Hacker News Reader

Comment by pmoriarty | Hacker News Reader

It's interesting, but perhaps not surprising, that that obituary does not mention how critical Erdős felt his amphetamine use was to his work. A famous anecdote:

"After 1971 he [Erdős] also took amphetamines, despite the concern of his friends, one of whom (Ron Graham) bet him $500 that he could not stop taking the drug for a month. Erdős won the bet, but complained that during his abstinence, mathematics had been set back by a month: "Before, when I looked at a piece of blank paper my mind was filled with ideas. Now all I see is a blank piece of paper." After he won the bet, he promptly resumed his amphetamine use."

View on HN

As an ADD diagnosed Adderall user I can vouch for this. It's like super coffee that lasts all day. It makes you more tenacious. But tolerance builds quickly. Taking a break from it causes me to sleep 12 hours per day and eat twice as much and I get NOTHING done even when trying to supplement it with crazy amounts of coffee. Even after a week of abstinence taking my normal dose again I get 2 weeks worth of work done in a day, then I come home and clean my whole house and learn a new song on my bass.

That's what happens when you live your life on speed.

Was that meant to sound judgmental? My prescription doesn't say "speed", and I'm fairly certain I couldn't get a meaningful therapeutic benefit from anything called "speed".

It seems that you're implying that someone using Adderall should be stigmatized because they're taking medication to improve a deficiency in their brain's biochemical systems...Are you?

>I'm fairly certain I couldn't get a meaningful therapeutic benefit from anything called "speed".

Sure you can. Desoxyn, Ritalin, and all the others work about the same, and have largely the same side effects. The only reason Methamphetamine is preferred over Amphetamine (i.e. Adderall) for recreational use is that Methamphetamine is much easier for an illicit drug kitchen to cook up from extracted ephedrine.

When amphetamine was more widely available supply side as an antidepressant and prescribed by general physicians as a placebo in the same way that SSRI's commonly are today, the vast majority of illegal amphetamine products seized by police had a pharmaceutical origin. Addicts can't tell the difference between the various drugs in this class. (http://theinfluence.org/neuroscientist-meth-is-virtually-ide...)

That having been said, like all things related to the drug war there's a lot of fighting and bickering and double think involved here. People are scared of these drugs because of their narcotic potential, and the frightening effects they have at medically inadvisable doses. They seem safer than some of the other commonly prescribed pseudo-narcotics like painkillers or benzodiazepines.

Disclaimer: I take Adderall.

Ritalin has a different mode of action on dopamine and noradrenaline, and tends to "wear off" a lot faster for many patients. I understand there are higher rates of side effects with Ritalin as well. My own "anecdata" supports that: I became an anger-ball when I came down from Ritalin. I remember some studies that suggested it can cause schizophrenia.

Desoxyn? I didn't realize it was still prescribed, given the profoundly negative effect it has when used recreationally (esp when homemade). Meth terrifies me, honestly, because it has such a wide-reaching range of effects on the body compared to amphetamine.

I never got the "easier" part. My understanding is that it's not difficult to get a prescription for Adderall if one "studies" for the appointment, and it's certainly a lot cheaper. And less likely to ruin one's life.

>I remember some studies that suggested it can cause schizophrenia.

Pretty much every drug in this class can do that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stimulant_psychosis

The more you take (acutely, not chronically) the closer the probability gets to one that you'll develop psychotic symptoms.

>Desoxyn? I didn't realize it was still prescribed

I've met at least one person in the last two years who had a prescription for it. In their case it was for severe narcoleptic symptoms, they slept 14 hours a day without it.

>I never got the "easier" part. My understanding is that it's not difficult to get a prescription for Adderall if one "studies" for the appointment, and it's certainly a lot cheaper. And less likely to ruin one's life.

If you're a middle class white person, sure. But for people who don't have the advantage of being pretty or well educated or come from a stigmatized minority class, interactions with doctors where pharmaceutical prescriptions are involved generally get written off as drug seeking. (Of course, that's what it is right?)

>Sure you can. Desoxyn, Ritalin, and all the others work about the same, and have largely the same side effects. The only reason Methamphetamine is preferred over Amphetamine (i.e. Adderall) for recreational use is that Methamphetamine is much easier for an illicit drug kitchen to cook up from extracted ephedrine.

Perhaps op was suggesting that, generally speaking, regulated sellers don't call those drugs speed. I would argue that because 'the dose makes the poison' is probably the biggest factor here, buying from a regulated seller is a really good idea, and is probably going to make more difference than which particular drug in this class you choose, just because my perception is that the quality control of unregulated sellers is such that the actual amount of the drug you are getting is going to vary a lot, which makes maintaining a therapeutic dose rather difficult.

Also, while they are all broadly similar drugs, little changes in chemical structure can make a rather large difference when trying for cognitive enhancement. This is a very complex thing. I mean, these are all in the same class of drugs, sure, they are broadly similar, but they are not the same. methamphetamine metabolizes to amphetamine, for example. From talking to both patients and doctors, at least for the treatment of ADHD? it is quite common for one of those drugs to work, while the others don't help a particular patient at all. In my own case, methylphenidate seems to work at child-sized dosages, while amphetamine doesn't seem to help focus much at all.

>Addicts can't tell the difference between the various drugs in this class. (http://theinfluence.org/neuroscientist-meth-is-virtually-ide...)

First, the link claims to have tested methamphetamine vs amphetamine; it did not claim to test methylphenidate. (as a side note, my own experiences line up with the conventional medical wisdom that methylphenidate is significantly less euphoric than amphetamine. I haven't tried methamphetamine) - next, the 'addicts choice' test might go to addictiveness, but even if they are similarly addictive, it doesn't at all address the concerns about neurotoxicity.

Now, I'm no doctor; I don't know if the claims of methamphetamine neurotoxicity are true or not, or if they are true or not at dosages one might reasonably use to enhance cognitive function (which is a rather different question) but... the neurotoxicity concerns are one of the larger differences between amphetamine and methamphetamine, and in my mind, one of the stronger reasons to choose the former over the latter.

Completely agreed. I glossed over this aspect because I felt like it distracted from discussing the core claim that amphetamine lacks potential as a recreational drug, or that calling it 'speed' is somehow fundamentally inaccurate. (It's inaccurate in the sense you describe, that of regulated versus unregulated dosage. But saying you can't get a therapeutic benefit from what 'speed' refers to, often methamphetamine, triggered my pedant senses.)

I've been told the same thing about meth's neurotoxicity, and that the major difference between the two drugs is that amphetamine is slightly neurally beneficial and methamphetamine is slightly neurotoxic at therapeutic doses.[0] I figure any neurotoxicity involved has to be slight enough for Desoxyn to stay out of Schedule I in the US. As a counterpoint, there's evidence that points to brain damage from antipsychotics and those are still definitely prescribed with regularity. (http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/articles/antipsychotics-and-...)

Of course, to my knowledge there's no real therapeutic replacement for antipsychotics whereas if methamphetamine was doing significant damage to patients it could almost always be swapped out for a safer drug. (Not to mention that methamphetamine was invented in the east and amphetamine in the west, so historically amphetamine has always been more popular than meth in western medicine to begin with.)

[0]: A quick check of wikipedia corroborates.

If your definition of speed is methamphetamine, that is available by prescription for therapeutic use under the name Desoxyn.

As somebody who also takes legally prescribed Adderall myself (begrudgingly...I've been on a years-long hunt for practical counseling/coaching help w/ focus), I think it's important not to kid ourselves - we are consuming amphetamines. Uppers. Speed. Greenies. Apart from the assurance of purity, the drug isn't magically safe or without other pleasurable/terrible effects because prescribed by a doctor.

Also would like to add: the "brain biochemical deficiency" theory has been called into question for ADD (and other mental health diagnoses).

http://psychcentral.com/news/2013/11/02/chemical-imbalance-i...

Unfortunately, maybe it is ?

With apologies if I've misunderstood your intent, but what you said came across as quite condescending, and that's being generous.

In any case, for some of us it is the only way we can live at all, and without becoming outcasts at the fringes of society as used to be the case. To some extent we still are, as witness by many trying to hide their problems, not rarely because of the (apparent) intent and position you express in you comment. Yes it's a drug for many, for me it's a necessary evil. It's a locked and completely boarded up door becoming only locked with a rather shitty lock.

Our problems might not appear real to you, or it might be that you think chemistry is the wrong solution, it's hard to know from your comment, but I can assure you that while I would love to be without my chemical 'wheelchair', it's not realistic. Being able to be a decent father, keep a job, and tons of other things simply wasn't possible. I tried so hard I completely burned myself to the ground, while really only trying to do the things others take for granted. Like doing dishes.

If you call being allowed a decent life is being 'on speed', then by all means call it that. But understand that it's no different than throwing slurs at the quadriplegic, the blind, the deaf or the dyslexic.

In a different world I might not have needed my medication, who knows ? But as I can't change the world completely in my lifetime, I have to change myself, at significant risk.

I couldn't agree more. This is a perfect description.

For me (with a normal prescription), it just never worked like that.

I felt the side effects too strongly and while I did many, many things, I could only crank out unimportant widgets and the executive functions of my brain were diminished as to whether this thing I can do at an incredible [speed / pace] actually mattered.

One example from college is reading chapters of a physics book and copying the vocabulary and definitions for a hundred or more words in a single session. In an unaltered state, I could maybe do half to a whole chapter and 1–2 dozen words before feeling saturated.

An interesting Freudian slip.

You wrote: "...whether this thing I can do at an incredible actually mattered."

leaving out the word "speed" (another term for amphetamines).

It reminds me of Jung's word association experiments, where his data showed that people would pause for longer periods of time when the words in the test hit on subjects that held a strong emotional charge for them.

Whoops; corrected. I probably ought to stop trying to write multiple sentences at a time on mobile.

And people argue there is no market for the old Blackberry style phones. Hah.

For those that want to focus without as much jumpiness, Evekeo is a good choice. It's not as much of an upper since has less dextro, but still works fine.

I hadn't heard of Evekeo, and was surprised to find out that it is just Amphetamine Sulfate. Is it supposed to be an immediate release preparation?

I've been taking Vyvanse for a while now. Lysine-dextroamphetamine is really working great for me. Lasting almost 10 hours, not over- or under-stimulating.

I liked Vyvanse more than Evekeo. I had much less depression, was much more motivated and able to focus during the day as well as evening, and I still could get to bed easily and sleep well-enough. But, I acted too hyper on it.

Perhaps I could try to practice more self-control and continue taking it or could try taking 1/2 the dose, but after I had problems, my doc put me on Evekeo. I take one in the morning and mid-day, and I'm much more even-keeled than on Vyvanse. The downside is that it's not time-released. I have ups and downs and my brain is not working as well in the evening like Vyvanse. I also don't get sleepy as much at night when I should. But, it's much, much better and safer for me than not taking anything. I might start taking a low dose of Zenzedi in the afternoon to see if that helps problems getting to sleep.

Evekeo is 50/50 dextroamphetamine/levoamphetamine; in some sources it's just called amphetamine sulfate, but the ratio is important.

Zenzedi is also made by Arbor Pharmaceuticals and is pure dextroamphetamine sulfate (which is the really addictive one).

Adderall/Adderall XR is 75 percent dextroamphetamine (the regular Adderall is a mixture of dextro salts in that 75 percent) and 25 percent levoamphetamine.

In comparison, Vyvanse is the prodrug lisdexamfetamine that is converted to dextroamphetamine and lysine by the hydrolytic activity of red blood cells, so it's time-released.

I'm told the levo form is for increased wakefulness and improved focus and dextro is for energy and speeding up executive function. I don't know if it's really that simple, but that seems to mirror my experience.

How did you first found you have ADD? I suspect I have ADD but don't know how I should bring it up with my doctor?

I was diagnosed as a kid in the early 90s. didn't try any medications till around 2006. Ask your doctor for a referral to see a psychiatrist or specialist in add.

You may want to take the Wender-Utah Adult Rating Scale:

http://www1.psykiatristod.se/Global/Psykiatristod/Bilagor/AD...

Indeed, I found this NYT article a more meaningful summary of Erdős' life (with amphetamines): https://www.nytimes.com/books/first/h/hoffman-man.html

That made me think of this article from a few years ago: https://www.madinamerica.com/2012/02/why-anti-authoritarians...

> It's interesting, but perhaps not surprising, that that obituary does not mention how critical Erdős felt his amphetamine use was to his work. A famous anecdote:

I personally don't find this particularly remarkable or relevant to a discussion of the man himself. It would be relevant to a discussion of amphetamines, or of performance enhancing drugs, sure, but it's not really relevant to an obituary.

I have a good friend who says that he can't think as well if he doesn't eat enough meat. If he somehow went from 'above average' to 'legendary' in some field of endeavor, sure, the story about the meat would make for an amusing personal anecdote, and would become commonly cited by omnivores when arguing with vegetarians, but is something that would probably be left out of a one-page obituary.

This seems very significant.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com