to Adderall, adderall has been around since the 60s as a failed weight loss drug called oberon which shire bought the rights to sometime in the 90s. Its a weird mixture of amphetamine salts in an attempt to make it last longer than plain d-amp but in reality it lasts about 4 hours and then you get an hour or two of physical twitchiness, the L-amp was included in the formula because supposedly it further depresses the appetite of dieters and lasts a bit longer than d-amp. This has led to a less than stellar safety record and adderall being banned in canada (im not sure if it still is). Regardless shire has pretty much sold the rights to adderall to Barr and are releasing a new d-amp based product that has some gobbity gook on it that only makes the amphetamine active when it touchs a stomach enzyme (so kids cant iv/snort their medications).
The new drug that Shire just had approved is Vyvanse which is just suppose to be more resisitant to abuse. It is just the d-amp along with L-Lysine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VYVANSE

I think what you were refering to in terms of a different Adderall so kids can't inject and snort the drug was just the extended release version that Shire later came out with that used the "Microtrol delivery system" which just consists of two types of beads one which disolves slower than the other allowing a longer time to reach max plasma concentration. Also, this form of the drug would be more difficult to inject/snort because of the beads.

Anyway, back to the "shot gun effect". You say the danger of this is that the not so selective connections amphetamines can make in our brain can lead to psychosis over time. In the research i have done, it is chronic amphetamine use and amphetamine abuse that can lead to psychosis. The problem i have is that there is no definition for chronic use. Wouldn't someone prescribed an amphetamine for a long period of time qualify in terms of being a chronic user of the drug? Also, at what point is the drug being abused? Patients report being prescribed upwards of 120mg of Adderall a day and in rare cases higher, the reason being to find the suitable dose that optimally treatsthier symptoms. Would that be considered a theraputic dose since a doctor prescribed it while someone without add self administering a 20mg/day dosing regiment be considered abuse? The textbook answer is yes since by definition the latter case the use is not dictated by convention, but realistically?

Ultimately what i am trying to understand is whether or not the there is a difference in the risks and side effects of such a drug on "normal" people. If studies were done on non-add individuals would you expect them to prove that non-add subjects would have a higher risk for psychosis, or any of the other rare but serious side effects? How does this "shot gun blast" affect an ADHD person vs a non-ADHD person differently.

If in fact the risks are the same, one could say that the drug still should not be used thereputically simply for cognitive enhancement, only for an individual afflicted with this disorder because even though the risks are minimal, there is no need to take them unless necessary. This brings rise to debate on how severe the affliction should be to warrant taking the drug. Having a debate like this on a disorder like this would be quite difficult since it seems there is not so much a diagnosis for whether or not you have AHDH, but more so a diagnosis of how severe the case is.

Vyvanse is just a time released d-amphetamine with some bizzare anti-abuse feature.

Is psychosis a risk at even doses of 100mg of dexedrine a day(do not even think about taking this much)...probably not. Sleep deprivation and not eating play just as important of a role in psychosis as amphetamine its self. Its a poorly understood problem and theres no way for us to study it legally.

Of course then theres schizophrenia to worry about. Some researchers claim amphetamine increases the chances of schizophrenia because they've found high concentrations of dopamine in certain parts of schizophrenics brains that normal humans dont have but amphetamine users might.

Its a dangerous drug in the wrong hands and causes irratic, violent behaviour...its almost destroyed entire countries (during post ww2 japan the methamphetamine addiction rate was over 40% of the population).

On the other hand its been around for 100+ years and has been studied almost more than any other drug in human history. Plenty of intelligent people have used it from Paul Erdos to johnny cash to philip k dick.

We cant even properly define the cause of AD/HD yet so comparison studies would be a bit iffy. Theres also two very distinct types of AD/HD that may or may not be related at all. Is it caused by mutations in the COMT gene? Are we simply not born with enough dopamine receptors in a certain part of our brain? Maybe its simply a bunch of unrelated problems put under one umbrella term.

Actually, DB Cooper that's not entirely correct. I should preface this by saying I love your posts here and really appreciate your scientific/medical approach to understanding these medications.

Vyvanse, however, is more complex than most of the Press Releases and major news makes it sound.

It actually functions by binding to an amino acid--forgive me, I'm not a scientist and don't remember which amino acid--which prevents it from being absorbed until it is the gastrointestinal tract.

What's cool, in my opinion, and as someone who has had issues with adderall tolerance/dependence in the past, is the less discussed innovation: when the amphetamine is bound to this amino acid, it cannot be converted to biologically available amphetamine unless your body breaks it down (sorry I can't remember the exact 'tool' the body uses to do this but it's available in google). The cool part is that your body has a limited supply of what it needs to 'activate' the amphetamine.

The result is that if you were to try to take too much of Vyvanse, unlike Adderall it would not increase your dosage of amphetamine beyond an intended level simply because your body would not be able to convert the drug to amphetamine. In other words, taking 2x your dosage of Vyvanse would be a lot less noticeable than taking 2x your dosage of Adderall. And as you move up--by this I mean increase your dosage even more than prescribed--the amount of amphetamine your body is able to convert grows increasingly small. That is, the second pill would be much less effective than the first, and the third pill would be even less effective then the second. Just to be completely clear, and these numbers are just meant to illustrate the concept not to be taken literally, taking 2 x 30mg Adderall XR would mean your body takes in 60mg. 3 pills would be 90mg, 4 would be 120, and so on. With Vyvanse (I simplify here by just saying a 30mg dosage of Vyvanse even though I know the dose sizes are different), 30mg should be 30mg. But an oral dose of 60mg would, in theory, not be 60mg in terms of what your body is able to use. It could, for example, be only 40mg (your body only being able to convert 1/3 of the oral intake). The third pill would accent this attribute further and instead of bringing you up to a total of 30mg x 3 = 90mg like Adderall, it would take you to something like 45mg--with this pill your body would be so depleted of what it needs to break down the medication that it could only convert 1/6 of the med.

The numbers I use here are totally made up just to illustrate the concept. I don't actually know how quickly your body is depleted of the tools it needs to convert Vyvanse to amphetamine, but the idea is that you do run out or at least become less capable.... which in my mind is a great thing.

Hmm...thats pretty novel of them. Although eventually someone will find some supplement that boosts the amount of this enzyme and shire will go on pretending its a non-abusable drug.

True, but if you want to get high you can go buy 'real drugs' on the street.

I'm not concerned with the anti snorting/injection stuff--I am however concerned about accidentally finding myself dependent or even addicted because I naively started taking too much... so in that sense Vyvanse would be far preferable to Adderall.

It would also eliminate or at least significantly reduce the temptation of "just taking 1 more today" since you'd know that additional intake wouldn't make much of a difference.

While we're on the topic does anyone know of an exact release date for Vyvanse? Shire has said Spring 2007 but I haven't found anything more precise.

It probably wont be long, it was in development/testing for a great deal of time before shire bought the rights to it.

I do hope all you intellectuals will pardon the spelling, haven't downloaded spell checker as of yet. Long un-related story.

OKay the Vyvanse maybe be cool maybe not however as far as "break down" resistence is concerned Concerta has done an excellent job. I attempted this as an experment some time back and it does not break down easily.

Also this Vyvanse besides being hard to spell for dyslexics will also be efective only of the amount of the "secret ingredient" in the ADDers digestive tract is equavelent or greater than the person's need for increase dopamine in teh brain. I am some one who takes 80 - 100 mg of Adderall daily and I have for years. Although I no longer "feel" the stimulent effects of the medications they continue to work. This I know with absolute certainity becuase when the medication wears off I do a lot of wandering with little accomplishing. Most times others notice my medication wearing off before I do.

What if I do not produce enough necessary digestive thing a ma gig to gain the necessary effect of dopamine production to "fix" my "neurotransmitter imbalance? Under this circumstance this new drug Vyvanse would not be much help for me considering small increases in my dopamine render me an inattentive ADDer as opposed to my "natural" sub-type which is hyperactive ADD.

Now concerning the question about the CNS stimulents to the normal brain I do not have scientific studies; all I can provide are the observations from my past life as a party animal. Doing meth which is chemically simular to Adderall often turned "normally" functioning people into hyperactive people, while doing the opposite for me. I did the same drugs as my friends did and while they bounced around like rubber balles in a padded cell I went ind did my home work becuase I could sit down long enough to do so. . . . and I knew it.

My co-partying buddies also had a tendency to use more and more of the "speed" while I did not do so becuase to do to much gave me nothing but a head ache. The street drugs maintained a pretty consistent strength, the high up the food chain one goes the more consistent the "product" simply because fewer people were handling it therefore there was less "cut".

Besides why would people who do not have any problems focusing need to take chemicals to increase there focus? This makes as about as much sense as people who do not have any pain desiring morphine.

The reason for limited these mind altering drugs does not reside in chemistry although I am sure it would make this arguement easier. The reason "normal" people do not need Ritalin, Adderall ect. . . . is along the lines of ethics. An analogy may serve to better explain. . . .

Jane an NTer with no problems forcusing or producing begins to have a problems consintrating. Now because "Jane" is an adult and just now having this problem we know she is not biologically ADD. Jane is having problems consintrating because she is having issues with her boss. Now if she could simply pop a pill to increase her production would this not temporarily give her reason not to take care of the underlying issue which is her boss. Say Jane continues to use stimulents intead of facing the problem the problem will more than likely will continue or escalate. If allowed to escalte unadderssed combined with Janes altered mental state we have effectively produced an increase in "blow out" potential. By allowing an easy answer in pill form we have decereased Jane's chances of addressing the issue in a healthy productive manner.

That covers the healthy NTer however one more group of people exist that I have not mentioned. This is the "shadow" symptom group or the darn near group. There is a pretty good body of evidence that most of the neurobiological conditions are genetic predispositions that have been exposed to the right kind of enviroment, it is the combination of these that produces things like ADD, bi-polar, depression, anxiety. This means there are people who have a genetic predispostion that places them "just under the wire" of meeting the DSMV criteria for some conditions. Therefor one who appears to be NTer and healthy may actually end up suffering more harm that good if allowed to take a CNS stimulent because the stimulent may cause them to swing into mania, or cause anxiety, with drawing the stimulent may set off a depression that other wise should have not happened ect. . . .

ADD medications are given to those of us who have tried every thing possible to function in this present society but due to our biological make up are unable to do so satisfactorily. Medications are a tool so those of us who are not neurologically compatable with the social structure of man kind,can do so productively instead of being at odds with it. Taking medications does not given us an unfair advantage it levels the playing field. Besides if a mild CNS stimulent increases NTer function they can simply go have a cup of "java".

The answer is an ethical one which renders the biological one moot in my honest opinion. Taking pills will not solve thier problems because the problems would not be based upon brain chemistry. Even with my neurotransmitters "fixed" I still have to make an effort. ADD medications do not fix my problems however they do inable me to fix them for myself. That is the difference that makes a difference. Now if they could just make medications that will allow me to learn to spell I would be estatic.

Now concerning the question about the CNS stimulents to the normal brain I do not have scientific studies; all I can provide are the observations from my past life as a party animal. Doing meth which is chemically simular to Adderall often turned "normally" functioning people into hyperactive people, while doing the opposite for me. I did the same drugs as my friends did and while they bounced around like rubber balles in a padded cell I went ind did my home work becuase I could sit down long enough to do so. . . . and I knew it.

My co-partying buddies also had a tendency to use more and more of the "speed" while I did not do so becuase to do to much gave me nothing but a head ache. The street drugs maintained a pretty consistent strength, the high up the food chain one goes the more consistent the "product" simply because fewer people were handling it therefore there was less "cut".

Besides why would people who do not have any problems focusing need to take chemicals to increase there focus? This makes as about as much sense as people who do not have any pain desiring morphine.

The reason for limited these mind altering drugs does not reside in chemistry although I am sure it would make this arguement easier. The reason "normal" people do not need Ritalin, Adderall ect. . . . is along the lines of ethics. An analogy may serve to better explain. . . .

Jane an NTer with no problems forcusing or producing begins to have a problems consintrating. Now because "Jane" is an adult and just now having this problem we know she is not biologically ADD. Jane is having problems consintrating because she is having issues with her boss. Now if she could simply pop a pill to increase her production would this not temporarily give her reason not to take care of the underlying issue which is her boss. Say Jane continues to use stimulents intead of facing the problem the problem will more than likely will continue or escalate. If allowed to escalte unadderssed combined with Janes altered mental state we have effectively produced an increase in "blow out" potential. By allowing an easy answer in pill form we have decereased Jane's chances of addressing the issue in a healthy productive manner.

That covers the healthy NTer however one more group of people exist that I have not mentioned. This is the "shadow" symptom group or the darn near group. There is a pretty good body of evidence that most of the neurobiological conditions are genetic predispositions that have been exposed to the right kind of enviroment, it is the combination of these that produces things like ADD, bi-polar, depression, anxiety. This means there are people who have a genetic predispostion that places them "just under the wire" of meeting the DSMV criteria for some conditions. Therefor one who appears to be NTer and healthy may actually end up suffering more harm that good if allowed to take a CNS stimulent because the stimulent may cause them to swing into mania, or cause anxiety, with drawing the stimulent may set off a depression that other wise should have not happened ect. . . .

ADD medications are given to those of us who have tried every thing possible to function in this present society but due to our biological make up are unable to do so satisfactorily. Medications are a tool so those of us who are not neurologically compatable with the social structure of man kind,can do so productively instead of being at odds with it. Taking medications does not given us an unfair advantage it levels the playing field. Besides if a mild CNS stimulent increases NTer function they can simply go have a cup of "java".

The answer is an ethical one which renders the biological one moot in my honest opinion. Taking pills will not solve thier problems because the problems would not be based upon brain chemistry. Even with my neurotransmitters "fixed" I still have to make an effort. ADD medications do not fix my problems however they do inable me to fix them for myself. That is the difference that makes a difference. Now if they could just make medications that will allow me to learn to spell I would be estatic.
Thank you for the response mead, i am going to have to disagree with you in a number of areas and also agree in others.

First, the chemical similarity between meth and adderall is a world of difference between the similarity between taking meth and taking adderall, especially when the meth being described is off the street. (I did not know until just now that there was a methamphetamine prescription drug called Desoxyn. It is said to be effective longer and be 50% more effective per dose in relation to amphetamine.) To begin with the dosage, even if the meth is heavily cut, is usually still so much higher than a thereputic adderall dose would be. The dosage can go up exponentially the less times the drug is cut. In addition, the products used to manufacture meth and the chemicals found in meth are highly toxic themselves and therefore much of the damage done from even seldom use of meth can be severe. If you were in fact refering to the pharmaceutical methamphetamine, the discussion would need more detail as to dosages and the frequency at which the drug was used, but in your context it seemed pretty clear you were talking about street meth.

Next, comparing someone with no pain taking morphine to someone without ADHD taking adderall in illogical. The one taking morphine would gain nothing but a pleasant physical experience followed by negetive side effects of a come down and on a larger scale a possible addiction that could severely impact their life in a negative way. In the latter case, one without AHDH could enhance cognitive abilities and increase effeciency, a far greater benefit than simply a pleasant physical experience. This all goes back to weighing the pros and cons, and like i said there are many people who would not benefit from the drug and wouldnt even look to, so dealing with the risks and side effects no matter how mild would be absurd in their case. Also, even though the amphetamine also has the propensity for addiction, in the terms we are discussing i dont think that risk is even comparable to that of morphine. In any form though, addiction is highly dependant on the individual as well.

Now, you provide a fictional story as an analogy to prove a point. The story involves such a specific instance, how can you possibly follow that up with the statement "That covers the healthy NTer "? I could just as easily come up with a hypothetical story that shows adderall to be a wonder drug, but that doesn't make it true. I could also elaborate on your story to make adderall an insignificant detail in the outcome or even alter the story to make adderall the solution which fixed her problem.

Finally, you discuss individuals that might be prone to conditions that a stimulant like adderall could very well aggitate. This is very true, but many of these individuals who have borderline conditions of bi-polar disease or depression for the most part display sypmtoms of add and are put on these meds anyway. My discussion for use of adderall for normal people aside, these "shadower's" are usually recieving cns stimulant. Adderall is even used to treat depression in some cases.

In conclusion, my stand is that the issue is biological. The point is to find out if the negetive effects are worth the benefits, and the problem that I considered before and that D.B. Cooper helped me solidify is that the answer is very individual. There are too many factors to consider to say on a general scale whether or not Adderall is beneficial to normal people. That is why i think it should be available to those without ADHD provided they evaluate their personal pros and cons with a physician and take it from there. Also, i am not proposing to use this medication to solve a problem or run away from one. To use anything as an escape from a problem that inevitibaly has to be dealt with would be unwise. I am stating that this medication can be used to enhance cognitive abilities and increase effeciency even in those who function at a "normal" level.

You're oversimplifying things quite a bit. You need to read about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity

Amphetamines create over time new connections in our brain and isnt very selective about it. D-amp is like a dopamine shotgun blast to the brain, theres dopamine everywhere which can be both good and bad. Good because it helps people like us by getting dopamine into our prefrontal cortex and helping our cognitive functioning bad because this non-selectivity can lead to things like psychosis. On the flip side this makes amphetamines less desirable as a drug of abuse compared to say opiates which target your reward system selectively.

I'd also suggest investigating other amphetamine preparations as adderall is a very weird engineered mish-mash of isnomers and amphetamine types and dont represent D-amphetamine or D-methamphetamine very well.

D-amphetamine and D-methamphetamine realese different amounts of dopamine in different parts of the brain, so I don't think it's really like a 'shot gun to the brain', and they do not cause dopamine to be everywhere, and also D-methamphetamine's larger affect on glutamate may account for why it's 'more addictive' than d-amphetamine. Also opiates are addictive becuase of a different receptor than the dopamien receptor, they are addictive because of endorphines and opioid receptors and such.

To the topic starter:
Heres some parts I wrote for a review of liturature for a paper research project I was working on for class:
Harriet de Wit, Justin Enggasser, and Jerry Richards investigate d-amphetamine in their article of a medical study, "Acute Administration of D-Amphetamine Decreases Impulsivity in Healthy Volunteers." They investigate what d-amphetamine does to a man’s hasty decision making (814). In their previous study, they found that d-amphetamine made it easier for people who cannot naturally control themselves to control themselves (814,819). They discuss, from test results, that d-amphetamine raised control over decision-making, improved choices and also changed what people think about a delayed reward; d-amphetamine but barely, if at all, affected how people see time, and did not change how long they will wait for a unknown reward (822). They also found that the people who felt more joy from d-amphetamine do not have an improvement in controlling how quickly they respond to anything, but people that felt a lower amount of joy did have that improvement. (823)
Cathrin Bütefisch, et al. discuss what d-amphetamine does to people trying to learn movements in, "Modulation of Use-Dependent Plasticity by d-amphetamine." They find that d-amphetamine allows people to learn how to move body parts faster than normal, if they practice (66). They state that small practice sessions with d-amphetamine have a bigger impact on learning then the practice sessions without d-amphetamine (66). They relay that other studies find that d-amphetamine also helps in this same way for learning and memory of words, and also, possibly makes the brain stronger (67).
Venkata Mattay, et al. discuss what they found in their study of d-amphetamine on humans in, "Dextroamphetamine Enhances “Neural Network-Specific” Physiological Signals: A Positron-Emission Tomography rCBF Study." They find that d-amphetamine made people say they were feeling more friendly and happier, and also score higher on a hard thinking test (4819). They find that when a person given d-amphetamine is tested their brain is more active in whatever parts the brain needs for that test and less active in other parts (4820).


The one by de Wit and her colleagues is REALLY good for your topic, it was using it in people that did not have ADHD, but alas, this was just dexedrine not adderall, so I dont know maybe it DNA.

About Vyvanse. It was approved at the end of Feb but isn't on sale yet (nor does Shire have a website for it yet). I called Shire to ask about availabilty and they told me it was awaiting official drug scheduling classification from the DEA (CII) per the FDAs recommendation. So, best guess is within the next month or two.

Here is the prescribing info:

http://www.fda.gov/cder/foi/label/2007/021977lbl.pdf

J

All amphetamines have the shotgun blast dopamine effect, theres no selective amphetamines unless you count MDMA which was engineered to work its magic on serotonin transporter cells rather than DAT cells (dopamine transporters).

Essentially how all amphetamines work is by infiltrating DAT cells and causing them through all sorts of complicated chain reactions to spew out all the dopamine it was moving to be reuptaked. Now normally the brain at this point would start a process called dopamine transferase where the dopamine is broken down into adrenaline > NE > epinephrine but amphetamine is tricky and suppreses this to a degree so your brains neuronal cleft floods with dopamine and its not getting broken down or reuptaked because the amphetamine is hijacking DAT cells. This causes a very non-selective effect.

MDMA is still pretty powerful at modulating dopamine and norepinephrine, but who cares becuase its an illegal substance.

But epinephrine is american for adrenaline, and NE or norephinephrine is american for noradrenaline. I'm PRETTY sure that's true.

And d-methamphetamine and d-amphetamine are much stronger at releasing norepinephrine compared to dopamine. But d-methamphetamine is a little weaker at releasing norpinephrine and stronger at releasing serotonin compared to d-amphetamine.