Did anybody catch the 20/20 segment on Modafinil last night? It should stir up some discussion I assume...the link is below.
http://abcnews.go.co...=2874922&page=1
Posted 18 February 2007 - 12:58 AM
Posted 18 February 2007 - 01:10 AM
The Caffeine Comparison
"20/20" set out to discover how well Provigil worked when the studies were not funded by Cephalon.
That led us to the sleep labs of the U.S. Army. Brain scientist Nancy Wesensten studies drugs to help sleep-deprived soldiers stay awake and alert. She didn't just compare Provigil to a placebo, she compared it to America's No. 1 selling "awake drug": caffeine.
"We knew that caffeine was an effective means for sustaining performance during sleep loss," she said. "But we are always looking for other compounds that might be an improvement on caffeine, so when modafinil came along we wanted to compare modafinil to caffeine."
Wesensten compared Provigil to caffeine in terms of how well the soldiers performed on tests and how alert they were, and she also looked at side effects. The result?
"In our hands, at the dosages we tested, modafinil did not work any better than caffeine," she said.
In fact, the Army found that Provigil worked no better than the amount of caffeine you received in a big cup of Starbucks coffee. But soldiers on the battlefield don't get their caffeine in a cup of coffee, they use caffeine gum for low doses across many hours.
Whether you're getting your kick from a pill or a cup of coffee, at the end of the day, all the experts say the best answer for sleepiness is the oldest one. As Wesensten puts it:
"The ultimate cure is sleep. Nothing replaces sleep."
Posted 18 February 2007 - 01:34 AM
Posted 18 February 2007 - 01:46 AM
Did the 20/20 reporter actually try Provigil? I have a feeling the cynical tone of the story would be completely different coming from someone who had actually experienced the effects of modafinil.
I fully agree with the conclusion though: "The ultimate cure is sleep. Nothing replaces sleep."
Posted 18 February 2007 - 06:51 AM
One study on helicopter pilots suggested that 600 mg of modafinil given in three doses can be used to keep pilots alert and maintain their accuracy at pre-deprivation levels for 40 hours without sleep.[13]However, significant levels of nausea and vertigo were observed. Another study of fighter pilots showed that 300 mg modafinil given in three divided 100 mg doses sustained the flight control accuracy of sleep-deprived F-117 pilots to within about 27 percent of baseline levels for 37 hours, without any considerable side effects.[14]
Posted 18 February 2007 - 03:35 PM
Yeah, I am not sure. I think the one they were talking about in the new episode was comparing it to caffeine. I suppose the other one (that you cite) was probably comparing it to a placebo. I am not sure though, I would like to see some other independent studies on it and its effects.Apparently the army actually DID record multiple cases where modafinil was a clear help to maintaining alertness, so I don't know why ABC is trivializing its findings:
http://en.wikipedia....il#Military_use :
As you can see, most of the claims have citations.
Oh, I know. It is the same load of bs that they try to feed people about hormone replacement therapies for anti-aging purposes. (which has been covered multiple times on these boards) Suzanne Summers claims that since they are bioidenticals, that they won't have the same bad effects as artificially synthesized ones, which is clearly a load of horse hockey. It is always good to keep up on the latest anti-aging claims, though, which is why I thought it would be interesting to some folks.That other ABC article shows that Suzanne Somers is a liar and a snake oil salesman who makes false claims to propagate her views. She doesn't really interest me at all =/
Posted 18 February 2007 - 06:10 PM
That may well be true, but let's be clear. The bioidenticals are not the same molecules as used in conventional HRT. This is not the usual misconception about natural sources being better than synthetic sources of the same molecule. They are different molecules.Suzanne Summers claims that since they are bioidenticals, that they won't have the same bad effects as artificially synthesized ones, which is clearly a load of horse hockey.
Edited by bgwowk, 18 February 2007 - 07:58 PM.
Posted 18 February 2007 - 06:27 PM
Thanks for the insight Dr. Wowk. I had just assumed (foolishly as it seems) that the bioidenticals were for all intensive purposes the same thing. Thank you for the correction.That may well be true, but let's be clear. The bioidenticals are not the same molecules as used in conventional HRT. This is not the usual misconception about natural sources being better than synthetic sources of the same molecule. They are different molecules.Suzanne Summers claims that since they are bioidenticals, that they won't have the same bad effects as artificially synthesized ones, which is clearly a load of horse hockey.
It is impossible to draw any conclusions about Suzanne Summers from that ABC story alone because it was so obviously a hatchet job. Science issues were barely touched on.
Posted 05 March 2007 - 03:25 PM
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users