Adderall Addiction: The Last All-Nighter - <AUTHOR> http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/the-last-all-nighter/?hp <comment><USER2> The comments to this article mainly focus on the medical benefits and side effects of Adderall.

I don't want a larger truth to get lost here...

While I've been prescribed Adderall for part of my adult life, and feel Adderall has benefited me, I'd like to say that there's _far_ more to successful ADHD treatment than medication:

      - Proper environment
      - Getting enough exercise
      - Getting enough sleep
      - Support and understanding from loved ones
      - Strategies/systems that allow frictionless organization

While nobody here is explicitly characterizing it as such, please... nobody fall into the common trap of thinking that successful ADHD treatment is just a bunch of pill-popping.

(Unfortunately, many psychiatrists _do_ treat ADHD treatment as nothing but pill-popping. Mine does. There's a good chance yours will. If you're seeking ADHD treatment I'd urge you to do your own homework and read up on ADHD life strategies and consider seeing a therapist in addition to a psychiatrist. Whether or not you decide to go the medication route, those strategies will really benefit you. Good luck!)

<comment><USER3> You're absolutely right.

John Ratey (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ratey>), the professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School who wrote _Driven to Distration_ , recently published a book called _Spark: The Revolutionary New Science of Exercise and the Brain_ ([http://www.amazon.com/Spark-Revolutionary-Science- Exercise-B...](http://www.amazon.com/Spark-Revolutionary-Science-Exercise- Brain/dp/0316113506)).

 _Spark_ details how high-intensity cardio (like sprints or interval training) put your brain chemicals in balance in part by generating BDNF ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain- derived_neurotrophic_fact...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain- derived_neurotrophic_factor)), which as Ratey describes, it's like "Miracle- gro" for the brain.

Last year my stress levels were getting out of control from working too much. At the time I was running at least two miles every day so it's not like I wasn't exercising. But then one day I changed from running a couple miles to running 50-yard sprints, as fast and as hard as I could push myself. The first day I only ran four sprints, but I felt euphoric the rest of the day -- the best I had felt in years. So I tried it again a couple days later, and sure enough it worked again -- I felt amazing.

So then I had to find out why this worked -- why a few sprints were so much more effective than running several miles. I started Googling and eventually found Ratey's book -- it explains the entire biochemical process of what's going on and why sprinting works.

It's an eye-opening read. Each chapter covers how high-intensity cardio affects things like stress, anxiety, depression, ADHD. I have ADHD but haven't taken anything for it in years (since I was in college), and I can attest that sprints not only fixed by stress levels, but my ADHD symptoms were almost non existent.

Here's a key point that Ratey makes throughout the book that completely changed my perspective on things -- he says that instead of thinking of exercise as something you should do to look good and build a healthy body, you should instead think of exercise as the key to building a healthy brain:

"We all know that exercise makes us feel better, but most of us have no idea why. We assume it's because we're burning off stress or reducing muscle tension or boosting endorphins, and we leave it at that. But the real reason we feel so good when we get our blood pumping is that it makes the brain function at its best" (<http://www.sparkinglife.org>).

In the book's introduction he goes on to say, "Building muscles and conditioning the heart and lungs are essentially side effects. I often tell my patients that the point of exercise is to build and condition the brain."

In fact the brain exercise routine he recommends is similar to a weight workout routine, in that you have to push yourself hard one day, and then take a day off to let your brain recover, just like in weight training. Another key is when you sprint, always put everything you have into it. Run as fast and as hard as you can so you are constantly pushing your body and your brain past their limitations -- this is the key to growth.

<comment><USER4> Nitpick: "high intensity cardio" is kind of an oxymoron. "Cardio" is used to mean training which mainly uses the aerobic system. That is, longer term, lower intensity, training that you can sustain over a long period of time because you are going at a pace that your body can turn carbohydrates into all the energy you need.

Sprinting is _anaerobic_ training, as is most strength training. It's high intensity, you can't sustain it over a long period of time, and it makes different energy demands on your body than aerobic training does.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerobic_exercise#Aerobic_versus...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerobic_exercise#Aerobic_versus_anaerobic_exercise)

With that said, I much prefer anaerobic training. It's more fun, for me. And if you do intervals over a long enough time, you're also increasing your aerobic capacity.

<comment><USER5> It won't increase your aerobic capacity... It will raise your lactate threshold. The only way to increase your aerobic capacity is to spend a large amount of time exercising at an aerobic heart rate.

<comment><USER4> It depends on how much rest you're getting inbetween your intervals. If the rest is short enough that your heart rate never goes back down to normal, then you're also working your aerobic capacity.

When I train jiu-jitsu, I do several rounds of live rolling. Usually something like 4 6-minute rounds with a minute rest inbetween. The hard part of live rolling is the anaerobic part: quick spurts of high intensity. How fast you can recover from them, and how often you can sustain doing them over time determines how well, athletically, you will do. But this is also a 30 minute period with an elevated heart-rate, and you never are fully rested inbetween your anaerobic bursts. So, it is also an aerobic workout.

Despite not doing much explicit cardio training, I still have the cardio capacity to run decent distances with decent times, on the rare occasions I do. That's because I am training my aerobic system even though most of the exercises are anaerobic. (I once went on a 9 mile run having not gone on a run in over 6 months, having only done jiu-jitsu training and conditioning during that time. My lungs were fine. My legs were not.)

<comment><USER5> You can run easily because your placate threshold has been significantly increased... doing sprints won't improve your aerobic capacity to any great degree... just ask Usain Bolt

<comment><USER4> My point is that I am training _both_ , even though my anaerobic capacity is the real determinant of the outcome. But inbetween bursts, I am still active, just at low to moderate levels, and this occurs over a long period of time.

If your sprint workouts involve sprints with very light jogging inbetween then you will work both.

<comment><USER5> Many people will tell you that when you go in to "sugar burning" (approx 140bpm+) mode then you are doing very little to improve your aerobic capacity... Regardless of your heart rate being lower at certain points. Read about Mark Allen's (Ironman champion) experiences with this. To train your aerobic system you need to start in the aerobic zone and stay there religiously. IMHO

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> There is a smart way to do this and not be a complete moron like the author. I take adderall a few times a year and have been doing so since my senior year (2003) in high school and have never come close to this trainwreck. It's a simple approach: know exactly what you have to do before taking it, eat a meal before (since you will have no appetite), take them in the early morning (so you can sleep by night), and finally...don't use them again for at least a few months. Also have water nearby the entire time since it dehydrates you.

<comment><USER7> abusing unprescribed drugs makes you a "complete moron", but abusing unprescribed drugs in moderation makes you well informed. note taken.

<comment><USER8> Is it abuse if you use them for performance reasons and moderate it properly? Just because the distributors of the drug say it is abuse doesn't mean it is - they do not get to decide these things.

<comment><USER7> this is to my point. who then is the arbiter of abuse? OP?

x pills is fine, y pills is fine, z pills makes you a "complete moron".

<comment><USER9> Well, when your life starts to fall apart at the seams and you start exhibiting any one of the behaviours mentioned in OP's article, that's a pretty good indicator you've reached "complete moron" status.

However I think you're over simplifying the question. Not everyone has the same response to drugs/substances. Some people can do what systematical does without any long term side effects because they simply have the willpower, self awareness, and personality type that allows them to avoid becoming dependent.

Conversely other people would become dependent and turn into complete wrecks almost over night. Similar things can be said for alcohol, or any other "altered stated". It doesn't necessarily mean that the substance itself is the problem, or that all use is "abuse".

It really comes down to knowing yourself, knowing your own limits, and being as well informed as you can be.

<comment><USER6> Disbelief is correct here. On the other hand we have a developer at work (with a prescription) that takes this stuff almost daily. I couldn't live like that, I enjoy my lunch too much and feeling "normal."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> "Romantically I became schizophrenic, smashing hearts on purpose or falling head over heels with a one-night stand, exhibiting neediness that disgusted me — yet I rationalized that becoming a self-loathing depressive could be filed neatly into my persona as a tortured New York artist, material for stories I would surely write someday. The problem was, it stopped being a persona, and became who I was as a person: uninspired, unproductive and miserable."

This sounds like it could just as well be a symptom of New York rather than Adderall. Or being a lawyer in New York rather than Adderall.

</comment><comment><USER11> As a college student that is constantly surrounded by Adderall and Vyvanse misuse, this hits close to home. I've had a prescription to similar drugs my entire life, and it was in 8th Grade that I realized that I didn't actually need them to function.

The drugs made me unhealthily underweight, constantly antisocial, and easily aggravated. Nowadays when I look at my peers, I see the same things happening to them. Some people take two at one time the night before a big test and don't sleep for days. The worst part is, everybody sees it as normal. Popping an adderall before a test is as common, easy, and normal as opening a beer to relax on a weekend.

People don't realize that the 60mg Vyvanse they are taking casually is an _extremely_ hard drug to take for somebody not fully diagnosed with ADHD.

<comment> throwaway54-762 It's an extremely hard drug for anybody, ADHD or no. Adderall / Vyvanse is prescription meth[0] (something I've heard from several of my AD(H)D friends). If the pros outweigh the cons for an individual, great; I wish them the best. But while I can't find the research I remember to back this up, it's looking like long-term medication with amphetamines may be ineffective or harmful.

EDIT [0]: Yes, I know that that prescription meth literally exists under the name Desoxyn, that is not what I mean. See <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5321949> and <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5321935> .

<comment><USER12> A few years ago, my doctor encouraged me to stop taking Adderall based on the conventional wisdom that it was likely to cause heart disease. I'll always remember what he said, _I only prescribe Adderall for depression in my terminal cancer patients, because I'm not worried as much about their long- term heart health_

OK, Doc. Let's not refill that prescription, then.

This conventional wisdom has recently been challenged, but I think there is no great consensus on this issue yet.

[http://www.dailyrx.com/adhd-medicines-were-not-linked- seriou...](http://www.dailyrx.com/adhd-medicines-were-not-linked-serious- heart-problems-adults-during-first-few-months)

<comment> throwaway54-762 Oh, the possible negatives I had in mind were brain-related: "diminishing returns" due to tolerance or other factors after long-term use, and adverse side-effects of the drug flooding your brain with seratonin and dopamine over long periods of time (obviously similar to that observed in long-term methamphetamine use).

<comment><USER12> I see. I wasn't a long-term user and was always _extremely_ conservative with my dosage, so I didn't encounter any of those brain-related issues.

Even with the fact that they are in the same family of drugs, comparisons to long-term meth abusers doesn't seem quite right.

<comment> throwaway54-762 Every person is different, and meth is definitely abused in higher proportions more than prescription adderall — I am not contesting that, or attempting to compare adderall users to meth users.

I _am_ trying to highlight the similarities between the drugs themselves.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Someone close to me has severe ADD and stopped taking Adderall recently. This person is more productive and organized and even coherent on it. But this has turned out not to be worth A) the way if affects their mood/social interactions, and B) the inevitable Flowers For Algernon "mush-brain" feeling when it wears off in the evening.

<comment><USER14> I used to take lots of L-Tyrosine and Magnesium supplements to help restore the toll Adderall takes on your body. I was on 30 MG of XR daily and would indeed do the work of 2 or 3 of myself ... but you do pay for it at the end of the day.

Ever wish you could clone yourself? You can. It's called Adderall. I miss it dearly. Moving to Sweden has meant that I can't get it any longer. Heading back to the US in a week to pick up a 5 month supply.

I tried to quit, but to be honest the benefits are simply too great. I often wonder the number of successful people that are on Adderall or similar drugs ... because I genuinely think some of the amazing things people are doing these days are impossible as a "baseline human" ... or I am a severely broken one.

This is a nice post that sums up my thoughts nicely: [http://backreaction.blogspot.se/2012/08/erdos-and- amphetamin...](http://backreaction.blogspot.se/2012/08/erdos-and-amphetamines- check.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> How do people who've taken it for most of their adult life cope with adderall usage? I mean, how necessary of a drug does it seem to be -- or, to put it another way, how bad are the withdrawals, compared to antipsychotics, painkillers, etc?

And if you've lived with adderall usage, do you chronically feel like you have a reduced appetite and all the other kinds of symptoms? I've heard that happens for people who take the drug on an occasional/recreational basis, but I wonder how the side-effects feel for people who are more "on" Adderall than off of it in their normal lives.

<comment><USER16> Someone very close to me had been on it since she was 12. She's 23 now and stopped last fall.

Due to her tolerance, she'd been on very high doses for basically a decade.

After stopping, sleeping for 16-18 hours a day was the norm for about a month- but just getting to that point, first she had to cope with a weeklong psychotic break.

It causes some serious dopamine desensitization after extended use. Depression is common among withdrawl symptoms.

<comment><USER2> Wow. Did she stop taking Adderall abruptly, or did she gradually taper down her dosage?

I find I can easily stop taking it if I taper my dosage. Going "cold turkey," however, is kind of hard to imagine.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Hi Kate,

If you're reading this (and I'd like to think so because Hacker News is no longer a stepchild), 2 things:

1\. It sounds like you've turned the corner on this thing. If so, congratulations and best wishes.

Oddly, I just posted my feelings regarding drugs and work earlier today.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5318320>

2\. You write very well! I look forward to more. Let us know how to follow you. And keep 'em coming (naturally, of course).

</comment><comment><USER18> I have the power to conjure energy, intense concentration, motivation, all- nighters, etc all on my own. I call it: stress+goals+pride+enjoyment+intelligence. Sometimes it's a great asset and sometimes it runs me into the ground. In my experience a lot of people are like this (programmers, parents, executives, creatives, lawyers, etc) and we all find our own ways to cope. For me it was a realization of my own body and mind (and that I'm normal) and not buying into someone's diagnosis or someone else's coping strategy.

One of the most reassuring pieces of advice I had during sleepless nights in high school was from an adult who told me he can't sleep a lot and instead of tossing and turning he seizes the moment and works, since that's what he's thinking about anyway. I'm not saying this is healthy advice, I'm saying that he helped me feel normal by letting me in on his coping strategy. Others will tell you they drink tea, or workout, or avoid sugar or caffeine. They all work --for them--and we should take everyone's advice with a grain of salt because we all have very different minds/bodies/lives. I guess the author here found a coping strategy that happened not to work for her, so thank you for sharing.

I'll share my strategy: I take trazodone occasionally as needed to sleep. I let myself get all worked up and be very productive for as long as I think it's healthy for me. Eventually I get on a weird cycle and this corrects it for me. There are all sorts of other things I do but there are so many variables in life, and this is the only one I view as relevant. And who knows, in a few years I might have to try a new strategy.

Everyone's weird and bizarre and has problems. We should stop stigmatizing illness, eccentricities, addiction, medication and start realizing that we're all different and have the potential to be healthy if we find what works for us. Also don't always try to find the root cause and be pragmatic more often.

Also, I should add that I share these details sort of like people do when they admit they're gay. It's not without risk, but I hope someone reading this is helped. And if you think I'm being overly dramatic, this does not apply to you then, because I'm being way underly dramatic.

</comment><comment><USER19> I remember when I was younger, I could stay up a full 30 hours consistently.

Years later I wondered where that energy went. I thought for a moment that it was a result of aging or some such, until I remembered that at the time I was taking medication for ADD.

It's really not healthy to sit and watch TV that long anyway.

</comment><comment><USER20> A large part of the blame lays on her.

IMO adderall's mechanism is much more severe on neurons than methylphenidate. It's very well proven that amphetamine/methamphetamine increases the level of free dopamine in the cytosol which are prone to auto-oxidation to quinones. This wreaks all sort of havoc over the long-term.

Methylphenidate(ritalin) and its stereoisomer stay cleanly outside the presynaptic neurons and only blocks NET and DAT from pumping NE and DA back inside the cell. Unlike amphetamine, it doesnt disrupt the pH gradient of the vesicle membrane and cause an abnormal amount of dopamine to leak and accumulate in the cytosol.

Personally, I would never take adderall/vyvanse/dexedrine.

As a counterexample, let me give you my experience. After being prescribed focalin, my gpa shot through the roof. This stuff actually improved my health.

How?

Instead of pulling all nighters and procrastinating like I used to, this stuff allows me to get work done weeks early and go to sleep on time.

I learned calculus in 1 week, bought a piano and taught myself how to play moonlight sonata 1st mvt and kiss the rain in 3 weeks (working on bach air in d major at the moment).

Oh yea, I also read the entire lehninger biochem book and bernard milller's advanced organic chemistry for fun in my own time. Then a whole world of research papers were discovered through the uni library subscription :>

This stuff allows you to learn at an alarming rate if used properly.

I don't drink alcohol on days of studying because it prevents LTM formation, you're basically wasting your time studying if you do this. Also I never waste my time with people while medicated. This stuff can make you socially awkward and kill your sense of humor. Take it only for the singular purpose of learning and getting work done.

I took extra care with my health, ate blueberries, avocado, eggs, brocoli, meat, etc., lots of lycopene, astaxanthin, R-lipoic acid, melatonin and 8 hours of sleep.

Tolerance will go up very slowly with frequent breaks and essentially goes back to zero with a month break. For adderall, this will take much longer, some people will even develop permanent tolerance that will never go away.

On days when I dont take focalin, I sit around, sip on a beer and browse HN ;)

<comment><USER21> > A large part of the blame lays on her.

I'd say all the blame lays on her.

When you know your gaming a system by either buying a drug from a dealer, using a crooked doctor to write your prescriptions, taking more than your prescribed dosage, and _not_ reading the warning label on the bottle every time you take a dose out of it, its hard to believe that you didn't understand the consequences of what you were doing.

I'm prescribed adderall and your comment dissuades me from taking it 100x more than this article does, even more than the warning label does.

Even if you were exaggerating anything, I found more keywords to research from just the first paragraph than I would get out of 10 of these types of NY Times articles.

<comment><USER20> Check out Dr.Sulzer's research. A lot of these studies are very hard to understand without some organic chem and biochem background.

Reading the abstract is simply not enough feel the significance of these research.

The other problem is access to these articles through journal subscription is quite expensive.

I always figure that methamphetamine does some long-term damage, but when they found melanin accumulation in the neurons by examining brain slices, it was pretty alarming.

The mechanism of action between amphetamine and methamphetamine is too similar to rule out the possibility of long-term damage.

It just doesn't make sense to take adderall when dexmethylphenidate (focalin) gives most of the benefit without ritalin's side effects.

In the long-term, I'm still quite leery of dexmethylphenidate, particularly how it acts as a releaser at high concentration.

I haven't come across any papers that describe its mechanism of action as a releasing agent.

This is another reason why I only use it to study and practice piano. As long as you're learning, it's easy to justify that the benefit outweigh the cost.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> It's unfortunate the author was not able to manage the drug properly. Adderall is a potent substance that, when used in the correct fashion, can be an effective aid for those who need it. It's also highly addictive so must be combined with a healthy lifestyle and coupled to good habits in order to be kept in check. I would highly recommend that anyone who feels themselves falling into a routine similar to that described seek a therapist as well as focus hard on improving their sleep, diet, and exercise routine.

<comment><USER23> Exactly.

The tone of the article made it seem like the Author was a victim here, when in reality I think this comment sums it up:

>The writer tells us she was "23" when all this happened, as if to say, "Really, I was just a kid." But, really, she wasn't a kid. The brain is quite mature at age 23, but she didn't explore, evidently, the possibility that she was making a mistake.

<comment><USER24> Denial is a principal aspect of drug addiction. Even if she quits using, it will likely take a long-time for her to fully accept that it was all her fault. Drug addicts will blame every single person but themselves.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Ive been taking adderall for a bit over 2 years now, and the important part about taking adderall is that you are supposed to do things like sleep every night, eat food during the day, and drink plenty of water, otherwise your tolerance takes over. This is true for people with adhd as well.

The thing is, if you are taking adderall because it "super charges" you, you are taking it for the wrong reasons. People with adhd (like myself) have to take adderall so that we can compete on a level playing field. There is nothing we can really do to self motivate and study. Without my meds I can not retain the information that I read. Without my meds I cant motivate myself to sit down and program because I cant concentrate and conceptualize the model im trying to write in code.

Adderall can be an invaluable tool for somebody who doesnt stand a chance without it, but it can take control of somebody who doesnt have a good enough reason to maintain self control and moderate their usage. The adhd mindset is a very awkward and uncomfortable feeling. Abusing our medication means we have to go back into that mindset and it sucks, therefore its easier to not let it become a craving addiction.

Also the zombie feeling the kid was talking about, is due to the fact that he is taking too high of a dose. Either that or he would be better off on ritalin or strattera. Each specific case of adhd is somewhat different and the underlying cause may be served by a different treatment due to the difference reactions the drugs have in the brain. (Adderall increases dopamine and prevents it reuptake. Ritalin, just prevents the reuptake, etc).

</comment><comment><USER26> You can boost productivity for a year or two with Adderall, but over a 10 year period most people will find that they perform better by staying off Adderall and other stimulants.

And we are all in it for the long run, I think.

After taking Adderall (or any stimulant) for long enough, you need the drug just to get to your baseline performance level.

Add onto that the unproductive evenings, crashing on days off the pill, mood swings, likely health repercussions, and the general malaise caused by intentionally inducing your body into flight-or-fight mode.. It adds up to a not-so-pretty picture.

If you want to feel like superman for a while, go for it. As for me, I'll trade short term productivity for low cortisol levels and inner peace.

<comment><USER27> Any data to back that 10 year claim?

Equating any and all stimulant usage with unproductive evenings, crashing, mood swings, and malaise is pretty exaggerated.

<comment><USER26> I don't have data, just personal experience and observations of people around me who have used stimulants for prolonged periods of time. Adderall starts off with 10mgs/day, 20, 30, then 40 to get the same productivity.

I was mostly equating adderall use with that list of effects, not less stimulants.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I took adderall for almost a year (under the direction of my GP), for what I thought might be ADD. It actually did almost nothing for me... Except each time we upped the dose, I got really dizzy for a day. Other than that, I felt no better able to concentrate, no better memory. I finally just stopped taking it because it was a pain in the assignment to get it each month, and it wasn't doing anything. The only effects of going off it was that my wife said I was kind of a jerk for a few days.

</comment><comment><USER29> Going cold turkey off 40 mg of adderall a day and calling it addiction is a slap in the face to people who have dealt with real addiction. As someone who has used Adderall at this level and stopped cold turkey and someone who has also been a heroin addict, stopping adderall cold turkey is a fucking joke compared to heroin addiction. Alcohol addiction also has the potential to be unbearably uncomfortable, not to mention deadly.

The author is a poseur, and doesn't realize how lucky she is.

</comment><comment><USER30> Has anyone tried Yoga and/or meditation for ADD? I think it might be helpful...I am distracted easily and often. However, I find breathing exercises help me focus.

<comment><USER31> Yoga and meditation may benefit anyone. There is considerable interest in mindfulness techniques for ADD treatment. Search for 'mindfulness ADHD'.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> The amount of comments here claiming being diagnosed with ADD and taking pills for it made my head explode. ADD can't be a real condition if suddenly everybody is diagnosed with it, can it? Because if it is, we have an epidemy going on.

<comment><USER33> "ADD can't be a real condition if suddenly everybody is diagnosed with it, can it?"

Sure it can be a real condition, one that is superficially easier to treat by giving everyone meds rather than admit that the modern "American" society we've created is full of all manner of unnatural stressors that we haven't evolved to deal with.

<comment><USER32> Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. The amount of people being prescribed meds made me scared. I'm from Brazil, and I almost never hear about ADD, let alone about Adderal.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Its a good article and I am glad she feels better however what do expect when you abuse a powerful medication and drink every night.

"The mix of whiskey rocks and a pocket of pills was a potent one. I was now getting high seven nights a week, every night a delicate balancing act".

Since she kicked the "pills" she now should kick the whiskey before that gets out of control. The title should probably read "Substance Addiction:The Last All-Nighter".

<comment><USER35> I would bet that without all the energy that Adderall gave her, she no longer has the energy to go drinking with friends 7 nights a week.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I have dealt Adderall addiction although in a way most likely different than most. In my college years I was on tons of medications ranging from mood stabilizers to anti-psychotics, all in all, I was on 8 different medications to treat psychological issues I was having. Now those 8 medicines combined to deliver a mighty powerful punch which made me sleepy all of the time and made it very hard for me to wake up. The psychiatrist's solution was Adderall.

In the beginning, it was great. I would set my alarm for 4 hours before I had to wake up and take an Adderall that I had next to my bed and I'd be awake. It was amazing being able to get to my classes on time. At the same time, if I got 4 hours of sleep I felt refreshed as if I had 8 to 12 hours.

Things started slipping once I was taken off my medications. All of a sudden I didn't need the Adderall but I was addicted to being able stay up late. I never used it recreationally or to be more productive, I was just hooked on not needing sleep and it was great. I took a few months of re-adjusting but I was finally able to get back to sleeping normally but it was still hard for awhile. Why sleep for 6 hours and be tired when I could sleep for 2 less and pop an Adderall and not be tired at all.

</comment><comment><USER37> There are many reports here of people who've taken Adderal without significant issues, suggesting the key is "active medical supervision" (ie, much more than the passive doc just handing Kate Miller pills).

In fact, once we have monitoring in place, you might even argue "intelligence doping" could provide such benefits to society that we should even encourage it (though only for those who face minimal side effects):

[http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2008/03/intelligence- dopin...](http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2008/03/intelligence-doping-- posner.html)

</comment><comment><USER38> These kinds of articles are often used to delegitimize ADHD as a genuine condition: it actually can be. People can take Adderall for genuine conditions and see improvement.

When it comes to the actual diagnosis of ADHD...that's where it gets interesting. Is everyone on an attention spectrum, and ADHD individuals are simply at one extreme? Or is there something completely different about these individuals that can be a single defining marker?

<comment><USER39> The general understanding is that ADHD is characterized by a spectrum of attention deficit to an extreme.

The process of diagnosis usually involves a self-questionnaire. In my case I somehow managed to fail the questionnaire and the psychologist performed an IQ test.

The IQ test is analyzed to see if you have a processing speed subscore that is significantly lower than your other subscores (all subscores should be roughly equal).

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I've never met someone who was diagnosed with ADHD since their early years. It's always people like the one in this article. I have a few questions to ask people who have used amphetamines while exercising (cross training, cardio), having sex, meditating, or anything that raises your heart rate. How does it feel? Does it feel like running on an empty stomach on a Monday morning after having slept only 3 hours?

<comment><USER41> Methylphenidate (Ritalin) and the amphetamines do wonders for physical work. You feel fantastic and capable. Amphetamines in particular provide a bit of a euphoric boost. In general, amphetamines are going to make you feel pretty damn good, although coming down might be unpleasant sometimes.

I have to caution people to _not_ do exert themselves, as they figure out that they can go workout at the gym like mad. I'm not sure it's healthy to work out while on stimulants.

<comment><USER42> Ugh, I have hated Methylphenidate, it was really close to ruining my life. It made me feel angry and depressed. I hated the world and every single moment after taking it for some time. Even off of it I felt it semi-permanently affected my brain.

I gave Adderral a shot, but again it is quite an unstable drug. Mostly because of it's a Dopamine Uptake Inhibitor. And that usually causes unstable Dopamine levels, meaning less stable mood and thinking.

I fortunately found a Doctor that prescribed new age of ADHD medication. Although it is not for the weary. Atomoxetine(Strattera) is much more stable, and much more powerful drug. It doesn't have tolerance issues like typical drugs. It is a norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, meaning it enhances the neurotransmitter that's a precursor to all other neurotransmitters including Dopamine. This means all your neurotransmitters become enhanced.

Now I say it's a drug not for weary minded, because it's actually very hard to adjust to it. For the first month you have to take 20mg increments every week to get your body to adjust to it. At first it makes your incredibly sleepy(can't even stay awake at any time), but that quickly fades and your realize that sleep is much easier to schedule when you can get the brain to feel sleepy(Needed for someone with ADHD).

It also is tough on your liver, unless you eat a decent sized meal you will most definitely vomit bile from your Liver(I know I have seen it enough). It gives your incredible nausea and will eliminate your appetite to the point where it hurts to eat.

I have found that combining it with Marijuanna to be advantageous. Both drugs complement each other(one to counteract nausea and trigger hunger, the other to enhance the high you get.

It's one of those drugs that doesn't make your ADHD disappear, but let you take control of it. But it really is miles ahead of anything, and has changed my life completely. I have been using it for a year, and the flood gates are off. Unfortunately I still struggle with a lot of things, but now I have the ability to correct those learning weakness because I can concentrate.

<comment><USER40> From what you said atomoxetine is a new age sleeping drug. Not a focusing ADHD drug.

<comment><USER43> Atomoxetine has different effects in different parts of the brain. In the motivational centers it promotes a sense of tiredness, which tends to wear off after several weeks. In the frontal lobes it increases the action of dopamine, promoting focus and persistence.

<comment><USER40> The proficiency exchange isn't worth it with those side effects.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Interesting article on the subject of abuse. It would be more interesting to find out who the doctor was and if this woman ever received a proper clinical evaluation or a genome sequence. It seems pretty clear that she was improperly prescribed Adderall. Though they are cracking down on it much harder these days due to misdiagnosis and parents who do go pay "expensive upper east side doctors" so their kids can ace their SAT exams.

It really is sad.

I've been taking the extended release version for over a year now and without it I would be an unproductive wreck. I went through a full clinical eval by a neuropsychologist, and had my genome sequenced to verify that I had the specific mutations that are thought to be responsible for ADHD.

For me it has been life changing to say the least. I grew up in NYC and would take the uptown train when I was supposed to take the downtown train twice a week at minimum, I wouldn't realize this had happened until I would end up in the Bronx or somewhere the train exited the tunnel and allowed light to come through the windows and bring me back to reality. I would make these errors due to my brain being off thinking about computers, robots, books, particle physics, food, girls, music, manga, etc ... rapidly shifting from one idea to the next, never completely finishing a single thought.

It was hard for me to read. To finish projects. And I never had a job and instead chose to start my own companies.

I don't quite believe the exercise hype - I was a division I athlete during my undergrad years, and worked out harder and longer than 99% of the human population during that time - and I still had difficulty.

I decided to get help after my first year of my master. I was getting frustrated, unable to complete projects to my liking/standard, and staying up far later and working far longer to complete anything than many of my peers - and having just finished designing digital products for one of the top design firms in the world (really my first true foray into corporate America), while having trouble sitting down during meetings, and only hearing every third word that came out of my colleagues mouths, was beginning to freak me out.

so i went in. And worked through the process. I was diagnosed and confirmed and my life completely changed. Although I had a difficult time with my family (asian) who looked at me differently and refuse to this day, to talk about my condition. The pluses still out-weigh the minuses.

Adderall doesn't excite me. It calms me down. I can even sleep better since my mind is not racing 10000 miles per hour. I'm doing the best work of my life these days and couldn't be happier as I finish up my master thesis. (something i cannot imagine being possible had I not talked to someone and gotten help). I have no side-effects, and just feel "normal" when I'm taking it. And I am closely monitored by my physicians, all of whom have my best interests in mind. Sadly, this sort of support and knowledgeable/honest care is not easy to find.

I think stories like these are both helpful and harmful. Helpful at exposing the blatant misuse and misdiagnosis, and also harmful because it shows people that it's still possible to find doctor's who don't give a shit about you and will just prescribe whatever you ask for. I have people who ask me for the drug, of course, I don't hand it out for $5 or whatever because it actually helps me and doesn't turn me into some sort of incredible hulk super human like the author or other abusers. Patients and doctors should be more responsible b/c if you don't really had ADHD, then this stuff will mess you up ...

and i have no idea how to end this brain dump because well, it 2am and i'm sleepy and i have ADHD, I won't take my prescribed dose until 9am, and i have to talk about the healthcare system during my preliminary thesis defense tomorrow ... so ya ... later

<comment><USER45> > I think stories like these are both helpful and harmful.

These things worry me too. For those of us that Adderall genuinely helps, what do we do if some scaremongers make it (and similar stimulants) inaccessible to us? Crap. I did the math on it once and it turns out it's cheaper to make your own meth lab than continue to buy for the rest of your life. Plus, if things go south, you always have yourself covered.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> The US refuses to admit that the real drug problem are prescriptions. The effects of prolonged adderall usage have not been studied and I can't imagine how it interacts with other medications.

It's a schedule II narcotic with a high similar to cocaine. Keep your kids off of it.

<comment><USER29> I realize you're probably trolling, but just in case..

The 'high' of adderall is not even remotely similar to cocaine.

<comment><USER47> Cocaine and amphetamine result in the same flood of the same neurotransmitters. Cocaine has no surprises for anyone that's ever been cracked out on instant release speed. Except maybe making them go "...is this it?"

Lots of overlap between the two, especially when comparing pharmacophores. For instance, the peptide transcript called the "cocaine- and amphetamine- regulated transcript (CART)"[1] might be a good example.

Not to say that you personally haven't had different experiences with the substances. There's just substantial chemical/physiological overlap between the substances while there's much less demographic/prescription/intended- effect overlap.

[1]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine_and_amphetamine_regulat...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine_and_amphetamine_regulated_transcript)

<comment><USER29> I have had substantial experience with both of them, and while the effect is similar, the feeling is not. In my experience, cocaine has a stronger euphoric component than d-amp. Adderall makes me logical and emotionally detached, while cocaine makes me feel like I'm on top of the world.

I think the reason for using the substance could be coloring my opinion of the experience, since I use adderall to get work done, and when I use cocaine (not often, maybe once or twice a year. I did a decent amount of blow when I was doing opiates heavily), it's almost always in a social setting.

I will grant that the pharmacological effects are very similar.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> This kinda reminds me of that movie, 'Limitless'.

</comment><comment><USER49> To others in similar situation, either considering it or on it, or just taking some other stimulant like caffeine, or are just tired all the time:

* If you have ADD and it is working for you and you are happy, ignore this shit and do what you need to do.

* If you have ADD and take it, but you don't like how you feel while you are on it, talk to your doc and have him/her help wean you off of it or find a different dose or med.

* If you are fat or not but don't get enough exercise, please get exercise and stop eating fast food and drinking any kind of soda (diet is just as bad). I am overweight now and have been normal weight before when I've exercised regularly and it made a big difference both cognitively and with energy, etc. I need to do that again. I learned the hard way not to diet though. It worked but it is true what they say; you gain it back +10 lbs (or more).

* Replace soda with coffee or tea, even if you hate them. I really hated them. I feel much better not drinking diet sodas constantly. Try to eliminate caffeine if you can.

* Try eliminating/limiting aluminum (drinking from cans, using hair products with aluminum, etc.). (May be unnecessary, but lower your Alzheimer's risk.)

* Try taking daily vitamins (Centrum, etc.), Fish/cod oil pills. Consider taking a baby aspirin each day if you are 40+. Don't overdose on daily recommended intake, even when sick! Some things can be really bad. Don't overdose on ginko, etc. either!

* There is nothing wrong with wanting to be your best, but you'll be your best when you aren't cheating and hurting yourself, and that is as good as you need to be. Even if you think you will get shot or people will die if you don't take stimulants, you can stop and it will be better- for everyone.

* Talk to an ENT about sleep apnea. Losing weight is key no matter what, maybe stop drinking water and eating before bedtime, and no blue light or monitors or T.V. for a few hours before your 8-9 hours sleep. But after you do all that, if you snore or don't dream regularly and feel like crap and hate your job, get help.

If you are like me, you have done a lot of this because you think you deserve it. I feel on a regular basis like I don't deserve to have what I have and that I'm a failure. In many ways, I am a failure; but mostly because I'm doing it to myself. I eat too much. I don't exercise. I hate my job. I think I should die. I feel like I need the food so my brain won't get distracted by being hungry. I feel like I don't have time to exercise. I feel like it is my fault that I hate my job. But, all that is crap. I need to take care of myself, and so do you! Just go on a short walk tomorrow, and the next day, and the next. Eat 1/2 as much as normal if you eat too much. Drink less caffeine. Talk to your doc about changing your meds or anything at all that you're worried about. Get a hobby and get outside more. Make friends that do healthy things. Get a job where you can live healthier and work a normal workweek.

</comment><comment><USER50> This made me sick. I don't know what's worst: the author's self-absorption, the victimization tone, or the fact that her colleagues had to do similar unhealthy shit in order to compete with her. It stinks the whole way.

Using drugs to gain an unfair advantage over other people at work has unhealthy emotional side effects? Am I to be surprised by this?

<comment><USER51> > the fact that her colleagues had to do similar unhealthy shit in order to > compete with her

You are asserting that the law firm's long working hours were caused by her med use. Do you think you might have that backwards?

> the author's self-absorption, the victimization tone

She had a substance abuse problem. She's warning others that it's a slippery slope. Show some compassion.

<comment><USER52> > You are asserting that the law firm's long working hours were caused by her > med use. Do you think you might have that backwards?

It probably becomes a vicious cycle / race to the bottom. You take more drugs to work longer hours and compete with your colleagues, who start taking more drugs so they can work more hours to have the edge over you...

<comment><USER51> The long working hours of many law firms existed before the widespread availability of adderall. Drugs have absolutely zero to do with it. They are merely a symptom of the underlying workaholic culture.

<comment><USER53> I had a friend whose grandfather was a hot shot lawyer at one of the largest international firms of his day in the 60s/70s/80s. She told me that he was a speed addict for close to 20 years. Long story short he got into a situation where he had to quit cold turkey and did, successfully.

Substance abuse to get ahead is nothing new. Drugs are not as new as we pretend they are, and it's been common practice to abuse them for personal gain probably as long as they've been around.

<comment><USER54> I've worked for a couple of the bigger law firms in the UK and I've never come across drug use (of this type).

Drugs may enable and perpetuate this behaviour today, at least in some countries, but I don't think there's much of a case that they caused it. At least if they did it arose in places like the UK without that assistance.

From my experience the root is far simpler - greed. They dangle the possibility of partnership with all it's attendant wealth and status in front of the bright young things and watch them scrap it out and burn out. I have a friend who made partner with one of the magic circle firms and while the rewards are amazing, I wouldn't swap his life for mine in a million years.

<comment><USER50> _They dangle the possibility of partnership with all it's attendant wealth and status in front of the bright young things and watch them scrap it out and burn out._

It used to be that about 5% _didn't_ make partner. It was like getting fired-- in the 1970s, when that itself was rare. It was harder to get an associate position, but once you were in, you were solid. Also, work hours were not at the extreme that they are now.

Now, instead of 5% not making partner, it's about 5% who make partner.

That's because some really evil, greedy fucks got in charge and realized they could replace partnerships with overworked, churn-and-burn associates.

<comment><USER53> > That's because some really evil, greedy fucks got in charge and realized > they could replace partnerships with overworked, churn-and-burn associates.

Or could it be that there are way too many lawyers being produced every year and the realities of a highly competitive market have set in?

[http://flustercucked.blogspot.com/2010/07/40-years-of- lawyer...](http://flustercucked.blogspot.com/2010/07/40-years-of-lawyer- overproduction-data.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Adderall IR makes me feel very energetic and motivated, a feeling I like a lot. But I always seem to use it until it becomes so detrimental to my health that I feel I have to quit.

Always, my dosage creeps up, my sleep schedule becomes chaotic, I become too thin and frail. I'm mentally quick, but also irritable. At first I take it to feel great, but at some point I'm taking it just not to feel as if I'm wearing a lead suit.

I recently quit again after using for two months. If I get my weight and health back, I may try Adderall again, but only if I'm sure I can be extremely strict with myself. People say that taking weekends off can inhibit the dependence.

<comment><USER29> I would suggest using the XR version if possible. You may need 20-30mg, but I have found it is much more stable and I don't feel the need to redose all day long. My friend has an IR script, and he ends up running out early, while I keep a stable sleep schedule and don't experience the mood swings.</comment></comment>


The curious case of the cyclist's unshaven legs - <AUTHOR> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/health/the-curious-case-of-the-cyclists-unshaved-legs/article20370814/ <comment><USER2> > The problem in the research community is that scientists have little > incentive to duplicate earlier work just to check if it's correct. Many > journals have explicit policies forbidding the publication of work that > attempts to replicate previous experiments.

This drive for unending novelty in the sciences is a shame on many levels. The good and useful work of duplicating and verifying results goes undone, and scientists are driven ever more forcefully towards designing studies only on the basis of what will attract grant agencies.

Duplicating major results carefully would be useful to the scientific record. Trying things that will probably fail, and then publishing negative results, would be useful too. But, for most researchers, doing this useful work appears to be career suicide.

<comment><USER3> I've never encountered a field in science where fundamental results aren't sufficiently replicated by other labs.

That _nobody_ spent $500-$2000 to estimate leg hair drag probably speaks more about people not wanting to be caught measuring leg hair drag than about the entire field's tendency to replicate findings. It's also really weird for people to consider $500/hour tunnel time to be expensive for a sport with as much money as cycling.

Really, I thought it was weird, and probably inappropriate, to mix in so much of an outsider's amateur and unsopported _opinion_ about science into an otherwise interesting story about leg hair drag.

If there's a serious story somewhere about results not getting replicated when they should in many fields of science, I'd like to hear about it. There's often stuff on the fringe, but any serious result will be replicated soon. Take, for example, the acid-bath stem cell retraction from not long ago. Where else are important results not replicated? The Higgs? It's a baffling perspective.

<comment><USER4> > _If there 's a serious story somewhere about results not getting replicated > when they should in many fields of science, I'd like to hear about it._

Actually, there is! It's been referred to as "the decline effect", and it's fascinating.

The New Yorker published an article about it a few years ago ([http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/12/13/the-truth- wears...](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/12/13/the-truth-wears- off?currentPage=all)). It has resurfaced in popularity a couple of times. It was written by disgraced journalist Jonah Lehrer, but later independent investigation failed to find any fault with the article he wrote ([http://www.lastwordonnothing.com/2012/11/05/jonah-lehrer- nat...](http://www.lastwordonnothing.com/2012/11/05/jonah-lehrer-nature-of- truth/) \-- worth reading because it includes statements from scientists on Lehrer's article).

So far, my favorite explanation is the direct, obvious one, which is that we're sometimes -- perhaps more often than we'd expect -- falling victim to statistics. Given the very large number of experiments and studies being conducted everywhere, and the selection for positive results, statistical anomalies are being accidentally selected for and then not being extensively enough re-evaluated much later.

The article discusses that as a possible explanation, but the journalist does his job, igniting reader interest, by suggesting the effect somehow "defies the laws of statistics". I favor the simpler explanation, which is that our meat brains simply underestimate the vast number of ways in which statistics would like to bugger us.

Some of the things that both you and the parent commenter mention are discussed in the article. For example:

> _Jennions, similarly, argues that the decline effect is largely a product of > publication bias, or the tendency of scientists and scientific journals to > prefer positive data over null results, which is what happens when no effect > is found._

and

> _Richard Palmer, a biologist at the University of Alberta, who has studied > the problems surrounding fluctuating asymmetry, suspects that an equally > significant issue is the selective reporting of results—the data that > scientists choose to document in the first place._

(aside: I'm not one of HN's vocal "science is junk" members. I love science, or, at least, I like to admire its butt ([http://explosm.net/comics/3557/](http://explosm.net/comics/3557/)). I don't believe there's something fundamentally wrong with the scientific method. But, I do think more emphasis needs to be placed on repeatability of experimental results over longer periods of time, and I hope that this will become more of a trend as the world economy continues to grow.)

<comment><USER3> This is very fascinating stuff! And it's also familiar from GWAS where there's a fantastic number of statistical tests.

However, it's all examples of things being replicated in the sense of (1) being tested again, and being "not replicated" in the sense of (2) being tested again and being found to not repeat as initial reports.

I think the article's complaint was about (1), though I find this (2) far more interesting and will pursue these threads, thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The Specialized video[1] is worth watching - it's pretty funny how astonished they were over how much power it saved.

If you are interested in this, then the book _Faster: The Obsession, Science and Luck Behind the World 's Fastest Cyclists_ by Michael Hutchinson is really good (and very well written).

He notes that human intuition about aerodynamics just isn't very good (you have to test) and that the current state of the art is no longer wind tunnel testing but computational fluid dynamics (CFD) followed by testing with a power meter on the road.

CFD lets designers iterate much quicker on designs and try things outside the norm (avoiding the local maxima problem). Power meters plus riding is better than wind tunnel testing because things like variable cross winds are very hard to test in wind tunnels.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZnrE17Jg3I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZnrE17Jg3I)

[2] [http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Obsession-Science-Fastest- Cycli...](http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Obsession-Science-Fastest- Cyclists/dp/1408843757)

<comment><USER6> I had thought that it was already established by swimmers that hair was a detriment to speed. Why would it be surprising to cyclist? I do ride, but not competitively so I will keep the razor to my face only, thank you.

<comment><USER7> Yes, it was "already established" that hair caused drag.

That is why this study was so surprising. They found that hair _decreased drag_.

<comment><USER8> > The tests showed that shaving his legs reduced Thomas's drag by about 7 per > cent, allowing him to exert 15 watts less power and still go at the same > speed. In theory, that translates to a 79-second advantage over a > 40-kilometre time trial that takes about one hour.

Shaving reduces the drag, but the originally study measured the reduction around 0.6 percent while this one found a 7 percent reduction. So, about 10 times bigger than anticipated.

<comment><USER7> Oh you're right!!

When I read this "Even more confounding was that the results _contradicted_ earlier findings" it totally colored my reading of the article. (Emphasis mine.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Strange. When I was racing, we never thought about drag, except as a joke.

We shave because it helps reduce road rash when you go down on asphalt (slide easier) & easier to keep the wounds clean afterwards.

<comment><USER10> Exactly right. I raced in college and it was well known that shaving was for making it easier to deal with injuries/massage.

A bit of it is also in-group/out-group signaling.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> The gremlin that is low Re, viscous drag. This is how cacti work; the needles slow surrounding air to reduce moisture loss through convective evaporation.

</comment><comment><USER12> Previous test: "leg-shaving reduced drag by 0.6 per cent"

New test: "The tests showed that shaving his legs reduced Thomas's drag by about 7 per cent"

Yet the blurb says: ''Even more confounding was that the results contradicted earlier finding''. What's contradictory about those results? Be it 0.6% or 7%, shaving your legs clearly reduces drag.

<comment><USER13> I believe that was a reference to the "insignificant difference" claims. 0.6% wasn't seen as significant enough difference so it became a "fashion choice" rather than an efficiency one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> a family friend, the aerodynamicist Chester Kyle, was mentioned in this article. He was a lecturer at Long Beach State (I think) and did practical wind-tunnel testing with my father (an engineer and manufacturer) on bicycle shapes for many years.

He pushed the edges of conventional design, and participated in the human powered vehicle races quite a bit.

That's fantastic; I never thought I would hear about him on here.

</comment><comment><USER15> It bugs me that the test is run with the vertical wheel supports in place. It's conceivable that they alter airflow in a way that affects how it goes over the cyclists legs.

But maybe I don't fully understand the experimental setup. I'm basing my comments on what I see in [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZnrE17Jg3I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZnrE17Jg3I)

</comment><comment><USER16> Interesting, I wonder how dramatic the effect is with swimming, there are swim flumes like this [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feUhyCklHL0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feUhyCklHL0). It's usually used to analyze your stroke, but maybe if you put a bar in there to hold on to and test unshaven vs. shaven.

<comment><USER17> As a former swimmer, I can say that shaving is not only done for drag. Once shaved and in the water, even while casually swimming in warmup, I would feel as if I'm actually floating better. We'd call the "feel for the water" or something similar. It's hard to describe unless you've experienced it, but I suppose it has something to do with a newly exposed layer of skin in contact with the water.

And, of course, there are also the benefits of less drag and psychological placebo effect.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Relevant article on similar lack of reproducibility in cancer research.

[http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/28/us-science- cancer-...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/28/us-science-cancer- idUSBRE82R12P20120328)

Summary: a team at Amgen discovers 47 of 53 "landmark" studies published in high-quality journals could not be reproduced. A team at Bayer did an internal review of programs they had initiated based on journal studies and found that less than a quarter of those findings could be reproduced.

Three very damning quotes: "Some authors [of the journal articles] required the Amgen scientists sign a confidentiality agreement barring them from disclosing data at odds with the original findings."

"'We went through the paper line by line, figure by figure,' said Begley. 'I explained that we re-did their experiment 50 times and never got their result. He said they'd done it six times and got this result once, but put it in the paper because it made the best story. It's very disillusioning.'"

"The problem goes beyond cancer. On Tuesday, a committee of the National Academy of Sciences heard testimony that the number of scientific papers that had to be retracted increased more than tenfold over the last decade; the number of journal articles published rose only 44 percent."

Academics are pressured to produce publications, not to produce science, and their studies are not always rigorous (not blinded to experimenters, etc.). People with high integrity and ability do produce good science that gets published, but unfortunately that appears to be the minority, even in highly prestigious journals.

So I'm curious: how would you fix it?

One thing the article mentions that might improve things is every journal dedicating one complete issue a year to reproducing the most influential studies of the year. Another could be getting a consortium of pharmas (who try to reproduce studies all the time, because if you're going to successfully make drugs you need the thing to work) to publish their internal data for the benefit of all. Does something like that exist?

</comment><comment><USER19> I think it's healthy that this discussion expresses amazement, skepticism, methodological questions, and observations about competition for public media attention, and frequent instances of journals cynically manipulating publication for maximal sensationalism under a scientific patina.

Strictly my own imagination, but I'm anticipating the introduction down the road of the world's most advanced hair removal system that gives cyclists a big aerodynamic advantage proven by scientific tests. Yes buy the XYZ system and fly to victory! Wow, I really am jaded, but too many times we've seen it happen.

So much bad science obscures the good work because the latter doesn't make the news, it's far too boring to attract attention. It's the small incremental, tedious, repetitious, careful, persistent work that provides the real advances. Edison I think said, "we find 20,000 ways it doesn't work" and learn something every time we try.

I propose a simple set of remedies. Journals should give highest priority to publishing careful replications of prior studies, whether it's yes/no/maybe. Negative studies whether original or replications are give as much priority and those confirmatory. Novel associations are of course welcome if meeting standards of adequate power to discern something beyond quirky results.

Ultimately, the impact of hyperbolic claims about the meaning of research causes the greatest distortions of scientific process and progress. Journal editors can solve the great bulk of misinformation their journals promulgate. It's remarkably simple. All they have to do is issue an edict, all that authors can write about are the history, background, what they did and factual results of their work. These "rules" apply to observational and experimental work all the same. IOW it would be forbidden to draw conclusions about the what the outcomes mean, what is proven, or what "causes" what.

Sure giving context about past results is necessary and usefully informative, but conclusions are for we the readers to determine. If this was the case, suddenly the strident "answers" and premature incorporation of findings into practice will be sharply reduced. Hysteria will subside. We can then actually use our scientific talent to accomplish honest goals, and solve the real and daunting problems we actually have.

Perhaps this seems a radical view and maybe it is. It's not whether I'm right or anybody will make any of these substantial changes. It is about getting back to careful thoughtful scientific inquiry and reducing misdirected human energies.

</comment><comment><USER20> After 15mph a great deal of energy is used to overcome wind resistance.

I wouldn't have figured it to be so much but this doesn't seem so incredible to me.

Similar thing for swimming.

</comment><comment><USER21> I speculate here that this could be a second reason why we lost our big ape hair. The preferred method of hunting was running after prey until it fell/slowed down - due to the fact that, unless other animals, man can run and hold the mouth open, thus eliminating the excess heat + higher oxygen flow. Having less hair than the prey made us run otherwise faster while on lower enery requirements.

<comment><USER22> At the speed we run, it would make no difference I would imagine. The benefits of shaving your legs only really come into effect for cyclists at the pro level ... those of us who can manage a steady 25km/h see far less benefit.

I always thought it was an urban myth that it made you go faster, and that the real reason was that road rash was easier to treat.

<comment><USER23> I am not a competitive cyclist but remove the hair on my legs with a depilator in the Spring because my leg pelt retains too much heat in the Summer. There is a noticeable improvement in cooling after it is done.

While not the most pleasant process, it avoids stubble and the delayed regrowth means the new hair is sufficiently long to begin providing warmth just in time for when cooler Fall temps arrive. I always considered that to be the real reason why the pros do it with road rash being of secondary concern. Those with shorter leg hair just went along and copied their hairier peers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Specialized previously investigated the effect of shaving off a beard, and found that it had a negligible effect: [http://www.bikeradar.com/us/road/news/article/specialized- te...](http://www.bikeradar.com/us/road/news/article/specialized-test- aerodynamics-of-a-beard-video-41144/)

</comment><comment><USER25> If a cyclist invested the weekly time he spent shaving his legs in extra training instead, would he be better off?

<comment><USER26> Shaving your legs doesn't take much time at all. I race a few times a week (during the season) and shave once, at most twice, a week. Probably takes 10 minutes to shave. There's nothing I could do for 10 minutes a week that would improve my time by up to eight percent (most amateur cyclists already overtrain as it is). Not part of your question, but shaving is also largely about being able to treat road rash and avoid infection.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> They are claiming "it contradicts previous results", but certainly the savings must depend on the athlete's pre-shave hirsuteness. Unless they controlled for that, the previous results could have just been because of a relatively smooth group of subjects.

<comment><USER28> The article states that the previous results didn't involve any subjects at all, but a "fake lower leg in a miniature wind tunnel with or without hair glued onto it".

</comment></comment><comment> vhost- Does anyone know why wind tunnel use costs $500 an hour? Electricity bill?

<comment><USER29> Setup costs.

<comment><USER30> That's my guess -- they must be quite expensive to build, with quite a bit of specialized hardware involved (not exactly off-the-shelf stuff!), and highly- specialized people to run it ...but then only one experiment can use the whole shebang at a time (including setup/teardown time), so they can't spread out the costs across lots of concurrent users.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Reminds me Hitchhiker's Guide to Galaxy, and those planet creators

</comment><comment><USER32> Compared to numbers from earlier studies (0.6), the new number (7) looks suspiciously like a floating point error arising from software/hardware issues!

</comment><comment><USER33> A good thing that 5-6 people is a statistically significant number of participants....

<comment><USER34> It can be, if the effect is big enough compared to noise. (In medicine you usually have much more noise, that's why you need more participants.)

<comment><USER33> I appreciate that in medicine it can be. But this is not medicine. In this case the 'research' was obviously done by first letting someone cycle WITH hair, then they were shaved (with time to recover I imagine) and then they tried again. I say 'obviously' because this little participants is not enough because you'd need more people to be able to compare means in performance differences.

The problem I see however is that after being shaved the participant would feel faster and thus behave faster. A sort of placebo effect if you will. At the same time, the cyclist-cultural effect of being 'unshaved' in the first test would make them feel sluggish. The same effect as seen in experiments where participants are presented with negative messages vs positive messages and asked to perform tasks. The participants exposed to negative messages, as expected, perform poorly in comparison to the other group.

In conclusion, I feel, that this 'research' can only be used as something to base you hypothesis on, but it is in no way conclusive in its current setup. You'd need to have random groups of cyclists, some of whom are, to begin with, shaved, and some who are not. It would maybe be easier not to use cyclists in order to find a diverse enough set of participants. Then again I don't know how many regular cyclists go around unshaven.

<comment><USER35> This wasn't "how fast can you get from A to B" \- they were cycling at a steady rate on a stationary bike in a wind tunnel. Pedalling faster would not _trivially_ make the results better (it might have some complicated aerodynamic effect, but I don't have any clue of the likely size or direction).

<comment><USER33> Yes you are right. The effect would be pretty trivial. I was wrong. Thats what I get for trying to be a know it all. :)

<comment><USER34> But that's how you learn on the internet. Asking questions gets you ignored, you have to put up false claims to get corrected. :o)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Massage and reducing wear-and-tear in event of crashing are the best most plausible reasons I've heard for it. I'd never heard anybody _seriously_ thinking it reduces drag in a meaningful way.

(Edited to describe my experience, per "let's not read the article" comment).

<comment><USER33> Yes, lets all not bother reading articles before commenting from now on.</comment></comment>


Wearable Fitness Devices Don't Seem to Make You More Fit - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/20/upshot/wearable-fitness-devices-dont-seem-to-make-you-more-fit.html <comment><USER2> Like how having a clock doesn't necessarily make you better at time management, having a fitbit doesn't make you healthy. But it does allow you to measure things, and if you have the willpower to improve them, you'll improve them. But the device won't do it for you, at best it enables you. At worst, it gives you a false sense of accomplishment that should be checked once you get on the scale.

(Disclaimer: I love my fitbit, and it's helped me lose weight, but I find the step counter to be second to the heart rate monitor)

<comment><USER3> _It's hard for many to accept, so I'm going to state the results again: Those people who used the wearable tech for 18 months lost significantly less weight than those who didn't._

 _In the IDEA trial, those who employed the technology were no more physically active than those who didn't. They also weren't more fit._

Let's say that again.

 _They also weren't more fit._

You're ignoring empirical evidence. If what you say is true, they'd be more fit.

I've got one too, but if you accept this article as true it looks like it turns out at best it's no more than a pretty bangle, at worst makes you think you're doing more than you are.

<comment><USER4> The abstract doesn't give enough information, so I'm connecting the dots. This may be addressed in the text...

It sounds like all the participants were put on a program, and then some were additionally were given a smartwatch (which negatively impacted their results).

But I can't see how you can conclude from there that the smartwatch won't help for individuals that are NOT on a program.

A potential explanation is that the watch has a moderating effect: it gives you an excuse to stop exercising once you hit your daily target, the more calorie tracking you do, the less you err on the side of caution, etc. Under that hypothesis, a smartwatch is still better than no program + no smartwatch.

<comment><USER5> You are largely correct, except the wearable tech was not a smart watch. It was a 2010-era fitness tracker one straps onto the arm. Definitely nowhere in the "pretty bangle" category. I think wearers would be less active because they wouldn't want to be seen in public with it.

A more detailed answer here: [http://www.mobihealthnews.com/content/despite- reports-your-f...](http://www.mobihealthnews.com/content/despite-reports-your- fitbit-likely-wont-hinder-your-weight-loss-efforts)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The biggest issue facing the wearable market is that, despite having all the data, I still don't know what to do with it. We need to correlate cause and effect. It differs dramatically between individuals, so what's true for me is probably not true for you. We have a battle between privacy and usefulness, in that we'd ideally feed data from millions of people into a machine learning algorithm to start helping people actually use and benefit from the data. However, most people don't want to share their intimate health data to the cloud.

Another huge issue is that we haven't nailed the input problem: wearables can measure our energy expenditure, but not our energy intake. Until we can measure that as accurately as heart rate (and not just calories, but the nutrient breakdown too) then we only have one side of the equation.

We still have a long way to go before wearables are truly indispensable, and that's before we start considering the emerging research on gut bacteria and the role it plays.

<comment><USER7> Newtonian level of insight into fitness is super easy. (With Newtonian I mean enough true to get the work done, even if there is a higher level of truth underneath, i.e Einsteinian physics, quantum physics)

Weight delta = calories in - calories out

Health preservation requires adequate levels of protein (muscles) and fat (hormones)

Muscle growth requires caloric surplus, adequate protein availability and muscle breaks

Muscle breaking requires progressive overloading of muscles (i.e. do more/harder of the thing you want to get better at over time)

Micronutrients is a thing, so eat a balanced diet or take supplements.

With those five things, 99% of people can do anything they need around fitness.

Wearable fitness does very little for those five things.

Gathering data to further the development of Einsteinian level of insights is interesting - fitness certainly lags behind there, but I dont think any big breakthroughs in fitness will come from that, in the same way that Einsteinian physics didnt change how we build bridges or pipes.

The less sexy but much more interesting point is on changing behaviours around those five things. How do you design technology to change habits?

It is possible to change habits with technology. The obvious example is how mobile phones changed habits, for instance in how we make appointments, navigate and a multitude of other ways. Cracking how wearable fitness can change those is a much more valuable challenge in my view. Can we design wearable fitness that lets you exercise wherever you are?

Tap your fitness device and you're sent to the nearest gym, with a change of clothes and towels etc ready in a locker for you, and the device reading off your exercise plan? Tap it to get your personalized meal prepared for you at your nearest participating restaurant, or a shopping bag sent home to you.

That's where I see the future being for fitness technology - we know the right things to do, they are just awkward to do, so lower the barrier to doing the right things.

<comment><USER8> Issue with this is of course that calories out is not something we understand very well at all. some people burn more, some less. Sometimes it spikes for no reason while sitting in a chair. Sometimes it spikes when people are stressed. Sometimes it doesn't. These are only some of the pitfalls

<comment><USER9> You can treat all those spikes as random noise. They don't cancel out the overall trend.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The author, perhaps inadvertently, describes a confounding issue in the study that validates his claims. Namely, the issue stems from the author's description of how fitness trackers are useful in the initial stages of a diet/exercise plan in order to help establish a routine. However, the study that the author cites gave the fitness trackers to participants 6 months into the study, when hopefully some plan has been established. This would seem to negate one of the key benefits of fitness trackers espoused by the author. Is it explained why the fitness trackers are given later on as opposed to at the beginning?

<comment><USER11> Assuming that trackers have this habit-building effect: While we then would expect the effect to have have been larger if they'd handed out the trackers at the beginning of the study, some participants should have benefited from this effect even mid-study.

One hypothesis here is that the trackers provided a frame of reference that anchored participants to some goal like 10'000 steps daily while the participants who had less direct feedback were free to expand their goals as their fitness improved. Some things seem much more arduous to me when I track progress while doing them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I bought my FitBit Surge for the GPS and heartrate monitor. That data means I can pace myself accurately when I'm running, allowing me to run further and more consistently (and at a faster overall average pace than stopping / starting all the time). It also means I can keep track of my heartrate (and recovery) during other intense workouts like CrossFit and Insanity.

My father has a FitBit too and likes to gloat about smashing my step count pretty much every single day. He's retired and out and about all day, while I sit at a desk.

Guess who's obese and gets out of breath walking up the stairs? Step count as a measure of overall daily "exercise" is worse than useless.

<comment><USER13> > Step count as a measure of overall daily "exercise" is worse than useless.

On the one hand, yes I've been saying this since the step counters first came out with high levels of disdain.

On the other hand relative step count (ie "I now go on more walks so I beat my own original levels of activity") is not entirely useless and probably has some non-zero value?

But, like, rewarding someone more for slowly strolling for 2000 steps vs running 1500 (which probably covers a similar distance and is waaaaaay better for cardio vascular fitness) seems like a terrible plan

<comment><USER14> > On the other hand relative step count (ie "I now go on more walks so I beat > my own original levels of activity") is not entirely useless and probably > has some non-zero value?

Relative step count is good _if_ your only exercise is walking (or walking- like.)

OTOH, I've observed that my step count tends to go down as actual heavy exercise (weightlifting, etc.) goes up, so even relative step count isn't a good measure of overall activity.

> But, like, rewarding someone more for slowly strolling for 2000 steps vs > running 1500 (which probably covers a similar distance and is waaaaaay > better for cardio vascular fitness)

Its probably better for leg strength, but fitness walking (not casual walking), I suspect, is better for cardiovascular fitness, step-for-step, than running, since you get into a reasonably good exercising heart range for a longer time.

But, again, step counting alone doesn't distinguish fitness walking from casual walking any more than walking from running.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Paraphrasing Nietzsche here:

 _" There are horrible [products] which, instead of solving a problem, tangle it up and make it harder to solve for anyone who wants to deal with it. Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all."_

Being thin and reasonably healthy isn't difficult...the rest of the developed world does it without much thought. Only in America do we think the solution to an overengineered food and fitness system is _more engineering._

<comment><USER16> To be pair, our corporations have had free reign to run massive propaganda campaigns to teach them the wrong ways to stay healthy. They even manipulated the USDA food guidelines to get people to buy more corn and bread.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> "More fit" in this article seems to exclusively mean "weigh less." I would argue that that is a very superficial definition of fitness.

<comment><USER18> > "...the primary reason to wear the devices isn't to lose weight — it's to be > more active. But even in this respect, it didn't work nearly as well as we > might hope. In the IDEA trial, those who employed the technology were no > more physically active than those who didn't. They also weren't more fit."

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I wear Crossfit socks inside my Karate Kimono, and this won't turn me into a Strength/Fighting machine? Want my money back!

Seriously though, some of these article titles lately ...

</comment><comment><USER20> While it's not worth it for me to pay $30 for the full paper of the main trial ('IDEA') cited, from the abstract I wonder about the conclusions drawn.

* What if the specific content of the full bundle of interventions – including a certain kind counseling & low-calorie diet – actually serves to make the tracker seem relatively less-important? (It might be the case that someone given _just_ a tracker would focus on it, while those with the other interventions – all participants – would be more likely to view it as superfluous.)

* What if those losing less weight are nonetheless more satisfied with their progress, perhaps because they've gained in other ways? (What if they've lost less weight because they've gained muscle weight? There's no hint whether this was measured.)

* It's not clear how the "…those who employed the technology were no more physically active than those who didn't… {t]hey also weren't more fit" conclusion was drawn. Self reports? (How do you know someone's true activity _without_ a dedicated tracker?)

* What specific tracker & software was used? Results could be very sensitive to UX issues – something minimal & academic might be hard-to-use and easy-to-ignore compared to (say) popular commercial smartphone apps. They only mention a 'website', not an 'app', in their abstract. (I would not often visit a website to check my activity or check my diet, but I view my wrist-worn Fitbit device, and its app interface, a dozen or more times a day.)

I suspect that to get a clearer reading of what just-a-tracker might do, I'd prefer a minimal focused study, along the lines of:

* every participant is asked their weight-loss goal, then sent a questionnaire once each week to self-report progress

* some participants are also given a commercial tracker, and their weekly questionnaire also asks if they're using it

* at the end, total progress is evaluated (and automated activity-tracker usage stats collected)

That could disentangle the other-interventions and maybe-not-state-of-the-art academic interface from the results.

</comment><comment><USER21> Funny, I was sure carrying around alll that extra weight on my wrist was sure to make me fitter.

</comment><comment><USER22> Perhaps the devices led folks to set achievable goals. A good idea, unless its "10% more exercise this week". It could make you less ambitious. Without the device, you might drive yourself to more activity because you don't really know if you're doing more or less than last week. So you go over to make sure.

</comment><comment><USER23> Just another case of "all the gear, no idea".

<comment><USER9> It's like dashboard cargo-culting. People love putting shit ton of graphs and looking at curves going up and down, but that's the wrong focus. Graphs are meant to help you answer questions. If you don't know the questions, they become only works of computational art.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Speak for yourself :) It helped me a lot. Like the someone said, it is like a watch, allows you to track. Next step is manage.

</comment><comment><USER25> Oh. What a surprise.

</comment><comment><USER26> Let's face it, if wearable fitness devices told you the complete truth, you'll stop wearing them.

<comment><USER20> I don't understand. What truth could they report that would cause them to be taken off?

<comment> the-dude " You are fat and unhealthy. If you don't change your ways, you will die soon. "

<comment><USER27> The real problem is that the honest message, "if you don't change your ways, you will have more aches, pains and health issues and are statistically likely to die a few years sooner" wouldn't be nearly as impactful.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Supposed change in Apple policy has e-book fans worried about their apps - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/02/change-in-apple-policy-has-e-book-fans-worried-about-their-apps.ars

<comment><USER2> Insufficient, and certainly one sided information is all that's so far available. I'm taking it with a large grain of salt but if true, it's a monstrously stupid move. Unlike most Apple App "restrictions", even the most tech-unsavvy iOS owner will notice this one. You can bet it'd feature in upcoming ads for other tablets.

For these reasons, I'm suspicious. It's either just wrong, a silent test of the waters that will come to nothing, or a policy that won't last until Spring (much like the "Only Obj-C" attempt). If it's anything else, I worry for the future of the Apple App platform.

</comment><comment><USER3> So the choice will soon be between getting an iPad and repurchasing all your books through the app, or buying an Android tablet and reading the books you already own without having to pay again. Sounds like a tough choice. Good thing Apple products have good resale value, because mine's ending up on Craigslist fairly soon.

<comment><USER4> No, because the story is wrong.

<comment><USER3> Even if it's wrong, they're still pulling similar bullshit with publishers who try to give their print subscribers free access to their apps. They're not winning any friends here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I really doubt Apple would boot Kindle from the app store. I think what happened here was just Sony getting turned down because they had an in-app store that was not going through Apple.

I think Apple realizes how huge of a mistake it would be to ban Kindle from the App Store.

Edit: this is pretty obviously just Sony feeling burned and wanting to spin this into as scary a story as possible.

</comment><comment><USER5> Apple seems to have a policy of regularly testing the water for further lock- down/lock-out/lock-in.

Almost as if they think because an awful lot of people have accepted it on iTunes, a similar number accepted it from Microsoft for such a long time (and still do) that it's simply a matter of waiting until the public are too jaded to care any longer.

<comment><USER6> When have they tested the water for lock down as opposed to just doing it and riding out the storm?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Neat, everybody loses. Now that's thinking different.

</comment><comment><USER8> I just started using the Kindle app on my iPad. Loved it so much that I planned on buying a Kindle 3G as a companion device for my iPad (to handle the outdoor summer reading that iPad struggles with).

It looks like Apple is just testing the waters, but if they were to eliminate the Kindle app as it lives now, my next tablet would be an Android one, for sure.

</comment><comment><USER9> I always wondered why you couldn't purchase a book directly from the kindle app on the iPad (it makes you open up a new browser window to do it)</comment>


C.E.O. Libraries Reveal Keys to Success - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/21/business/21libraries.html?em&ex=1185336000&en=8b2b14f17431502c&ei=5087%0A

<comment> daniel-cussen Anecdotes prove nothing.

I know a few writers and I know a few entrepreneurs. The writers read their whole lives. The entrepreneurs I know never read all that much. I know a businessman who will only read books if they're bestsellers. I've even met entrepreneurs who have never voluntarily read a book. As far as I can tell, the guys who devote time to reading will never do as well as the guys to devote time to making money.

<comment><USER2> You're assuming people buy books to read them, not to display them and have them be status symbols.

<comment> daniel-cussen You're right. However, I'm not sure Great Gatsby types really reap huge benefits from having libraries.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> correlation != causation

odds are fortune 500 CEO's just happen to like to read, it's not a prerequisite for success. journalistic sensationalism at its worst.

<comment><USER4> ...

The journalist was just observing the libraries of a tiny sample of executives. I don't think anyone is claiming that reading leads to success (besides you), because (as you noted, and as the article didn't have to), plenty of people like to read, and not all of them are rich.

Now, if you wanted more reliable data, you could look at this survey:

[http://www.forbes.com/2006/09/20/ent- manage_biz_06rich400_se...](http://www.forbes.com/2006/09/20/ent- manage_biz_06rich400_self_made_entrepreneurs_lander.html)

Which seems to show that among billionaires, the most common attributes are 1) a tendency to exercise a lot, and 2) a few hours a day of reading.

Well, that and the billions of dollars in net worth.

<comment><USER3> The headline reads "CEO Libraries Reveal Keys to Success." That suggests to me that the keys are in the library...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Great article - thanks for posting this. When I make my fortune, I will almost certainly build an extensive library where I can sit and read in comfort and quiet.

</comment><comment><USER4> Loved the article, though I have to wonder how useful this "Founders at Home" stuff is -- I read all the time, as do most of my friends, but most of my more entrepreneurial acquaintances don't have the time. It isn't stated in the article, but having a huge library is probably something you should do either before you start or after you sell out.</comment>


Ask HN: Chrome Can't Make Attachments in GMail? - <AUTHOR>

Using latest Chrome browser with Ubuntu 9.10. I've tried 100 times to send an email in GMail with an attachment. The email sends fine every time - but WITHOUT an attachment?
How do you make a web browser that doesn't work with your web services?
Anyone else experiencing this? <comment><USER2> Chromium 18.104.22.168 (36714), Arch linux, installed a week or two ago (so pretty much the latest)

Works perfectly; it's just you.

Have you tried sending just a plain text file of maybe a KB max to yourself? Perhaps google is blocking whatever you're trying to send; have you done the same in firefox? Or on a different operating system?

... wait, this is HN, not a Chrome support site/helpdesk. Perhaps you should ask them? Submit a bug, try to reproduce the issue on another system, etc.</comment>