Supplements to improve motivation/mood etc?

[muscleman]

Keep in mind that it is very safe for longevity doses of 5mg with no concerns of excess tyramine that comes with MAOIs. So far, it’s been a game changer. Everyday has been “what do we accomplish next!”, and this is coming from someone that rarely sits still.

Awesome I am gonna be reading up on it. In theory at least it sounds great to me, and in reviews at drugs.com it has 83% positive reviews and some are really raving positive and that is quite rare for antidepressants I think.
A quick google also said other antidepressants are safer but I dont just believe that I think companies normally want to push newer meds because they give more profit.
I have difficulties get going and have been more or less dependent on stims for demanding stims but I do feel they get more draining the longer I use them and with age so looking to decrease the use of stims at least
How long did it take to kick in for you?

 

[kisaj]

It was fast, about a week at 5mg I started noticing that I bounced out of bed and only had 1 cup of coffee and was good. I’m a 2 cup minimum guy easy. Then after about 2 weeks realized I never had any afternoon lull, I’d turn around and it was late afternoon and I was still going. Makes me really talkative and want to engage in everything so I do pay attention to that. People report really high libido but at this dose it is easy to maintain. Definitely high, but not at a level that makes it annoying.

If someone were taking this for depression or other issues I believe it can take longer to notice benefits. I’m in it purely for cognitive enhancement and longevity benefit.

 

[amarullio]

You probably need some nootropic supplements that would help your brain to be more active and less sleepy. There are a bunch of them, and I really cannot tell which one is better. You probably just need to try to see.
For instance, I take Alpha Brain nootropic dietary supplement, which works well for me. It contains various amino acids and other natural ingredients that help maintain brain function, reduce stress and be more motivated. Of course, no supplement will make you a Megamind, but you will notice that some cognitive functions become a bit better step by step.

 

[kisaj]

Lol

 

[sammpedd88]

Right now I’m running SNS Anabolic XT and Optimize T. Great motivation, focus and sense of well being. Worth a try bro.

 

[Mike Arnold]

Motivation and mood? Mitradopa, no question.

 

[DeloresHardin]

Is Mitradopa absolutely safe for teens? I am a student and cope with lack of motivation to do anything everyday, no matter if I am supposed to do smth for my health or smth for my academic studies. It is so hard to be a student with the nowadays challenges.

 

[ZLB70]

Is Mitradopa absolutely safe for teens?

Idk if it is or not but it does contain Kratom so if I was you I would look into what that is before you dive into anything. Im sure Mike can give more info

 

[GertrudePortil]

I am afraid of supplements because, in the beginning, they reduce stress and sleepy mood, but then I come into a permanent panic or become too agitated. I don't know how to explain that feeling. Maybe not all "motivational" supplements are this way, but it is hard to try again after an unsuccessful experience. Overall, being a student who tries to achieve academic success and build a sports lifestyle is challenging. I click on https://eduzaurus.com/free-essay-samples/challenges/ periodically to get motivation and inspiration. The free essay samples about challenges and how to overcome them in a way that keeps my teen mind happy and healthy encourage me to go on my way.

 

[ZLB70]

I am afraid of supplements because, in the beginning, they reduce stress and sleepy mood, but then I come into a permanent panic or become too agitated. I don't know how to explain that feeling. Maybe not all "motivational" supplements are this way, but it is hard to try again after an unsuccessful experience.

All supplements regardless what they are for can have different outcomes for different people. Maybe look into the ingredient list of what you had a bad experience with and avoid them in the next supp you buy if you plan on taking any

 

[ThaReal Big]

@sns8778
SNS Kava XT

 

[sns8778]

@sns8778
SNS Kava XT

That's one that I wanted to do at one time, even had labels made for it, but never followed thru with because when I mentioned it some, there didn't seem to be much interest. Definitely still possible to do if there's enough interest, especially since already have labels done.

 

[mavup]

Keep in mind that it is very safe for longevity doses of 5mg with no concerns of excess tyramine that comes with MAOIs. So far, it’s been a game changer. Everyday has been “what do we accomplish next!”, and this is coming from someone that rarely sits still.

Have you continued using Deprenyl? If so, what have the long-term effects been?

 

[poluvolo]

curcumin highdose every day
l-tyrosine acetate
vinpocetine
l-theanine
tyramine

 

[poluvolo]

Just to correct my mistakes
N-Acetyl Tyrosine or N-A-T
N-METHYLTYRAMINE POWDER OR NMT from bulkstimulants.com
thanks a lot

 

[JKVol]

Just to correct my mistakes
N-Acetyl Tyrosine or N-A-T
N-METHYLTYRAMINE POWDER OR NMT from bulkstimulants.com
thanks a lot

What does NMT feel like?

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Just to correct my mistakes
N-Acetyl Tyrosine or N-A-T
N-METHYLTYRAMINE POWDER OR NMT from bulkstimulants.com
thanks a lot

I'm pretty sure N-Acetyl Tyrosine (NALT) is inferior to plain old l-tyrosine.

Pharmacology of N-Acetyl-L-Tyrosine

Detailed examination of Stimulants, Supplements, and Anti-Aging Medicine.

hightowerpharmacology.blogspot.com

Not to mention that, IIRC, every study that used tyrosine showing cognative/fatigue/etc. benefits in humans used l-tyrosine, and I'm not aware of any that used NALT. Plus I think it's also more expensive (?), which really gives it no advantages here IMO.

It has been a few years since I've researched NALT, so if there's something groundbreaking that's been published in the least few years, I am not aware of it. But I doubt that is the case.

 

[paulg]

I use NALT and it works.
It knocks out morning cobwebs and definitely good for mood. I started taking it for the horrible fatigue I get from seasonal allergies.
Like anything else, over time the dosage required will need to be increased. That's just how it goes. I currently take 1400mg.
Free form Tyrosine works for a lot of people as well. Dialing in the dosage is key. Too little and you won't notice a thing.
I've experimented with basic Nootropics lately for gaming.
PES: nice but I crash
DMAE, Huperzine, and Theobromine all feel good. Again, I had to double dosage pretty quickly.

I recommend Tyrosine to people first because it's long lasting, no crash, and helps focus and mood and energy.
Like anything else, when you work on YOUR best dosage, start low and ramp up if necessary.

 

[Jeremyk1]

I use NALT and it works.
It knocks out morning cobwebs and definitely good for mood. I started taking it for the horrible fatigue I get from seasonal allergies.
Like anything else, over time the dosage required will need to be increased. That's just how it goes. I currently take 1400mg.
Free form Tyrosine works for a lot of people as well. Dialing in the dosage is key. Too little and you won't notice a thing.
I've experimented with basic Nootropics lately for gaming.
PES: nice but I crash
DMAE, Huperzine, and Theobromine all feel good. Again, I had to double dosage pretty quickly.

I recommend Tyrosine to people first because it's long lasting, no crash, and helps focus and mood and energy.
Like anything else, when you work on YOUR best dosage, start low and ramp up if necessary.

No, you don’t have to increase dosage of everything. Most things you don’t. Especially something like tyrosine, as far as mood benefits, it mostly coming from being a substrate for dopamine. It won’t become less of a substrate. It will keep doing what it does.

 

[Mike Arnold]

I'm pretty sure N-Acetyl Tyrosine (NALT) is inferior to plain old l-tyrosine.

Pharmacology of N-Acetyl-L-Tyrosine

Detailed examination of Stimulants, Supplements, and Anti-Aging Medicine.

hightowerpharmacology.blogspot.com

Not to mention that, IIRC, every study that used tyrosine showing cognative/fatigue/etc. benefits in humans used l-tyrosine, and I'm not aware of any that used NALT. Plus I think it's also more expensive (?), which really gives it no advantages here IMO.

It has been a few years since I've researched NALT, so if there's something groundbreaking that's been published in the least few years, I am not aware of it. But I doubt that is the case.

This is my consensus, as well. From everything I've read, regular L-tyrosine is superior. NALT was one of those things that the inventors originally thought was going to be superior, but they turned out to be wrong. It's not that NALT doesn't work. It does. It's just that L-tyrosine gets more positive feedback...and has for many years now. Its also cheaper.

 

[paulg]

No, you don’t have to increase dosage of everything. Most things you don’t. Especially something like tyrosine, as far as mood benefits, it mostly coming from being a substrate for dopamine. It won’t become less of a substrate. It will keep doing what it does.

Not from my experience at all.
I've ramped up everything I mentioned in my post.
My body adapts to stuff. I can't tell you how many plant anavolics over the YEARS just suddenly quit working for me.
Some people adapt to things and have to
Increase dosage at some point. I'm surprised others don't have similar experiences.

 

[sns8778]

I'm pretty sure N-Acetyl Tyrosine (NALT) is inferior to plain old l-tyrosine.

Not to mention that, IIRC, every study that used tyrosine showing cognative/fatigue/etc. benefits in humans used l-tyrosine, and I'm not aware of any that used NALT. Plus I think it's also more expensive (?), which really gives it no advantages here IMO.

It has been a few years since I've researched NALT, so if there's something groundbreaking that's been published in the least few years, I am not aware of it. But I doubt that is the case.

I remember years ago that a certain site did an article stating that N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine was inferior to L-Tyrosine and that after that, it kind of became the norm for awhile for it to get repeated - but that doesn't necessarily make it true.

I do agree that L-Tyrosine is by far the more researched of the two, absolutely.

But I think the truth is that L-Tyrosine may be better for one person, N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine for another, and then some may experience the same results from both and not be able to tell a difference.

I use NALT and it works.
It knocks out morning cobwebs and definitely good for mood. I started taking it for the horrible fatigue I get from seasonal allergies.
Like anything else, over time the dosage required will need to be increased. That's just how it goes. I currently take 1400mg.
Free form Tyrosine works for a lot of people as well. Dialing in the dosage is key. Too little and you won't notice a thing.
I've experimented with basic Nootropics lately for gaming.
PES: nice but I crash
DMAE, Huperzine, and Theobromine all feel good. Again, I had to double dosage pretty quickly.

I recommend Tyrosine to people first because it's long lasting, no crash, and helps focus and mood and energy.
Like anything else, when you work on YOUR best dosage, start low and ramp up if necessary.

I think that upping the dosages on some things is fine, but for some things I wouldn't past a certain point.

I think that its also important to think of it in a way that while some things we do develop tolerances to and need to increase dosages; that there are some things that its not that we build a tolerance too, its just that when using them consistently, feeling like we feel on them becomes our new norm so its not that they aren't working anymore, its just that we get used to the way we feel on them.

In seeing the list of things that you like, I like many of the same and most of those are in Focus XT.
(which is out of stock but will be back in in January finally)

No, you don’t have to increase dosage of everything. Most things you don’t. Especially something like tyrosine, as far as mood benefits, it mostly coming from being a substrate for dopamine. It won’t become less of a substrate. It will keep doing what it does.

I agree. I think I understood what he was trying to say, but I think for most people, it may be more of a getting used to feeling the way we feel on something and it becoming our new norm and not realizing how much it was helping.

I had that happen to me with Stress & Anxiety Support. I was on it for so long and my stress level was through the roof so I got to thinking - okay, maybe its not working anymore - and took a break. Rude awakening that it was very much still working, I'd just gotten used to feeling my new norm of being off of it and quickly realized when I stopped that it had been helping A LOT. Got back on it immediately.

Not from my experience at all.
I've ramped up everything I mentioned in my post.
My body adapts to stuff. I can't tell you how many plant anavolics over the YEARS just suddenly quit working for me.
Some people adapt to things and have to
Increase dosage at some point. I'm surprised others don't have similar experiences.

I think that some people do experience that with some things; I think he just meant that its not the norm and is ingredient specific.

For example, you said that happen with a lot of natural anabolics - it would be much more common for that to happen with a generic overall plant extract than one extracted for specific constituents at a clinically efficacious dosage.

I hope that makes sense.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

I remember years ago that a certain site did an article stating that N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine was inferior to L-Tyrosine and that after that, it kind of became the norm for awhile for it to get repeated - but that doesn't necessarily make it true.

I do agree that L-Tyrosine is by far the more researched of the two, absolutely.

But I think the truth is that L-Tyrosine may be better for one person, N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine for another, and then some may experience the same results from both and not be able to tell a difference.



I think that upping the dosages on some things is fine, but for some things I wouldn't past a certain point.

I think that its also important to think of it in a way that while some things we do develop tolerances to and need to increase dosages; that there are some things that its not that we build a tolerance too, its just that when using them consistently, feeling like we feel on them becomes our new norm so its not that they aren't working anymore, its just that we get used to the way we feel on them.

In seeing the list of things that you like, I like many of the same and most of those are in Focus XT.
(which is out of stock but will be back in in January finally)

View attachment 226178



I agree. I think I understood what he was trying to say, but I think for most people, it may be more of a getting used to feeling the way we feel on something and it becoming our new norm and not realizing how much it was helping.

I had that happen to me with Stress & Anxiety Support. I was on it for so long and my stress level was through the roof so I got to thinking - okay, maybe its not working anymore - and took a break. Rude awakening that it was very much still working, I'd just gotten used to feeling my new norm of being off of it and quickly realized when I stopped that it had been helping A LOT. Got back on it immediately.



I think that some people do experience that with some things; I think he just meant that its not the norm and is ingredient specific.

For example, you said that happen with a lot of natural anabolics - it would be much more common for that to happen with a generic overall plant extract than one extracted for specific constituents at a clinically efficacious dosage.

I hope that makes sense.

True, we can't say with absolute certainty that NALT is inferior to plain old l-tyrosine. But the reasoning behind the conclusions discussed seems solid, and the actual studies showing the benefits we actually want from the supplement are all done with reasonable and viable doses of l-tyrosine, which is a fair bit cheaper IIRC. Do you have any specific issues you take with the argument presented from Hightower? Any possible misinterpretations of the data, or conclusions that aren't supported by the evidence? Or is it just a general remark that we don't know with absolute certainty?

What exactly is your reasoning that you believe some people may respond better to NALT? I'm not asking to be argumentative, I'm genuinely curious. Is it purely an anecdotal thing you're basing it on, or is there a proposed mechanism of action that you think can be responsible for this difference, which would likely circle back around to an actual disagreement with the aforementioned article, rather than just a general word of caution that it's just speculative and not absolutely definitively proven?

Or am I missing something entirely here?

 

[muscleupcrohn]

This is my consensus, as well. From everything I've read, regular L-tyrosine is superior. NALT was one of those things that the inventors originally thought was going to be superior, but they turned out to be wrong. It's not that NALT doesn't work. It does. It's just that L-tyrosine gets more positive feedback...and has for many years now. Its also cheaper.

At least it's not as bad of an alternative as CEE was to creatine monohydrate.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Not from my experience at all.
I've ramped up everything I mentioned in my post.
My body adapts to stuff. I can't tell you how many plant anavolics over the YEARS just suddenly quit working for me.
Some people adapt to things and have to
Increase dosage at some point. I'm surprised others don't have similar experiences.

What doses did you use for them both? You've tried both of them alone, or changing one to the other being the only variable being tweaked in your supplement use at the time?

 

[paulg]

What doses did you use for them both? You've tried both of them alone, or changing one to the other being the only variable being tweaked in your supplement use at the time?

I haven't used L-Tyrosine in a long time. I remember I was up to 2g.
I started NALT at 350mg X 3 until it didn't seem to be doing what I wanted. That took a few months. I'm currently taking 4 caps of 350mg.
I could trade it out for chocamine for a while. The chocamine is good: it doesn't help with gaming like huperzine and dmae do. Those are all kind of short duration to me. Tyrosine is way more long lasting.

Not to get too weird but motivation and purpose and whether or not we feel fulfilled is often a spiritual issue.
I was suicidal and hopeless before Christ. This (my testimony) is far deeper than any pill, potion, or powder.
Just wanted to share that.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

I haven't used L-Tyrosine in a long time. I remember I was up to 2g.
I started NALT at 350mg X 3 until it didn't seem to be doing what I wanted. That took a few months. I'm currently taking 4 caps of 350mg.
I could trade it out for chocamine for a while. The chocamine is good: it doesn't help with gaming like huperzine and dmae do. Those are all kind of short duration to me. Tyrosine is way more long lasting.

Not to get too weird but motivation and purpose and whether or not we feel fulfilled is often a spiritual issue.
I was suicidal and hopeless before Christ. This (my testimony) is far deeper than any pill, potion, or powder.
Just wanted to share that.

Thanks for elaborating! And I'm sincerely glad that it sounds like you're in a better place now. As much as we all love our supplements, I think we can all agree that they're just that, supplements, and they should ideally supplement a balanced and healthy lifestyle and attitude, not attempt to replace those things.

 

[aaronuconn]

At least it's not as bad of an alternative as CEE was to creatine monohydrate.

That’s how I feel. And the difference is you can acutely “feel” both NALT/Tyrosine while you really can’t with CEE/Creatine mono.

I’m also in the camp of Tyrosine > NALT, but if some people like NALT more, more power to them

 

[sns8778]

True, we can't say with absolute certainty that NALT is inferior to plain old l-tyrosine. But the reasoning behind the conclusions discussed seems solid, and the actual studies showing the benefits we actually want from the supplement are all done with reasonable and viable doses of l-tyrosine, which is a fair bit cheaper IIRC. Do you have any specific issues you take with the argument presented from Hightower? Any possible misinterpretations of the data, or conclusions that aren't supported by the evidence? Or is it just a general remark that we don't know with absolute certainty?

What exactly is your reasoning that you believe some people may respond better to NALT? I'm not asking to be argumentative, I'm genuinely curious. Is it purely an anecdotal thing you're basing it on, or is there a proposed mechanism of action that you think can be responsible for this difference, which would likely circle back around to an actual disagreement with the aforementioned article, rather than just a general word of caution that it's just speculative and not absolutely definitively proven?

Or am I missing something entirely here?

I've been a big fan of L-Tyrosine and have been for 20+ years.

I'm not defending N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine, I just don't think that it deserves to be bashed either.

The three things that I had said about L-Tyrosine and N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine were:

• I remember years ago that a certain site did an article stating that N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine was inferior to L-Tyrosine and that after that, it kind of became the norm for awhile for it to get repeated - but that doesn't necessarily make it true.
• I do agree that L-Tyrosine is by far the more researched of the two, absolutely.
• But I think the truth is that L-Tyrosine may be better for one person, N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine for another, and then some may experience the same results from both and not be able to tell a difference.

The actual studies showing the benefits were done with regular L-Tyrosine because that is the most common form of Tyrosine, has been around much longer, and is much more readily available than N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine. So that's going to be the case with most anything - in that unless a particular study has been funded by someone with a monetary interest in a certain ingredient or type of ingredient, the studies are generally going to be done on the most readily available form.

I don't remember anything in particular that I had an issue with in the article that I read back then other than it seemed presented as unnecessarily negative towards N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine; but I also understand that sometimes things like that are necessary in order to make an article be captivating and make people want to read it. I just think in this case, it created too much unwarranted negativity.

Ever hear the old expression that sometimes people try to create a solution for something that isn't even a problem?
^^^ That was my honest initial impression of the article when I read it.

I didn't, and still don't see the need for an either/or scenario between L-Tyrosine and N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine.

I think that L-Tyrosine is a great ingredient and is going to work great for most people that use it; but if someone tries it and doesn't see a benefit from it, by all means, give N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine a try and see if you like it.

I've worked with nootropics since before 99.9% of people even knew what the word nootropic meant and something I learned very early on is that sometimes different things work different for different people and no matter how hard you try, you're probably not going to be able to explain exactly why.

Think about it like this - people that don't get bloated from Creatine Monohydrate and respond well to it can say that it is the most researched form of creatine (absolutely true) and that they get great results from it and don't get bloated from it (which may be true in their case). But no matter how many times they repeat themselves over and over, that doesn't mean that monohydrate is the better form for people that do get bloated off of it and don't respond well to it. I see that happen all the time and use that example because for many people (myself included), Magnesium Creatine Chelate and Creatine HCI work a lot better than monohydrate and in my case don't make me so bloated that I feel like I swallowed a Volkswagen haha.

I hope that makes sense.

I'm not defending N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine at all, I'm just saying that I don't think it should be bashed either. And as far as Paulg or others saying that it works better for them than regular L-Tyrosine, I have no reason not to believe them because I know other people that have said the same thing, some of which I know very well in real life.

I've known people that like N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine better, I've known people to like L-Tyrosine better, and for me, I honestly can't tell the difference between then so I would say that they work equally as well for me - and I'm a huge fan of Tyrosine in general.

 

[Jeremyk1]

I've been a big fan of L-Tyrosine and have been for 20+ years.

I'm not defending N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine, I just don't think that it deserves to be bashed either.

The three things that I had said about L-Tyrosine and N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine were:

• I remember years ago that a certain site did an article stating that N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine was inferior to L-Tyrosine and that after that, it kind of became the norm for awhile for it to get repeated - but that doesn't necessarily make it true.
• I do agree that L-Tyrosine is by far the more researched of the two, absolutely.
• But I think the truth is that L-Tyrosine may be better for one person, N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine for another, and then some may experience the same results from both and not be able to tell a difference.

The actual studies showing the benefits were done with regular L-Tyrosine because that is the most common form of Tyrosine, has been around much longer, and is much more readily available than N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine. So that's going to be the case with most anything - in that unless a particular study has been funded by someone with a monetary interest in a certain ingredient or type of ingredient, the studies are generally going to be done on the most readily available form.

I don't remember anything in particular that I had an issue with in the article that I read back then other than it seemed presented as unnecessarily negative towards N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine; but I also understand that sometimes things like that are necessary in order to make an article be captivating and make people want to read it. I just think in this case, it created too much unwarranted negativity.

Ever hear the old expression that sometimes people try to create a solution for something that isn't even a problem?
^^^ That was my honest initial impression of the article when I read it.

I didn't, and still don't see the need for an either/or scenario between L-Tyrosine and N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine.

I think that L-Tyrosine is a great ingredient and is going to work great for most people that use it; but if someone tries it and doesn't see a benefit from it, by all means, give N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine a try and see if you like it.

I've worked with nootropics since before 99.9% of people even knew what the word nootropic meant and something I learned very early on is that sometimes different things work different for different people and no matter how hard you try, you're probably not going to be able to explain exactly why.

Think about it like this - people that don't get bloated from Creatine Monohydrate and respond well to it can say that it is the most researched form of creatine (absolutely true) and that they get great results from it and don't get bloated from it (which may be true in their case). But no matter how many times they repeat themselves over and over, that doesn't mean that monohydrate is the better form for people that do get bloated off of it and don't respond well to it. I see that happen all the time and use that example because for many people (myself included), Magnesium Creatine Chelate and Creatine HCI work a lot better than monohydrate and in my case don't make me so bloated that I feel like I swallowed a Volkswagen haha.

I hope that makes sense.

I'm not defending N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine at all, I'm just saying that I don't think it should be bashed either. And as far as Paulg or others saying that it works better for them than regular L-Tyrosine, I have no reason not to believe them because I know other people that have said the same thing, some of which I know very well in real life.

I've known people that like N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine better, I've known people to like L-Tyrosine better, and for me, I honestly can't tell the difference between then so I would say that they work equally as well for me - and I'm a huge fan of Tyrosine in general.

Well this is all interesting. From what I remember, the article (if it’s what I’m thinking of) argued that acetyl tyrosine gets excreted largely unchanged, whereas regular tyrosine gets metabolized, which should mean it’s doing what we want, acting as a substrate to neurotransmitters. Also, I think he referenced research showing a significantly increase in blood tyrosine following supplementation with the regular form, and not much with the acetyl form. So, it could be that it’s not turning into plain tyrosine that we’re looking for. But I do now wonder if it maybe “skips a step” and can act as substrate without having to metabolize to tyrosine first. Also, I know acetyl tyrosine is much more water soluble, which I believe was the original reason it was developed. With superior solubility, it may also have greater bioavailability, at least for some. I wouldn’t be surprised if differences in absorption and enzyme expression leads to different preferences for people.

 

[paulg]

I've been a big fan of L-Tyrosine and have been for 20+ years.

I'm not defending N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine, I just don't think that it deserves to be bashed either.

The three things that I had said about L-Tyrosine and N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine were:

• I remember years ago that a certain site did an article stating that N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine was inferior to L-Tyrosine and that after that, it kind of became the norm for awhile for it to get repeated - but that doesn't necessarily make it true.
• I do agree that L-Tyrosine is by far the more researched of the two, absolutely.
• But I think the truth is that L-Tyrosine may be better for one person, N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine for another, and then some may experience the same results from both and not be able to tell a difference.

The actual studies showing the benefits were done with regular L-Tyrosine because that is the most common form of Tyrosine, has been around much longer, and is much more readily available than N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine. So that's going to be the case with most anything - in that unless a particular study has been funded by someone with a monetary interest in a certain ingredient or type of ingredient, the studies are generally going to be done on the most readily available form.

I don't remember anything in particular that I had an issue with in the article that I read back then other than it seemed presented as unnecessarily negative towards N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine; but I also understand that sometimes things like that are necessary in order to make an article be captivating and make people want to read it. I just think in this case, it created too much unwarranted negativity.

Ever hear the old expression that sometimes people try to create a solution for something that isn't even a problem?
^^^ That was my honest initial impression of the article when I read it.

I didn't, and still don't see the need for an either/or scenario between L-Tyrosine and N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine.

I think that L-Tyrosine is a great ingredient and is going to work great for most people that use it; but if someone tries it and doesn't see a benefit from it, by all means, give N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine a try and see if you like it.

I've worked with nootropics since before 99.9% of people even knew what the word nootropic meant and something I learned very early on is that sometimes different things work different for different people and no matter how hard you try, you're probably not going to be able to explain exactly why.

Think about it like this - people that don't get bloated from Creatine Monohydrate and respond well to it can say that it is the most researched form of creatine (absolutely true) and that they get great results from it and don't get bloated from it (which may be true in their case). But no matter how many times they repeat themselves over and over, that doesn't mean that monohydrate is the better form for people that do get bloated off of it and don't respond well to it. I see that happen all the time and use that example because for many people (myself included), Magnesium Creatine Chelate and Creatine HCI work a lot better than monohydrate and in my case don't make me so bloated that I feel like I swallowed a Volkswagen haha.

I hope that makes sense.

I'm not defending N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine at all, I'm just saying that I don't think it should be bashed either. And as far as Paulg or others saying that it works better for them than regular L-Tyrosine, I have no reason not to believe them because I know other people that have said the same thing, some of which I know very well in real life.

I've known people that like N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine better, I've known people to like L-Tyrosine better, and for me, I honestly can't tell the difference between then so I would say that they work equally as well for me - and I'm a huge fan of Tyrosine in general.

Imagine 20 years ago saying Nootropic. People might have thought it was nuclear or a place to vacation.

On a side note, I'm a huge proponent of single ingredient products. Some people like me need a higher dosage of certain things. Heck, I'm experimenting with L-Citrulline at 9g. And it's sweet. That's one of the reasons I appreciate SNS. The formula approach might be too cookie cutter for me. But I can try Urolithin B solo and really evaluate it.

 

[sns8778]

Imagine 20 years ago saying Nootropic. People might have thought it was nuclear or a place to vacation.

On a side note, I'm a huge proponent of single ingredient products. Some people like me need a higher dosage of certain things. Heck, I'm experimenting with L-Citrulline at 9g. And it's sweet. That's one of the reasons I appreciate SNS. The formula approach might be too cookie cutter for me. But I can try Urolithin B solo and really evaluate it.

I remember when we first introduced Focus XT, I rarely even used the word nootropic because whenever I did, most people had no idea what I was talking about haha.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Well this is all interesting. From what I remember, the article (if it’s what I’m thinking of) argued that acetyl tyrosine gets excreted largely unchanged, whereas regular tyrosine gets metabolized, which should mean it’s doing what we want, acting as a substrate to neurotransmitters. Also, I think he referenced research showing a significantly increase in blood tyrosine following supplementation with the regular form, and not much with the acetyl form. So, it could be that it’s not turning into plain tyrosine that we’re looking for. But I do now wonder if it maybe “skips a step” and can act as substrate without having to metabolize to tyrosine first. Also, I know acetyl tyrosine is much more water soluble, which I believe was the original reason it was developed. With superior solubility, it may also have greater bioavailability, at least for some. I wouldn’t be surprised if differences in absorption and enzyme expression leads to different preferences for people.

Wasn't CEE also originally touted as being superior to monohydrate due to increased solubility? Of course I'm not saying NALT is to l-tyrosine as CEE is to creatine monohydrate, only that I don't know if I'd place the theory behind improved solubility leading to greater bioavailability and ultimately greater effects above the (admittedly limited) evidence that seems to suggest that, for whatever reason, this isn't bearing out in practice.

As the great Yogi Berra once said, "in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is."

Ultimately, people will use whatever they feel works beset for them, and something like tyrosine isn't as difficult to determine efficacy with as creatine, so if someone is adamant that they respond better to NALT, then by all means use it.

 

[sns8778]

Wasn't CEE also originally touted as being superior to monohydrate due to increased solubility? Of course I'm not saying NALT is to l-tyrosine as CEE is to creatine monohydrate, only that I don't know if I'd place the theory behind improved solubility leading to greater bioavailability and ultimately greater effects above the (admittedly limited) evidence that seems to suggest that, for whatever reason, this isn't bearing out in practice.

As the great Yogi Berra once said, "in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is."

Ultimately, people will use whatever they feel works beset for them, and something like tyrosine isn't as difficult to determine efficacy with as creatine, so if someone is adamant that they respond better to NALT, then by all means use it.

I'm not sure why Creatine Ethyl Ester keeps getting brought up in relation to N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine at all. The primary benefit that people were thinking and hoping for with CEE was to not have to load and that it would be a good option for people that got bloated off of monohydrate, and also that due to lower dosing would be better suited for a capsule form.

None of that was really ever the case with N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine, at least not that I can remember. I'm sure that some random company somewhere may have overhyped it, but I don't recall it. That's what I meant by the article 'trying to provide a solutions for something that wasn't even a problem' - bc I don't remember anyone trying to make it out like it was a lot better than L-Tyrosine in general anyway, moreso just that it was alternative to it for people that wanted a different form of it.

I've been a big fan of L-Tyrosine for 20+ years and being around that long, I've seen most ingredients go through cycles where people love them, people hate on them, people love them again, etc. and I remember a time where people really hated on L-Tyrosine and I was the biggest defender of it through that time that I can remember.

It was actually a lot of the hating on it during that time period that led to N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine starting to become popular.

The raw material suppliers and companies that offered it were offering it based off the demand for a form of Tyrosine other than L-Tyrosine. The suppliers nor the companies offering it were saving any money by using it, they were actually spending more to offer it and were just trying to meet the demand at the time.

Back then, I constantly told people that L-Tyrosine was a great ingredient and worked great for most people; but that if they fell into the category that didn't seem to respond well to it, try N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine and see if they liked it better.

For me at least, neither one works better or worse than the other and if I were going to buy just one to take personally, it would be L-Tyrosine. BUT I totally understand why brands would want to use both types in a formulation product because that way they'd be appealing to both sides.

And btw... I'm not being argumentative either. I'm just trying to clarify the time period and context that the ingredient was introduced. You seem to have a very negative opinion of it based off of an article - but years worth of real world results support that it does seem to work better for some people.

I want to reiterate that I'm not defending it at all, just being honest; and I can prove I'm not defending it or trying to promote it because we'll be coming out with a product in 2023 that contains L-Tyrosine in it and as of this time, the formula as it stands now has only regular L-Tyrosine in it haha.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

I'm not sure why Creatine Ethyl Ester keeps getting brought up in relation to N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine at all. The primary benefit that people were thinking and hoping for with CEE was to not have to load and that it would be a good option for people that got bloated off of monohydrate, and also that due to lower dosing would be better suited for a capsule form.

None of that was really ever the case with N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine, at least not that I can remember. I'm sure that some random company somewhere may have overhyped it, but I don't recall it. That's what I meant by the article 'trying to provide a solutions for something that wasn't even a problem' - bc I don't remember anyone trying to make it out like it was a lot better than L-Tyrosine in general anyway, moreso just that it was alternative to it for people that wanted a different form of it.

I've been a big fan of L-Tyrosine for 20+ years and being around that long, I've seen most ingredients go through cycles where people love them, people hate on them, people love them again, etc. and I remember a time where people really hated on L-Tyrosine and I was the biggest defender of it through that time that I can remember.

It was actually a lot of the hating on it during that time period that led to N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine starting to become popular.

The raw material suppliers and companies that offered it were offering it based off the demand for a form of Tyrosine other than L-Tyrosine. The suppliers nor the companies offering it were saving any money by using it, they were actually spending more to offer it and were just trying to meet the demand at the time.

Back then, I constantly told people that L-Tyrosine was a great ingredient and worked great for most people; but that if they fell into the category that didn't seem to respond well to it, try N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine and see if they liked it better.

For me at least, neither one works better or worse than the other and if I were going to buy just one to take personally, it would be L-Tyrosine. BUT I totally understand why brands would want to use both types in a formulation product because that way they'd be appealing to both sides.

And btw... I'm not being argumentative either. I'm just trying to clarify the time period and context that the ingredient was introduced. You seem to have a very negative opinion of it based off of an article - but years worth of real world results support that it does seem to work better for some people.

I want to reiterate that I'm not defending it at all, just being honest; and I can prove I'm not defending it or trying to promote it because we'll be coming out with a product in 2023 that contains L-Tyrosine in it and as of this time, the formula as it stands now has only regular L-Tyrosine in it haha.

I originally brought CEE up saying that NALT isn't as bad of a l-tyrosine alternative as CEE was to monohydrate in a response to Mike weighing in on the topic. It was, if anything, my admitting that NALT isn't terrible. It was more meant as a joke than anything, but I see how it could have been seen as my comparing it to CEE.

I only brought it up again after that because the "solubility" thing was brought up, which I then used CEE as an example of why this doesn't always pan out in practice. I then again clarified that NALT isn't to l-tyrosine as CEE is to monohydrate.

If you really want to keep discussing it, that's fine with me, but when you say that the article was "trying to provide a solutions for something that wasn't even a problem," I think that's an unfair characterization of the article. It was attempting to help people make an informed decision to use what is likely to be the most effective form of tyrosine, and also to save money on said likely most effective form. There's no "problem" to solve, but an in-depth article that helps people to gain an understanding of what is likely (but not certain) to be the best form of an ingredient is still a useful article IMO.

I hope you don't think that I think you're being dishonest or trying to say that NALT is better than l-tyrosine, because I do not think that is the case. I was initially just bringing up a useful analysis of the research (you keep saying it's an "article" but it's a pretty solid analysis of the admittedly quite limited research) because there's probably a lot of people who weren't around when it was discussed, or never saw it in the first place.

If we want to be done with this discussion, since I feel like we've covered just about every possible aspect here, I will say that I still maintain, as it seems you also do, someone looking to try a tyrosine supplement should start with l-tyrosine, as the research indicates it's more likely to be effective, and it's also cheaper. I will say that if this hypothetical person isn't happy with l-tyrosine, they can try NALT, see if it works better for them. There's no reason not to at that point lol. I can absolutely agree to that. But I'd also say if someone has only tried NALT, and if they like it or not, I'd still recommend trying l-tyrosine, as it's likely (even if not certain) to be more effective, and is also cheaper.

Hell, if you really want to know, get some capsules of both and "blind" yourself into taking one or the other a few times each, and write down what you feel from it haha.

 

[sns8778]

I originally brought CEE up saying that NALT isn't as bad of a l-tyrosine alternative as CEE was to monohydrate in a response to Mike weighing in on the topic. It was, if anything, my admitting that NALT isn't terrible. It was more meant as a joke than anything, but I see how it could have been seen as my comparing it to CEE.

I only brought it up again after that because the "solubility" thing was brought up, which I then used CEE as an example of why this doesn't always pan out in practice. I then again clarified that NALT isn't to l-tyrosine as CEE is to monohydrate.

If you really want to keep discussing it, that's fine with me, but when you say that the article was "trying to provide a solutions for something that wasn't even a problem," I think that's an unfair characterization of the article. It was attempting to help people make an informed decision to use what is likely to be the most effective form of tyrosine, and also to save money on said likely most effective form. There's no "problem" to solve, but an in-depth article that helps people to gain an understanding of what is likely (but not certain) to be the best form of an ingredient is still a useful article IMO.

I hope you don't think that I think you're being dishonest or trying to say that NALT is better than l-tyrosine, because I do not think that is the case. I was initially just bringing up a useful analysis of the research (you keep saying it's an "article" but it's a pretty solid analysis of the admittedly quite limited research) because there's probably a lot of people who weren't around when it was discussed, or never saw it in the first place.

If we want to be done with this discussion, since I feel like we've covered just about every possible aspect here, I will say that I still maintain, as it seems you also do, someone looking to try a tyrosine supplement should start with l-tyrosine, as the research indicates it's more likely to be effective, and it's also cheaper. I will say that if this hypothetical person isn't happy with l-tyrosine, they can try NALT, see if it works better for them. There's no reason not to at that point lol. I can absolutely agree to that. But I'd also say if someone has only tried NALT, and if they like it or not, I'd still recommend trying l-tyrosine, as it's likely (even if not certain) to be more effective, and is also cheaper.

Hell, if you really want to know, get some capsules of both and "blind" yourself into taking one or the other a few times each, and write down what you feel from it haha.

I think that you're misunderstanding a couple of things that I meant in my replies or that I'm talking about - no fault of yours, its just the way things happen sometimes whether on forums, emails, texts, etc.

I'll reply to your post in full detail but first let me clarify 2 things that I think will help it all make a lot more sense:

You wrote:
I hope you don't think that I think you're being dishonest or trying to say that NALT is better than l-tyrosine, because I do not think that is the case. I was initially just bringing up a useful analysis of the research (you keep saying it's an "article" but it's a pretty solid analysis of the admittedly quite limited research) because there's probably a lot of people who weren't around when it was discussed, or never saw it in the first place.

The reason that I'm calling what I'm calling an article is because what I'm talking about is literally the article that was written on it - as in an actual article on the subject that got a lot of attention at the time. The person that wrote it is someone that I actually know, so you're referring to something completely different than I am.

That leads me to my second thing to clarify:

I think that you are thinking that I mean something negative by the word 'problem' when I'm meaning it in the sense of a writing style.

I'm sorry if there was any confusion on that but reading it now and knowing that I was referring to an actual article, I hope that makes more sense. I was literally talking about the writing style in the way that the author presented it and being that I know the person that wrote the one I'm talking about, that's why I clarified that I understood why it was presented the way that he did - because his ultimate goal was for people to read his article, which is completely understandable.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with articles helping people make informed decisions - what I meant by there not being a 'problem to solve' was that the tone of the article if I remember it correctly was like there were a ton of people or companies hyping or promoting N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine over L-Tyrosine and there just weren't. As in there wasn't the 'problem' of many people or companies trying to say it was so much better to begin with.

To me, I felt like the article was so anti- N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine that it actually came off as biased and kind of undermined the intention of the article itself and I felt like the article would have been a better resource if it had a more neutral tone - but like I said, I understand that sometimes part of writing and article and getting views is creating a 'problem'.

For example, years ago I wrote an article on Calcium Ascorbate (Buffered Vitamin C) versus Ascorbic Acid, which I had been asked to write because it was a very popular and heavily debated issue back then on then on the general health side of the market. But now, no one really talks about that or asks about that, so let's say I decided to write an article about it today, I would have to create a 'problem' to offer a solution with my article if I was writing an opinion piece, basically, I would have to captivate the reader and make them want a 'solution'. Whereas if I wrote a completely unbiased article comparing Calcium Ascorbate and Ascorbic Acid, it likely wouldn't get hardly any views or have many people care enough to read it because its not commonly talked about right now.

To your point where you said:
"There's no "problem" to solve, but an in-depth article that helps people to gain an understanding of what is likely (but not certain) to be the best form of an ingredient is still a useful article IMO."

^^^ That was kind of my point in that if the article had seemed in depth and more neutral, I think it would have been a much better article in my opinion BUT I also think for reasons I explained above that it wouldn't have got as much attention as it did; so I totally understand why the author wrote it the way that they did.


I think and hope that clears up any confusion and misunderstanding haha.

I rarely actually laugh over anything but got a laugh out of this that we both typed such in depth replies to not even be talking about the same thing haha

---------------------------

On the Creatine Ethyl Ester part - I understood that you weren't directly comparing it to N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine. What I meant by saying that I wasn't sure why it was being brought up in comparison at all was that the main reason that a lot of people were excited about CEE at the time was that it was thought that there would be no need to do a loading phase and no bloating with it; and there's no loading phase or bloating with N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine anyway.

On another funny note, you had wrote:
Hell, if you really want to know, get some capsules of both and "blind" yourself into taking one or the other a few times each, and write down what you feel from it haha.

^^^ I literally did something similar to that at the time - I had someone else fill capsules with raws for me, put them in the same bottle to see if I could tell a difference with one or the other and I couldn't, so I knew at least for me, they worked the same.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

I think that you're misunderstanding a couple of things that I meant in my replies or that I'm talking about - no fault of yours, its just the way things happen sometimes whether on forums, emails, texts, etc.

I'll reply to your post in full detail but first let me clarify 2 things that I think will help it all make a lot more sense:

You wrote:
I hope you don't think that I think you're being dishonest or trying to say that NALT is better than l-tyrosine, because I do not think that is the case. I was initially just bringing up a useful analysis of the research (you keep saying it's an "article" but it's a pretty solid analysis of the admittedly quite limited research) because there's probably a lot of people who weren't around when it was discussed, or never saw it in the first place.

The reason that I'm calling what I'm calling an article is because what I'm talking about is literally the article that was written on it - as in an actual article on the subject that got a lot of attention at the time. The person that wrote it is someone that I actually know, so you're referring to something completely different than I am.

That leads me to my second thing to clarify:

I think that you are thinking that I mean something negative by the word 'problem' when I'm meaning it in the sense of a writing style.

I'm sorry if there was any confusion on that but reading it now and knowing that I was referring to an actual article, I hope that makes more sense. I was literally talking about the writing style in the way that the author presented it and being that I know the person that wrote the one I'm talking about, that's why I clarified that I understood why it was presented the way that he did - because his ultimate goal was for people to read his article, which is completely understandable.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with articles helping people make informed decisions - what I meant by there not being a 'problem to solve' was that the tone of the article if I remember it correctly was like there were a ton of people or companies hyping or promoting N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine over L-Tyrosine and there just weren't. As in there wasn't the 'problem' of many people or companies trying to say it was so much better to begin with.

To me, I felt like the article was so anti- N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine that it actually came off as biased and kind of undermined the intention of the article itself and I felt like the article would have been a better resource if it had a more neutral tone - but like I said, I understand that sometimes part of writing and article and getting views is creating a 'problem'.

For example, years ago I wrote an article on Calcium Ascorbate (Buffered Vitamin C) versus Ascorbic Acid, which I had been asked to write because it was a very popular and heavily debated issue back then on then on the general health side of the market. But now, no one really talks about that or asks about that, so let's say I decided to write an article about it today, I would have to create a 'problem' to offer a solution with my article if I was writing an opinion piece, basically, I would have to captivate the reader and make them want a 'solution'. Whereas if I wrote a completely unbiased article comparing Calcium Ascorbate and Ascorbic Acid, it likely wouldn't get hardly any views or have many people care enough to read it because its not commonly talked about right now.

To your point where you said:
"There's no "problem" to solve, but an in-depth article that helps people to gain an understanding of what is likely (but not certain) to be the best form of an ingredient is still a useful article IMO."

^^^ That was kind of my point in that if the article had seemed in depth and more neutral, I think it would have been a much better article in my opinion BUT I also think for reasons I explained above that it wouldn't have got as much attention as it did; so I totally understand why the author wrote it the way that they did.


I think and hope that clears up any confusion and misunderstanding haha.

I rarely actually laugh over anything but got a laugh out of this that we both typed such in depth replies to not even be talking about the same thing haha

---------------------------

On the Creatine Ethyl Ester part - I understood that you weren't directly comparing it to N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine. What I meant by saying that I wasn't sure why it was being brought up in comparison at all was that the main reason that a lot of people were excited about CEE at the time was that it was thought that there would be no need to do a loading phase and no bloating with it; and there's no loading phase or bloating with N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine anyway.

On another funny note, you had wrote:
Hell, if you really want to know, get some capsules of both and "blind" yourself into taking one or the other a few times each, and write down what you feel from it haha.

^^^ I literally did something similar to that at the time - I had someone else fill capsules with raws for me, put them in the same bottle to see if I could tell a difference with one or the other and I couldn't, so I knew at least for me, they worked the same.

I gotcha! Thanks for taking the time to go back and forth with me until we both knew what the other person was trying to say haha.

 

[sns8778]

I gotcha! Thanks for taking the time to go back and forth with me until we both knew what the other person was trying to say haha.

No worries at all lol. I'm glad we got it figured out.

 

[bell1986]

I've ordered some selegiline. Should ve here this week or early next.

Have read a lot of good reviews on this medication in terms of improving overall wellbeing etc.

It's an MAO-B Inhibitor. This is what breaks down dopamine. If you inhibit this then it leaves more dopamine to circulate. It's actually got a ton of research on it as a longevity drug aswell.

Anyone got any experience with this?

I've tried most supplements and I'm being honest. Their so subtle that I feel like I'm just waiting money. Supplements seems to be getting crazy expensive just now also. Selegiline is far cheaper than most nootropics. I'm not writing off nootropics in general but if you want a decent kick or mood improvement then their isn't much in the supplement category to hit this need. Well that's for me personally. Everyone differs

 

[sns8778]

I've ordered some selegiline. Should ve here this week or early next.

Have read a lot of good reviews on this medication in terms of improving overall wellbeing etc.

It's an MAO-B Inhibitor. This is what breaks down dopamine. If you inhibit this then it leaves more dopamine to circulate. It's actually got a ton of research on it as a longevity drug aswell.

Anyone got any experience with this?

I've tried most supplements and I'm being honest. Their so subtle that I feel like I'm just waiting money. Supplements seems to be getting crazy expensive just now also. Selegiline is far cheaper than most nootropics. I'm not writing off nootropics in general but if you want a decent kick or mood improvement then their isn't much in the supplement category to hit this need. Well that's for me personally. Everyone differs

Not directed at you - just a general observation for people not familiar with this drug.

I would just caution you and anyone else that uses Selagiline to be careful because there are a LOT of raw material issues with that ingredient and its a prescription drug so its not something that places selling it as a research chemical or whatever are exactly going to be sending off for independent testing bc the labs could report them to the FDA. So it puts the consumer buying blind and hoping for the best.

Even in the best case, I would encourage anyone to do real research on the potential side effects from it; not just on nootropic forums or research chemical sites, but on the prescription drug itself.

I'm not saying that it doesn't help some people because it likely may, but its not a supplement; its a serious legitimate medication that is commonly used for Parkinson's and major depressive disorders.

As for supplements getting crazy expensive now, it all depends on the ingredient and the brand. There are many of the marketing heavy brands that are very expensive for what they are because they have to be able to pay for the huge marketing budgets that they have so their products are marked up much more heavily. Then there are brands like us that don't have the money for massive marketing campaigns - the downside is that not as many people know about us but the upside is that we can keep things much more cost effective for consumers.

For example, Sabroxy XT has been very popular and the average cost is .35 to .70 cents per day. Another example is Focus XT which is on average 1.00 per day or less. Both products could be stacked together for less than the average person spends on an energy drink or cup of coffee.

 

[madmuscle24]

I've ordered some selegiline. Should ve here this week or early next.

Have read a lot of good reviews on this medication in terms of improving overall wellbeing etc.

It's an MAO-B Inhibitor. This is what breaks down dopamine. If you inhibit this then it leaves more dopamine to circulate. It's actually got a ton of research on it as a longevity drug aswell.

Anyone got any experience with this?

I've tried most supplements and I'm being honest. Their so subtle that I feel like I'm just waiting money. Supplements seems to be getting crazy expensive just now also. Selegiline is far cheaper than most nootropics. I'm not writing off nootropics in general but if you want a decent kick or mood improvement then their isn't much in the supplement category to hit this need. Well that's for me personally. Everyone differs

Let us know how you like it. I just recieved some pharma grade myself but haven’t had a chance to try it yet.

 

[grovemule]

Imagine 20 years ago saying Nootropic. People might have thought it was nuclear or a place to vacation.

On a side note, I'm a huge proponent of single ingredient products. Some people like me need a higher dosage of certain things. Heck, I'm experimenting with L-Citrulline at 9g. And it's sweet. That's one of the reasons I appreciate SNS. The formula approach might be too cookie cutter for me. But I can try Urolithin B solo and really evaluate it.

I think most pre-workout supps underdose citruline, I keep bulk powder around to add to them, like u I'm around 9g when my concoction is finished. Also I swear by l tyrosine for bad anxiety days. It "smoothes" me out.

 

[grovemule]

I'm not sure why Creatine Ethyl Ester keeps getting brought up in relation to N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine at all. The primary benefit that people were thinking and hoping for with CEE was to not have to load and that it would be a good option for people that got bloated off of monohydrate, and also that due to lower dosing would be better suited for a capsule form.

None of that was really ever the case with N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine, at least not that I can remember. I'm sure that some random company somewhere may have overhyped it, but I don't recall it. That's what I meant by the article 'trying to provide a solutions for something that wasn't even a problem' - bc I don't remember anyone trying to make it out like it was a lot better than L-Tyrosine in general anyway, moreso just that it was alternative to it for people that wanted a different form of it.

I've been a big fan of L-Tyrosine for 20+ years and being around that long, I've seen most ingredients go through cycles where people love them, people hate on them, people love them again, etc. and I remember a time where people really hated on L-Tyrosine and I was the biggest defender of it through that time that I can remember.

It was actually a lot of the hating on it during that time period that led to N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine starting to become popular.

The raw material suppliers and companies that offered it were offering it based off the demand for a form of Tyrosine other than L-Tyrosine. The suppliers nor the companies offering it were saving any money by using it, they were actually spending more to offer it and were just trying to meet the demand at the time.

Back then, I constantly told people that L-Tyrosine was a great ingredient and worked great for most people; but that if they fell into the category that didn't seem to respond well to it, try N-Acetyl L-Tyrosine and see if they liked it better.

For me at least, neither one works better or worse than the other and if I were going to buy just one to take personally, it would be L-Tyrosine. BUT I totally understand why brands would want to use both types in a formulation product because that way they'd be appealing to both sides.

And btw... I'm not being argumentative either. I'm just trying to clarify the time period and context that the ingredient was introduced. You seem to have a very negative opinion of it based off of an article - but years worth of real world results support that it does seem to work better for some people.

I want to reiterate that I'm not defending it at all, just being honest; and I can prove I'm not defending it or trying to promote it because we'll be coming out with a product in 2023 that contains L-Tyrosine in it and as of this time, the formula as it stands now has only regular L-Tyrosine in it haha.

Steve would there be any benefits from adding tyrosine to my pre-workout cocktail?

 

[Resolve10]

Steve would there be any benefits from adding tyrosine to my pre-workout cocktail?

I am not steve and it depends on the rest of the cocktail but in general I would say it is a nice addition.

Tyrosine + a Choline source + Alcar (and Caffeine if that is your kind of thing) is an awesome backbone for pre-workout (or productivity work). That is why I think something like Focus XT + stim free pump product or ingredients you like before your workout makes such an amazing combo.

 

[sns8778]

Steve would there be any benefits from adding tyrosine to my pre-workout cocktail?

Resolve nailed it with his post above in that it really just depends on the rest of your pre-workout cocktail and what you're looking for out of it.

We are hoping to finally have Focus XT back in stock in some flavors by the end of January and it has Tyrosine plus a lot of other nootropics in it and its a great pre-workout for people that are looking to increase focus, concentration, and motivation for their workouts.

 

[bell1986]

Let us know how you like it. I just recieved some pharma grade myself but haven’t had a chance to try it yet.

Hey

I took my first dose yesterday and I will be honest I wasn't sure what to expect.

I went to work and had almost forgot I had took the selegiline and I mind driving a vehicle and it was almost like my eyesight went bright and lights seemed very strong... In a nice way though.

I was very chatty with all my staff and just at first I had a tiny background anxiety. I'm certain this was me creating this though. After I had thought about it that anxiety lifted and I could tell the selegiline was at work.

It's actually very nice tbh. You can tell it's a dopamine reaction. I had more push to do more. I felt more chatty and when I came home I wanted to train and be active. I also was sitting with my partner last night and felt like I could chat so easily and my brain was very sharp and responsive.

My libido over the last 2 years has really plummeted and I was trying anything to regain it. I tried every supplement that's linked to libido and nothing really helped. When I say I tried everything I genuinely mean it. Last night I could feel my libido very strong. I haven't felt it that strong for so long. I was actually very happy with this outcome. My poor libido was really affecting my overall mood tbh.

I'm on TRT and I've took every hormone test going and couldn't find a link to my low libido. I've honestly spent thousands on blood tests/supplements/drugs etc.

For me personally. It's still early days. I can't say selegiline is a miracle. It's a very old drug now but old drugs have a huge advantage of... Rigorous testing over the years. Selegiline is very safe (If treated proper). It's actually been proven to improve the dopamine system in the brain and can extend life. It's worth reading about it.

Start with a low dose and don't just jump in with a high dosing protocol. I only took 2.5mg yesterday. I took it with a small amount of fat (It absorbs better with fats). You can also take it sublingually but be careful as a sublingual dose is supposedly 10x the oral dose.

Also... I slept AWESOME last night. My Samsung watch has gave me a great score this morning. The reason I say this as people sometimes can get insomnia on dopaminergics. I personally don't and my sleep was actually better for some reason. Had zero issue falling asleep and staying asleep. Slept 9 hours solid.

I would rate it very highly. I'm gonna be running it for a period. I will go up to the 5mg dose eventually. I will come back and update on that.

Have you tried it yet?

 

[madmuscle24]

Hey

I took my first dose yesterday and I will be honest I wasn't sure what to expect.

I went to work and had almost forgot I had took the selegiline and I mind driving a vehicle and it was almost like my eyesight went bright and lights seemed very strong... In a nice way though.

I was very chatty with all my staff and just at first I had a tiny background anxiety. I'm certain this was me creating this though. After I had thought about it that anxiety lifted and I could tell the selegiline was at work.

It's actually very nice tbh. You can tell it's a dopamine reaction. I had more push to do more. I felt more chatty and when I came home I wanted to train and be active. I also was sitting with my partner last night and felt like I could chat so easily and my brain was very sharp and responsive.

My libido over the last 2 years has really plummeted and I was trying anything to regain it. I tried every supplement that's linked to libido and nothing really helped. When I say I tried everything I genuinely mean it. Last night I could feel my libido very strong. I haven't felt it that strong for so long. I was actually very happy with this outcome. My poor libido was really affecting my overall mood tbh.

I'm on TRT and I've took every hormone test going and couldn't find a link to my low libido. I've honestly spent thousands on blood tests/supplements/drugs etc.

For me personally. It's still early days. I can't say selegiline is a miracle. It's a very old drug now but old drugs have a huge advantage of... Rigorous testing over the years. Selegiline is very safe (If treated proper). It's actually been proven to improve the dopamine system in the brain and can extend life. It's worth reading about it.

Start with a low dose and don't just jump in with a high dosing protocol. I only took 2.5mg yesterday. I took it with a small amount of fat (It absorbs better with fats). You can also take it sublingually but be careful as a sublingual dose is supposedly 10x the oral dose.

Also... I slept AWESOME last night. My Samsung watch has gave me a great score this morning. The reason I say this as people sometimes can get insomnia on dopaminergics. I personally don't and my sleep was actually better for some reason. Had zero issue falling asleep and staying asleep. Slept 9 hours solid.

I would rate it very highly. I'm gonna be running it for a period. I will go up to the 5mg dose eventually. I will come back and update on that.

Have you tried it yet?

Appreciate the reply. I’ve taken it twice now at 5mg per day with good results. I chewed the tabs up after a fatty meal for increased absorption. It gives me a nice boost in focus/mental clarity. Definitely can feel the dopamine push as it improves my mood quit a bit. Will continue to use it twice a week for a while to see what happens.

 

[bell1986]

Appreciate the reply. I’ve taken it twice now at 5mg per day with good results. I chewed the tabs up after a fatty meal for increased absorption. It gives me a nice boost in focus/mental clarity. Definitely can feel the dopamine push as it improves my mood quit a bit. Will continue to use it twice a week for a while to see what happens.

Hey

Another method is sublingual. Not sure if you have read much regarding selegiline and absorption?

The oral route is actually very poor (10%). Sublingual is around (70-80%).

I broke a pill into 1.25mg segments. I put it under my tongue for 10-15 minutes and it completely disappeared. I did swish and rinse my mouth as supposedly you don't want any being swallowed.

This is a lot stronger. I read online that everyone does this now. I took a dose hours ago like this and it feels stronger for sure. Worth an experiment Only use 1.25mg mind. This is equivalent to around 10mg+ oral. We want MAO-B inhibited only. 1.25mg does this perfectly.

Also. Makes your stash last MUCH longer lol

I'm on day 4 and it's been very enjoyable. I've tried LOADS of supplements. Nootropics etc. Selegiline for me has been a favourite so far. It's early days though but I will keep this updated on any future progress.

I can say for sure I have my old libido back. My partner has noticed it also. More touchy touchy lol ie a pest!

My goal was to improve my overall mood and regain my old libido. 100% done.

I have had zero side effects. I would say it's actually improved some aspects. It's also made me improve my appetite. I do OMAD a lot and this has been a breeze the last few days. Fasting 24 hours and still hammering out hard gym sessions. Infact my body is in pieces from yesterday! I hope this remains. Like most supplements etc it can be awesome to start and then die off. I've had this happen loads of times.

Let me know how you get on Be great to hear your sublingual experiment (If you try it)

Thanks

 

[JKVol]

Hey

I took my first dose yesterday and I will be honest I wasn't sure what to expect.

I went to work and had almost forgot I had took the selegiline and I mind driving a vehicle and it was almost like my eyesight went bright and lights seemed very strong... In a nice way though.

I was very chatty with all my staff and just at first I had a tiny background anxiety. I'm certain this was me creating this though. After I had thought about it that anxiety lifted and I could tell the selegiline was at work.

It's actually very nice tbh. You can tell it's a dopamine reaction. I had more push to do more. I felt more chatty and when I came home I wanted to train and be active. I also was sitting with my partner last night and felt like I could chat so easily and my brain was very sharp and responsive.

My libido over the last 2 years has really plummeted and I was trying anything to regain it. I tried every supplement that's linked to libido and nothing really helped. When I say I tried everything I genuinely mean it. Last night I could feel my libido very strong. I haven't felt it that strong for so long. I was actually very happy with this outcome. My poor libido was really affecting my overall mood tbh.

I'm on TRT and I've took every hormone test going and couldn't find a link to my low libido. I've honestly spent thousands on blood tests/supplements/drugs etc.

For me personally. It's still early days. I can't say selegiline is a miracle. It's a very old drug now but old drugs have a huge advantage of... Rigorous testing over the years. Selegiline is very safe (If treated proper). It's actually been proven to improve the dopamine system in the brain and can extend life. It's worth reading about it.

Start with a low dose and don't just jump in with a high dosing protocol. I only took 2.5mg yesterday. I took it with a small amount of fat (It absorbs better with fats). You can also take it sublingually but be careful as a sublingual dose is supposedly 10x the oral dose.

Also... I slept AWESOME last night. My Samsung watch has gave me a great score this morning. The reason I say this as people sometimes can get insomnia on dopaminergics. I personally don't and my sleep was actually better for some reason. Had zero issue falling asleep and staying asleep. Slept 9 hours solid.

I would rate it very highly. I'm gonna be running it for a period. I will go up to the 5mg dose eventually. I will come back and update on that.

Have you tried it yet?

Could you PM me a link to buy?

 

[bell1986]

Appreciate the reply. I’ve taken it twice now at 5mg per day with good results. I chewed the tabs up after a fatty meal for increased absorption. It gives me a nice boost in focus/mental clarity. Definitely can feel the dopamine push as it improves my mood quit a bit. Will continue to use it twice a week for a while to see what happens.

Hey bud.

How are you getting on with selegiline?

I've been on it a week now and can 100% say I'm very pleased with it

How you enjoying it? Any side effects?