I have been running memantine for three years and the honest summary is that the effect is smaller than the internet suggests and real.
The animal data is stronger than the human data and the human data is not nothing, it is just small.
Mechanism is not outcome, and a plausible pathway is the most expensive kind of evidence there is.
What the glutamatergic class does pharmacologically does not require the subjective effect to be large to be real.
Most of the popular protocols are borrowed from clinical populations and applied to healthy people without comment.
Anyone got a paper worth reading on this rather than a write-up of a paper?
Nobody has ever been talked out of a stack by a stranger on the internet.
Most of what is called evidence here is one person, one vial, one month. Not on memantine but the pattern is familiar.
Underdosing and tolerance are indistinguishable from the inside, and everyone picks the flattering explanation.
Most of what is called evidence here is one person, one vial, one month.
How long before you can reasonably say something is or is not doing anything? Not on memantine but the pattern is familiar.
What is the first thing you would read if you were starting from zero? Currently on memantine myself.
Underdosing and tolerance are indistinguishable from the inside, and everyone picks the flattering explanation.
Sleep, food, or the compound? Yes.
An inconclusive account is useful if it stops the next person mistaking a story for a controlled comparison.
Test one thing at a time. It feels slower and it is the only way to learn anything.
Most of the popular protocol is borrowed from a clinical population and applied to healthy people without comment. Three years in on memantine and it lines up.
Most of the popular protocol is borrowed from a clinical population and applied to healthy people without comment.
I would take the narrow conclusion. Broad ones are more interesting and less true.
Baseline first. Three years in on memantine and it lines up.