You Need More Lumens - <AUTHOR> http://meaningness.com/metablog/sad-light-lumens <comment><USER2> A recent Cochrane review found very little high quality evidence in either direction:

[http://www.cochrane.org/CD011269/DEPRESSN_light-therapy- prev...](http://www.cochrane.org/CD011269/DEPRESSN_light-therapy-prevention- winter-depression)

It's not clear to me why light therapy is considered as a well-researched treatment.

<comment><USER3> From the review, they found 2986 unique papers on the subject, they then assessed 91 papers from the 2986. From these 91, only 1 had a rigorous double blind testing but on only 46 people. The exposures for the light source was 2500 lux, IR light and no special treatment. The results were not significant.

So, lot-researched but maybe not well-enough researched.

<comment><USER4> How do you go about blinding a study which does or does not shine a bright light in subject's faces?

<comment><USER5> I'm guessing you vary the intensity and spectrum of the light. If the treatment doesn't show a dose-response curve of some kind, then it probably just doesn't work.

 _Standard academic disclaimer applies_ : This isn't my field of study, and I'm sure there are many subtle mistakes in what I just said.

<comment><USER6> A quick Google confirms this: they use either an identical-looking light with a different response, or a different light altogether. "Here's a light, here's a sugar pill, log your mood please..."

As silly as that all sounds, it's already a million times better than what this guy did. He took the "if a little is ineffective a LOT will be better" approach and built a damn lighthouse in his living room. And if the goal is a DIY project and a blog post, OF COURSE you'll feel better after "your treatment." It's approaching group therapy at that point. There's a lot of this crap on HN lately.

<comment><USER7> I don't think that would actually be a million times better.

If we want to get to the reality where confidence in the efficacy of things is well-founded on rigorous experimentation and analysis, then we need to get there, one step at a time. Instead of tearing people down and saying that their efforts to improve themselves is crap, you could be offering constructive criticism. Even just bring up one question that would have made it a better experiment, so that when a reader here decides to copy him, they can do it better. Maybe they'll even share their personal experience and propagate more experimentation? If enough people do that, maybe collectively we'll one day have the interest and funding to have better studies done.

Would you rather he have not done the build, not shared it with the internet? Maybe he could have been more like the status quo and consumed someone else's product, quietly?

This post and your post yesterday where you argued 2700K screen temperature late in ones day is NOT less straining than 5800K, because if that were true, movie theatres would play all their movies with screens at 2700K... makes me think you're not really interested in people improving their quality of life, you just want to argue.

<comment><USER6> Author anonymously makes unsupported claims, disparages competing products, provides no science, and wrote the post for profit. Nothing can be built on this, because his work is built on sand. "Type up a blog post" is not the important part of the scientific method. Pointing out pseudoscience and invalid methods and data may be the most constructive criticism of all.

Enthusiasm is great. Enthusiasm masquerading as medical treatment is not.

<comment><USER8> > "Type up a blog post" is not the important part of the scientific method.

How do you think all those legitimate scientific journals got started? It's natural to think that because science is currently done with a huge amount of rigor that it was always done with a huge amount of rigor. In truth, the author's approach is still very scientific.

He considered the research he had available to him, reviewed some of the science regarding different lighting technologies, then tried something and observed that it worked. What about that isn't scientific?

Every scientific pursuit started out as a pseudoscience. Even the most rigorous fields like Physics or Medicine were originally people intuiting about a phenomenon with each other. There's nothing unscientific about what the author did, and to me it raises far more interesting questions than a diatribe about a lack of rigor.

<comment><USER6> > How do you think all those legitimate scientific journals got started?

The founding history of scientific journals is often amazing, involving legends in the respective fields. Then over decades those journals became "legitimate" by not publishing crap.

> Every scientific pursuit started out as a pseudoscience

I don't think that word means what you think it does. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This review for the linked led strip is interesting:

 _This is a perfectly usable (and subjectively bright) LED strip, but beware, the specified lumens are a lie. My power meter reports a draw of 33W and another reviewer reports ~38.6W. The maximum efficiency of a 5730 SMD LED is ~110 lumens /watt, so this strip is outputting at most ~3630 lumens. Seller's description of "45-50LM" per LED would lead you to believe this can output 15000 lumens or ~454 lumens/watt. This is far outside the world record 200 lumens/watt bulbs and even outside the theoretical physical limit of 250–370 lm/W._

<comment><AUTHOR> I posted a little further investigation at [http://meaningness.com/metablog/sad-light- lumens/comments#co...](http://meaningness.com/metablog/sad-light- lumens/comments#comment-774)

> > [http://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/51778/](http://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/51778/) > suggests that these LED strips have to be overvolted and powered at multiple > points, which might bring them closer to ~7000 lumens.

> I'm also going to try comparing the hkbayi Super Bright to LEDMO's strip > with 600 LEDs: > [http://www.amazon.com/dp/B013C2U09S/](http://www.amazon.com/dp/B013C2U09S/)

<comment><USER10> I have on of those Super Bright led strips in the kitchen and it is actually too bright for direct lighting uses. You end up with afterimages for minutes on end after just glancing in their general direction. Would recommend you only use these for indirect lighting applications.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I live in Norway, and used to have a big problem with SAD and longer- than-24-hour-cycles. I tried a few of the commercial lamps like he did, and my experience was similar. They helped some, but not enough.

My current solution is to take a 1 hour walk outside every day around noon. Also, I've stopped sitting in front of my computer or TV 3 hours within bedtime. Instead I usually spend my late evenings reading paper books.

This has solved the longer-than-24-hour-cycles and most of the SAD (it also seems to have completely cleared up my acne). However, on days when it's overcast and kinda dark, I still notice some SAD. On those dark days, the kind of lamp that he built probably would have been nice.

<comment><USER12> Interesting, in Canada we're told that the angle made by the sun in winter in places at "high" latitudes (> 50) prevents us from getting the right kind of light/UV in the winter, and to compensate by taking daily supplements of vitamin D.

<comment><USER13> You just need more sunlight. At tropical latitudes you get enough D in five minutes with only your face exposed. At northern latitudes it just takes longer, or you can expose more skin.

<comment><USER11> If the sun is very low in the sky, no UVB radiation will reach you. The body needs the UVB radiation in order to produce vitamin D. I think a general rule of thumb is that if your shadow is longer than you are, then there is no UVB.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> You could just purchase stage lighting.

Stage lighting fixtures use the halogen metal iodide bulbs that he salivates over at the end, and already solve all of the issues he outlined. They provide their own ballasts, are metal shielded, use a lens that acts as a UV shield, have built-in cooling.

In fact the only issues with stage lighting:

1) The cooling wasn't designed to be silent (it isn't expected to be near someone in a near-silent environment)

2) The lamp casing wasn't designed to be near anything flammable (they get very hot)

3) The lens and casing is designed to throw the beam in a very small angle of spread over a reasonably long distance (they're not designed to point at your face from a few feet)

But given that, it seems reasonable that one could put it farther away and reflect it into the space you want lit.

And if he really wanted to go crazy whilst staying with LEDs, then he could just get a few of these: [http://pulsarlight.com/products/chroma- range/chromaflood200/](http://pulsarlight.com/products/chroma- range/chromaflood200/) which are used in architectural lighting and each one produces 10k lumens, and they are safe for indoor and outdoor use, are waterproof, and can be driven from standard mains power.

<comment><USER15> There's another issue with stage lighting, which is that they draw enough power to flip most residential circuit breakers and possibly to cause electrical fires as well. You're looking at 500W per lighting unit; 575W for the more modern ones with bluer hue. Most theaters are specially wired from the mains to a bank of "dimmers" that safely provide at least 2000W per circuit.

<comment><USER16> That should be no problem in Europe, Australia, etc. There are portable 3000W appliances, like kettles, heaters and (Old) vacuum cleaners.

<comment><USER15> I had no idea! In most kitchens here you can flip the circuit breaker by running the microwave and toaster at the same time. I've also occasionally done it by turning the oven light on while both (gas) oven and microwave were in use. Sigh.

What does a kettle need 3000 watts for?

<comment><USER17> Boiling water?

3kW isn't a magic number for the kettle, it's just the amount of power you can get away with drawing when you've got a 240V supply rated at 13A. The more power, the faster the water boils.

As I understand it, freestanding kettles are much less popular in North America, presumably because a hob can draw more power?

<comment><USER13> North america just doesn't use as much hot water as Asia and Britain. No tea or instant foods. Pasta must be boiled, coffee is usually made in a dedicated device...

<comment><USER18> I (and I thought most people) preboil pasta water in a kettle. Then I can start cooking the pasta within 2 minutes instead of 15.

<comment><USER19> How does this work? If you are using the exact same heat source, then the only difference seems to be the metal/composition/thickness of the kettle vs. a cooking pot. Which doesn't intuitively seem like it will save 13 minutes out of 15.

<comment><USER16> You'll always save time with an electric kettle — it's likely to be better- insulated, have a lid, and the heating element is in contact with the water. It will still take 4-5 minutes though, even with a powerful kettle.

In case you're not familiar with them, we're discussing something like [1], or, to show these are very widespread commodity appliances, [2], which costs $7 including tax.

[1] [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Andrew-James-Cordless-Indicator- Warr...](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Andrew-James-Cordless-Indicator- Warranty/dp/B00LA4BPXQ)

[2] [http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/9016710.htm](http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/9016710.htm)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> As a teen on weekends I worked a lot on filmsets as assistant to a lighting cameraman. Switching HMI lamps on was really amazing, the mood of the set changed in an instant. It was quite energetic, so I completely get what the author is saying. They usually were positioned outside of windows, allowing for a stable consistent sunlight simulation across scenes.

<comment><USER21> From the wiki article[0] on HMI lamps:

> _85–108 lumens per watt of electricity._

Sounds pretty good!

> _With HMI bulbs, color temperature varies significantly with lamp age. A new > bulb generally will output at a color temperature close to 15,000 K during > its first few hours. As the bulb ages, the color temperature reaches its > nominal value of around 5600 K or 6000 K. With age, the arc length becomes > larger as more of the electrodes burn away. This requires greater voltage to > sustain the arc, and as voltage increases, color temperature decreases > proportionately at a rate of approximately 0.5–1 kelvin for every hour > burnt. For this reason, and other safety reasons, HMI bulbs are not > recommended to be used past half their lifetime._

Oh.. Then again, burn-in is something all lamps suffer from, right?

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrargyrum_medium- arc_iodide_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrargyrum_medium- arc_iodide_lamp)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Interesting that they're in Northern California and get Seasonal Affective Disorder.

I live at a similar latitude (except in the Southern Hemisphere) and have never considered that it would be a thing outside of essentially polar latitudes.

Over the past couple of winters (I moved further south a few years back) I've had some atrocious winters in terms of mental space. Maybe this is something I should look into.

<comment><USER16> [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20170049](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20170049)

Seems to conclude latitude doesn't make any difference, which is surprising. But there are other papers with the opposite conclusion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I don't see any info about the spectrum produced by the bulbs he recommends. Color temperature is one thing, but that's equivalent to describing a chord with just the root key. I suspect that a spectrum as close to the sun as possible (including UV and IR) is better.

<comment><USER24> Any particular reason that you suspect that UV and IR are important, or is this just pure speculation?

<comment><USER23> No, that's just speculation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Occasionally (3-5 times per winter) I go to the nearest tanning bed room in the nearby gym, choosing the bed with the least UV and the most brightness.

Yeah, I know, tanning beds are imported directly from Hell to give us skin cancer and stuff. But a sunny day in LA or Barcelona summer will give you much more UV than that. And it really helps with the aforementioned SAD.

<comment><USER26> Agreed about strategic tanning bed/booth use in winter. I don't understand the worry when you can precisely dose the minimum light you need vs. A random amount of much more ionizing sunlight.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> It is perfectly within our reach to simulate a bright daylight sky with the sun behind clouds - around 5k-10k lux - it just requires a fairly large wattage of lighting in a number of indirect fixtures. White metal halide, LEDs, and fluorescents all have efficiencies in the 50-100lumen/watt range, that just means you need to apply around 100 watts per square meter of matte white ceiling you're trying to illuminate. I like the idea of supplementing the white lighting with colored (eg: red, red-orange, green) LEDs, which can be throttled to achieve a particular color temperature.

Ideally your ceiling would be very high for this setup to give space for the light to diffuse from hanging ceiling reflectors, which is unfortunately not the case for most homes. For realistic homes, there is a style of floor lamp termed 'torchiere' that may work, though for best results you're going to want to find one with a large, fully reflective shroud - lights this bright are pretty harsh if they're not diffused well.

Set up something like this on an automatic timer to simulate the sky, and I suspect a lot of our sleep issues would go away fairly quickly.

<comment><USER28> > Set up something like this on an automatic timer to simulate the sky, and I > suspect a lot of our sleep issues would go away fairly quickly.

I had a similar hypothesis, so I built something like what you describe:

[https://github.com/wpietri/sunrise](https://github.com/wpietri/sunrise)

Currently I'm at only 4000 lumens or so in my main space, and I'd like it brighter. But my sleep is definitely better. I attribute it not so much to the daytime light, but to the way my apartment gradually gets dimmer and redder in the evenings.

I had set out to make something like a SAD lamp for my whole apartment. But as a side effect, I also basically made f.lux for my apartment, and I really like it. When evening comes, I generally have to fight to stay awake rather than fighting to go to sleep.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> As a tech fan, an on-off switch is too simple. I want to be able to adjust the brightness and "color" like the volume of my stereo. I never put my stereo to 100% because we figured out long ago how to do affordable loud speakers that are uncomfortably loud. Why haven't we figured out how to do affordable lights that can be tuned to uncomfortably bright? I want Caribbean beach bright as my 100%, with an "equalizer", to tune the heat/reading comfort/UV/color to my liking.

To me it feels like any advance in light bulbs is only on the lumen/watt scale. How long until we have a one million lumen broad spectrum LED configuration that doesn't cost a fortune?

</comment><comment><USER30> I found the best to feel better during winter is to supplement my diet with D vitamins.

<comment><USER31> How much Vitamin D did you take? Did you measure/calc the amount per kg?

<comment><USER32> From research around the Internet, D3 is generally seen as safe ([http://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs- supplements/vitamin-d/safety...](http://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs- supplements/vitamin-d/safety/hrb-20060400) is pretty typical on the safety information) Personally I take a D3 supplement of 2000IU/day during the dark months (along with some other supplements due to a mostly vegan diet, some of which contain low D2/D3 amounts, so my actual supplemented intake is around 2400 IU).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> All you need is the 460 nanometer wavelength of light. That's what your eye's daylight detectors are most sensitive to. Halogen lights don't have that frequency, which is why they didn't work for you.

Furthermore, you don't need this light all day. Just in the morning and evening.

You can get 460 nanometer LED lights from grow shops online for around $50, and put it close to your face for 15 minutes in the morning and evening. It'll reset your rhythm, cure your sad, and that's all you need.

<comment><USER34> Finally someone mentions this. Wikipedia has all the imformation on this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsically_photosensitive_r...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsically_photosensitive_retinal_ganglion_cells)

It's because we have special photosensitive cells in the sides of our eyes that only see blue light. They're not part of the vision, they only regulate the circadian rhythm. So all this talk of white light is uninformed. You only need blue light.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> If you don't mind the process of finding something (or waiting for something to come up) on eBay too much, I recommend looking for used photo/film equipment out there. I cheaply sourced two photo/film lamps on eBay. One is a 500W LED lamp and somewhat blueish, the other is a 330W fluorescent, but of very high quality, it's a very convincing daylight tone (not at all greenish). Especially the latter makes for a very nice room light. Both were barely used, yet substantially cheaper than new. The advantage is that you can easily change their angle on one or two axes. I originally bought them for photography and then started liking them as regular room lights, only to later even realize that I basically got myself SAD lamps.

<comment><USER36> Can you give some links of model #s? I've been thinking of this for a while, but never knew where to start. Thanks!

<comment><USER35> No, sorry, unfortunately I can't. Bought mine on eBay.de a few years ago. Now on eBay.com the auction format seems to be hardly used anymore for things like that. Hmm. Many direct imports though. Maybe my suggestion is outdated.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I thought that a large part of the positive response was due specifically to light in the blue part of the spectrum. Hence blue LED devices, ironically blue light should help you if you're feeling blue. I used a light meter app on my iPhone to measure the light outside in London on a sunny winter's noon, and that came in at 25 Mlux; suitable for an operating theatre apparently.

<comment><USER34> Yes. Because of this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsically_photosensitive_r...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsically_photosensitive_retinal_ganglion_cells)

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I have two questions:

1\. How hard is it to do work on your computer with that much light shining directly behind your monitor?

2\. From the amazon bulb description:

"Remove The Electronic Ballast, Capacitor,Ignitor In The Fixture"

What does that mean? Is it a poorly written instruction to do some obvious? Or is it a strange after market modification?

<comment><USER39> The ballast, capacitor, and igniter in the Amazon description refers to using the LED lamp to replace a sodium vapour bulb, usually in a large, outdoor lighting fixture, like a street lamp. The LED doesn't need the same support electronics that are required to warm up, start, and control sodium vapour lamps, which have a negative resistance once they get going, and thus will burn out quickly without a ballast in the circuit.

The LED lamp has just as much (or more!) support circuitry, but it's built-in; note the comment in one of the reviews that it takes about four seconds to light up once power is applied.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I address this by sticking this light [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002WTCHLC](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002WTCHLC) 9 inches from my face instead of the prescribed 12 inches for 10,000 lumens, and use it for 40 instead of the normal 30 minutes/day. Inconvenient, but has made _major_ improvements from the (still useful but not as much) Phillips 6x10 array of blue LEDs I started with at 12 inches 3*30 minutes a day. Also helps me wake up in the morning ^_^.

That said, this seems to be right to me, but I could well believe there are people who need 30,000 lumens and therefore have to get more creative.

</comment><comment><USER41> You seem convinced your brain "slows down" after the equinox due to (the lack of) bright light, but it's probably just the placebo effect. Has anyone ever convincingly measured the effect of bright light therapy on mood and intelligence?

<comment><USER28> Would you care to show the math on your "probably" here? Because I suspect it's not an actual mathematical estimate, but a way of puffing up your personal guess. Which is a weird thing to guess about given that this person has orders of magnitude more data about their experience than you do.

<comment><USER41> Sure thing! A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials found that when disorders are amenable to placebos, the placebo effect is robust and approaches the treatment effect[1]. For psychological disorders, particularly depression, it's been shown that placebos are nearly as effective as active medications[2].

[1]: [http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.psych.5...](http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.113006.095941)

[2]: [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jclp.20129/full](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jclp.20129/full)

<comment><USER28> You're asserting a nocebo effect, not a placebo effect, so I don't believe your links are relevant. Further, this person is talking about a perceived correlation between an experience and a natural change, not an intervention, which means it may not even be a nocebo effect, but a different category of issue altogether. Given that, I again suggest you cannot actually demonstrate any math on your claim of probability. Again, I think you're dressing up your feelings in sciencey talk.

Further, your request is nearly tautological. The way that one gets to a big, statistically robust test of a hypothesis is via small stepping stones. E.g., this sort of self-experimentation. If you scoff at everybody doing something small and say, "you're probably wrong because there's no big evidence", you decrease the chances of getting the sort of proof that you claim to want.

I don't think there's anything wrong with saying, "personally, I'd like to see convincing measures of the effect of bright light therapy on mood and intelligence before I adopt this." But that's frustratingly different than your apparent attitude that in 2 minutes of thought you know more about this guy's experience than he does.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Wouldn't it be better to set f.lux to a latitude of 0 degrees and a longitude of 0 degrees?

I live at 59°N 18°E so the opposite hemisphere would mean I currently would have daylight between 02:29 and 19:31. While 0, 0 gives you roughly 06:00 - 18:00.

</comment><comment><USER43> I work from home in an area that gets high amounts of fog, and I frequently go days without seeing the sun. I can confirm that I seemed to need about 10k lumens before making an noticeable change in mood.

I used three (1 warm, 2 cold) relatively inexpensive 36W LED bulbs from ebay locally - [http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/121704759594](http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/121704759594)

(Note they are LARGE and require a free-standing light fixture without any type of lampshade)

</comment><comment><USER44> I searched the authors posting for the word "exercise" and found it appears zero times.

I'm all about minute optimizations, but not until you've exhausted the big, basic ones.

Your (insert issue here) is not interesting at all unless it manifests itself _in the presence of_ regular walking, weekly resistance training and a decent cardio routine.[1]

Do all of those things and your (issue) is still extant ? Well, now we've got something interesting to talk about...

[1] Also known as, basic, functional human output.

<comment><USER36> Exactly. All of that, plus basic sleep hygiene. If you are complaining about sleep and energy levels, and yet you haven't been following sleep hygiene rules religiously for at least 6 weeks, then you're just fooling yourself.

These are easy to implement, they are proven medically, and they have tons of other benefits for heart health etc.

<comment><USER45> It's easy to say things are "easy to implement" when you don't have SAD.

How are you supposed to exercise if you're already suffering from SAD? How much of the perceived benefit from walking comes from sunlight exposure? What about climes where there are extended overcast periods with no direct sunlight for weeks at a time?

Any claim of "you can't do X until you did Y first" is of little value to people who have adequate motivation or resources to do X but not to do Y. Maybe doing X will make it easier to do Y later.

In fact, this is the exact approach I took; one of my motivations for starting an automation startup years ago was better lighting for myself, and that better lighting later made it easier to exercise more, start swimming regularly, etc.

<comment><USER36> Sleep hygiene does not include exercise, but has half-dozen smaller things. If you don't have enough motivation for it, you need to see a doctor asap.

Creating a startup to treat a mood disorder is a very roundabout way of doing things.

<comment><USER45> I was replying on a phone (and am doing so again now), and regrettably left out a few details. First, I was replying both to your comment and to the parent comment. Second, I have not been diagnosed with SAD, but I do have a delayed/non-24h sleep cycle that is exacerbated by the short, cloudy, pollution-heavy winter days where I live.

My main objection to rsync's comment was the flippant dismissal of people with actually diagnosed depression ("not interesting" were the exact words).

In response to your present comment, I would say that people who find themselves trying to invent solutions to their problems have likely already found the medical establisment to be less than helpful.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Isn't staring into your computer screen all the light you need? Everyone (even Apple now) says that the light screws up your sleep cycle. Wouldn't it help with SAD?

<comment><USER47> It's (probably) enough light to disrupt melatonin production in the evenings, but that doesn't imply that it's enough light to get you to produce Vitamin D etc and help with SAD during the day. Computer screens don't produce much light even compared to a normal bulb.

<comment><USER46> Good point. I forgot about Vitamin D.

But isn't that produced through exposure to UV, which LEDs don't emit?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> I live at 52.5 degrees North. Cosine to the power 4 being what it is, my neighbours and I could be experiencing significantly lower levels of daylight _intensity_ in all seasons than people who live at lower latitudes. In the summer, we will see similar or slightly more daylight integrated over the duration of the day because of the longer days.

The OA does not specify the latitude at which he(? assuming the OA is the site owner's work) is living.

<comment><USER49> Try SAD at 64 North. No picnic. I'd really like to try s light but don't think I'd have the patience to sit in front of one long enough. If it could be made bright enough that you could have it overhead and work at the same time that would be brilliant.

<comment><USER50> I have one of these on my desk, right next to the monitor. Working in front of it for 30-60 minutes a day really helps. Live at 60.5 degrees north. Also take vitamin suppliments and exercise more in winter; it's hard to tell what causes the improvement. With a lamp like this, you don't have to do anything outside of your routine to get more light. You can keep it 20 centimeters (~1 foot) from your eyes, so reduced irradiance due to distance (as this article points out) is not a problem.

[http://www.usa.philips.com/c-p/HF3318_60/energylight](http://www.usa.philips.com/c-p/HF3318_60/energylight)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Of interest

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10802144](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10802144)

</comment><comment><USER52> There is some thought that the normal yellowing of the lens as people get older makes them less sensitive to the effect of blue light. If so, then older people need more light to get the same circadian effect as younger people. It would be interesting to know how old the writer is.

</comment><comment> bash-j I found you can get cheap <$100 LED 10k+ lumen flood lights targeted at the 4WD market off eBay. You just then need the appropriate power supply, again cheap ~$20.

edit: colour for most seem to be 6500k too

<comment> bash-j Here's an example as a 30k lumen light bar for only $142

[http://www.ebay.com/itm/52INCH-300W-LED-LIGHT-BAR- Mounting-B...](http://www.ebay.com/itm/52INCH-300W-LED-LIGHT-BAR-Mounting- Bracket-For-Jeep-JK-Wrangler-Wiring-Kit-US-/281684824117)

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> He doesn't mention an important variable here: time. The less light you have, the more time you need to achieve the desired effect. I leave my lights on all day and they work to reduce my SAD.

</comment><comment><USER54> Colorado pot grower suppliers market LED grow lights that simulate sunlight. Conventional grow lighting is one the largest energy hogs in Colorado. LED alternatives consumea sixth of the energy.

</comment><comment><USER55> > _There's clinical evidence that ramping up the brightness gradually before > you wake up ("dawn simulation") is highly effective._

Can someone recommend a ready-made solution?

<comment><USER56> I use a Phillips hue system to do this. Not for SAD reasons - just because I found it much less jarring to wake up with the sun when I could do that, than with an alarm clock. Since waking up at set time became necessary I tried this out and it works fantastically. Plus the hue system is very versatile and programmable with many other tricks. Not exactly cheap though.

<comment><USER28> I second the Hue recommendation. They're a solid product. They aren't as good at rendering arbitrary color, but that's because they optimized for excellent whites.

Their API is also really good: clear, well-documented, REST-y. I wrote my own software to simulate a day/night cycle in my house, and I'm very happy with it. It's a much easier way to wake up, and having the gradual dimming in the evening makes it easier to go to bed on time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> How did I never notice that Seasonal Affective Disorder is "S.A.D."?

</comment><comment><USER57> I've been saying this for years.

</comment><comment><USER58> Feeling bad because it's winter? Yee-ikes. Plant problems. I can't believe it's actually called SAD. Luckily summer will be here again and we can all be STOKED.</comment>


What is the single most influential book every mathematician should read? - <AUTHOR> http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/262/what-is-the-single-most-influential-book-every-mathematician-should-read

<comment><USER2> There are a lot of wrong answers on that page.</comment>


The Banality of Heroism - <AUTHOR> http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/greatergood/current_issue/francozimbardo.html <comment><AUTHOR> read <http://blog.guykawasaki.com/2007/03/the_banality_of.html> for background.

<comment><AUTHOR> and a summary of that is:

The short explanation of what it takes to be a hero is the presence of "heroic imagination" which the authors describe as "the capacity to imagine facing physically or socially risky situations, to struggle with the hypothetical problems these situations generate, and to consider one's actions and the consequences."</comment></comment>


Amphetamine use in America's workforce - <AUTHOR> http://daily.jstor.org/americas-workforce-narcotic-stimulants/ <comment><USER2> I think this is a little bit sensationalized at the very least. This excerpt in particular caught me off guard.

"Abuse by young professionals is distressingly common—Wall Street traders, software engineers, dentists, nurses, and lawyers, all cracked out of their minds trying to keep up with the competition."

Yes, I was diagnosed with ADHD as a child, and yes I have an Adderall prescription. But I'd hardly call myself cracked out on drugs. I think the biggest issue is when people self-diagnose and self-medicate because they are more likely to take dosages that aren't suited for themselves, but that issue exists for many prescription drugs. This piece seems heavily biased towards scare tactics, so I am not inclined to take it terribly seriously.

<comment><USER3> Agreed. I was struck by the same line, "cracked out of their minds"... very biased. I don't know if "abuse" used to have a coherent meaning, but these days it boils down to "used in a way I don't like".

Drug use is certainly a mixed bag but it deserves a balanced treatment, not scare tactics.

The article even goes on to list great accomplishments that were made possible (or at least supported) by drug use. Talk about cognitive dissonance...

EDIT: For a wonderfully contrarian take on drug policy, check out Jessica Flanigan's "Three arguments against prescription requirements": [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22844026](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22844026)

<comment><USER4> Wonderfully contrarian? I'd disagree, in fact I'd maintain that what the lady does is not science. How can you argue medical ethics, a subject firmly rooted in observable, shared reality, from first principles and then disregard outcomes? If you intend to do science uou can't omit to check dogma against reality, perhaps those dogmata are no good at all to describe the world.

Very telling is another publication of hers, about Obamacare. From the abstract: "Though states are morally required to provide citizens with access to affordable health care, states must also take care not to violate important economic liberties .. ." Where do the "economic liberties" even come from? Everyone knows that US healthcare costs are an outlier in the civilized world, and the ostensible goal of Obamacare was to fix that. And if we have to talk about the principle of economic liberty we also have to consider the observable phenomenon of decision fatigue.

This is not science, this is libertarian apologetics. There is a purpose for that but it needs to be clearly distinguished as such.

<comment><USER5> Economic liberties means choice and competition in a market without state- enforced monopolies. US healthcare costs are an outlier because the state enforces insurance cartelization. Obamacare was a gift to insurance corporations, forcing everyone to buy their product. It's inelastic demand at gunpoint, so of course prices are going up.

Look back at the history of healthcare to see economic liberty in action when we had a workers' self-organized healthcare. People formed friendly societies, worker cooperatives, and lodges creating a welfare system that was organized from the bottom up. It was well-organized, affordable, and voluntary.

That all started to change as progressive legislation was introduced in the guise of social reform, which built up the state capitalist bureaucracy and slowly eroded people's rights to self-organize and provide each other with mutal aid. Instead people were forced to depend on the centralized state/corporate welfare system. And here we are today, and things are only getting worse.

The healthcare crisis is a problem of artificial scarcity, enforced by the state regulatory regime which upholds the insurance monopoly and suppresses people's rights to self-organize.

> The large corporation and centralized government agency do not exist just as > discrete individual organizations. Beyond a certain level of proliferation, > such large organizations crystalize into an interlocking system. Even the > small and medium-sized firm, the cooperative, the non-profit, must function > within an overall structure defined by large organizations. [1]

[1] [https://c4ss.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/C4SS-The- Healthc...](https://c4ss.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/C4SS-The-Healthcare- Crisis-A-Crisis-of-Artificial-Scarcity-by-Kevin-A.-Carson.pdf)

<comment><USER4> They sold us the healthcare-for-fee model back in the 1970s and 1980s, and that failed to contain healthcare costs. They are trying HMOs now in Switzerland, and it doesn't work to contain costs. Universities with large medical schools should be in a position to serve as integrated providers, yet you see rarely see them offer such plans to their employees. These are observations from reality.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Why does this article describe these stimulants as "narcotics"? They are neither opioids nor illegal when prescribed, so it seems like a needlessly provocative, and factually incorrect, description.

<comment><USER7> Because the authoritarian state uses an in-language to signal virtue, overstepping denotations. These are the same people who call non-cops "civilians."

<comment><USER8> My favorite is when they have the nerve to call vets "civilians".

<comment><USER9> I'm not sure my cat would appreciate having his annual check-up and booster with a non-civilian vet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I can't help but ask myself whether we should be wondering why Americans can't make it without drug-modified behavior, or whether this is better or worse than alternatives such as cigarettes, alcohol, caffeine, etc.

Humans in societies have been chemically altering their moods since we discovered mood-altering chemicals. Stress occurs inside and outside civilized workforces, and people take measures to mitigate stress. The real question is: what are the side-effects and how do we mitigate them?

(Not to imply that we shouldn't also look into options for de-stressing the American worker, since benefit there can scale significantly. But we do ourselves a disservice by imagining we're the first generation to have an entire culture habitually consuming a physiology-tweaking chemical cocktail)

<comment><USER11> Anecdotally I think Europeans are more likely to self medicate with alcohol and cigarettes rather than prescription pills which are more common in the USA.

In my experience the culture around having a few drinks after work and even having the occasional cigarette is far more relaxed in the European countries I've been to than just about anywhere in the USA.

But as I've said, I have zero evidence that any of this is even true - just my observations however well travelled I am.

<comment><USER12> In any of the companies I've worked with or visited in my times in the US (SF, specifically), _lunchtime drinking_ was pretty common, and practically unheard of in my European experience.

Like yourself, I wouldn't want to extrapolate a broader trend from that, just providing a counter-anecdote.

Think on smoking we've probably had a similar experience though. I don't think I even know an American that smokes (cigarettes), let alone seen it at a workplace. In Europe, it'd be weird if there weren't a couple of people in any office that didn't have an obvious habit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It is difficult to take this article seriously given the author's repeated references to "narcotic stimulants," a contradiction in terms. It shows that they are getting their whole perspective from law enforcement, which routinely (and quite misleadingly) refers to all drugs as "narcotics" regardless of their effect. The law enforcement establishment has been spewing bullshit for decades, to a degree that has now become embarrassingly obvious, whenever it discusses drugs; if the author of the piece is still taking anything they say seriously, they are either painfully incurious or they are actively participating in the promotion of War on Drugs propaganda.

</comment><comment><USER14> Yet sadly these drugs are still heavily regulated. You need to renew your prescription every month, which is expensive. Doctors look at you skeptically. In some countries they don't prescribe them at all, or only prescribe less effective versions to prevent abuse.

And then there are articles like this that appear every so often, telling us that we aren't really sick. Or that people who take these drugs are abusing them like they are just trying to get high or whatever.

<comment><USER15> Very good points.

They really make us jump through a lot of hoops just to get the medicine we need to live a somewhat normal life, all in the name of preventing drug abuse. I don't believe it actually does anything significant to prevent abuse, those who want to abuse drugs will always find a way.

There's so much of a stigma associated with low dose amphetamines and it's completely unfounded. I really noticed this when I switched from dextroamphetamine to methamphetamine (Desoxyn). Since my insurance wouldn't cover the brand name drug, I get the Mylan generic that says "METHAMPHETAMINE" on the label and I could really notice a difference in the way I was treated at the pharmacy. It was like they immediately assumed I was some dangerous drug addict. I'd try to be friendly with them and all I would get is really robotic responses.

It's ridiculous that they assume methamphetamine is this much more dangerous or addictive of a drug, it's not. In fact it's the best stimulant I have ever used. Way more effective than dextroamphetamine with fewer side effects.

Luckily I have a good psychiatrist that is setup to handle the monthly refills in a sane manor and doesn't treat me like a drug addict when I'm just looking to improve my life.

<comment><USER16> Stigma works the other way as well though. There's plenty of people prescribed strong stimulants that would be just aghast at the thought of someone doing some meth to get a particularly important painting done or something.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> As one who takes methamphetamine (generic Desoxyn) for ADHD, I can't help but take issue with the sensationalism in this article.

If someone takes the same low dose I do but doesn't actually have ADHD, how could they be considered "cracked out?" simply because they are faking a diagnosis?

We know that low-dose amphetamines improve cognition in healthy individuals regardless of whether or not you have ADHD. We also know that amphetamines are very safe at therapeutic level doses and that you can take them your entire life without any problems. We also know that stimulant therapy actually reduces the chances of someone abusing drugs, even stimulants.

Why shouldn't all healthy people have a chance to reap the benefits from them? Why should you have to have a disability in order to be able to access the benefits from these drugs?

There's just no logic to the way society currently views stimulants. It's safe for me to use amphetamines to help with my ADHD symptoms but if someone without ADHD uses them in the same manor, then it's dangerous.

<comment><USER17> Wow, how did you get an rx for that? Did they try tons of amphetamines and finally go for Desoxyn?

I agree: It's incredibly something (classist?) that only certain people can legally get amphetamines. I'm sure if you have lots of money, it's far easier to convince a doctor to RX. Whereas if you don't, you can even afford the doctor to diagnose, let alone RX (plus the risk of being labelled a "seeker").

Having essential medications behind professional, for-profit gatekeepers is a violation of human rights. It's reprehensible and an affront to personal liberties.

<comment><USER15> I asked my psychiatrist about it after doing a lot of research on my own.

I have tried all the other ADHD stimulants and formulations but it wasn't that none of them worked for me or that I required a high dose (I take what is considered an average therapeutic dose).

If you think meth is way more potent than dextroamphetamine, you'd be in for a big surprise. Meth is a very subtle and gentle stimulant, so subtle I often forget I even took a stimulant. This is probably because of the lack of PNS stimulation at these low doses. It's also a little bit more effective than dex because of slightly higher CNS stimulation but the lack of side effects is probably the best feature of meth. It just feels really natural, hard to describe completely.

It is considered a second line medicine because it's thought to be more addictive but I can assure you this is completely unfounded and has to be due to the stigma created by illicit meth abuse. IMO, it is a superior medicine and should be a first line treatment for ADHD.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> ADHD basically means the behavioral symptoms of dopamine dysregulation. A similar thing is happening with serotonin, where people complain of subclinical (or clinical) symptoms of depression and anxiety. Why are our bodies finding homeostatis of neurotransmitters so difficult? Diet? Culture? Sleep? Constant overstimulating media? Drugs? All of them?

<comment><USER19> All of them, and also it's more complicated than depression === serotonin dysregulation.

<comment><USER18> Indeed. Anxiety pretty much == serotonin dysregulation. Depression could be inflammation, mindset, low brain serotonin, low noradrenaline, low dopamine, all of the above, or something else. Low brain serotonin would be _a_ cause.

<comment><USER16> or any and all of those things could be correlates and not causes. correlation and causation get murky in the realm of consciousness and neuroscience.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> International comparisons would really help a lot to understand the phenomena... I find that there is a tendency by many North Americans to find pseudo-biological justification about everything.

In other words: trying to find individual solutions ("my dopamine is so messed up!") to social problems.

<comment><USER21> The largest users of anti-depressants are socialist style nations like Iceland, Australia, and Portugal. These countries are run almost the opposite of the US. So there's more than the usual liberal criticisms of how the US is too competitive/not competitive enough or has too easy access to drugs/not enough or whatever applies here.

>North Americans to find pseudo-biological justification about everything.

Yet the above nations are nowhere near N America. Perhaps this issue is a lot complex than you care to understand. I guess if you want ad-impresions then you must cater to people's ignorance and biases and leave any facts, science, or statistics out of it.

<comment><USER20> Regarding the use antidepressants, the USA beats everybody, according to OECD data: [http://static5.techinsider.io/image/56b363792e526551008b4c1d...](http://static5.techinsider.io/image/56b363792e526551008b4c1d-1200-1183/ti_graphics_antidepressants- chart.png)

Also: Iceland, Australia, and Portugal cannot be called socialist by any stretch of the imagination.

<comment><USER21> [http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/these-are-the- count...](http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/these-are-the-countries- that-consume-the-most-antidepressants-- WJvJPf5WFx?utm_source=indy&utm_medium=top5&utm_campaign=i100)

source:

[http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset- Management/oecd/social-...](http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset- Management/oecd/social-issues-migration-health/health-at-a- glance-2015_health_glance-2015-en#page187)

This is 2005 data btw.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I think this quote sums up the article's heavy handed, decidedly outdated view on mental health.

> ADHD drug abuse had become so commonplace on college campuses that Wesleyan > University, among other prominent institutions, has tried to ban it > altogether.

ADHD is a diagnosed medical disorder that affects millions of people in America. Why do we still stigmatize it in the modern age?

<comment><USER23> > ADHD is a diagnosed medical disorder that affects millions of people in > America. Why do we still stigmatize it in the modern age?

ADHD is a meaningless psychiatric diagnostic [1] of symptoms, not cause. The diagnosis is used to put millions of people in America on maintenance doses of addictive psychotropic drugs. Routine use of amphetamines almost always causes people's mental conditions to worsen, eventually.

Tonight one of my regular taxi passengers txt-messaged to ask if I was working. I was exhausted one night, when he was going home from the gay strip club, so I stopped at the coffee shop that was half-way between the strip club and his mother's house. I was like, "so... what's your story?"

When the passenger was in high school, he was diagnosed with ADHD. The doctor got him addicted to Ritalin, or one of the other legal prescription amphetamines. At first the amphetamine was great, but then side effects developed. Then he developed some legal troubles, which led to living in a halfway house, with hostile housemates...

Anyways... He's a bit of a mess... probably early or mid-30's... his mother pays his taxi fares. He had a job at the baseball stadium, but then he got fired. Last I saw him, he was collecting unemployment insurance.

People... people are interesting. This passenger didn't use "ridesharing" because he can't manage his money well enough, iirc.

[1] [https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-doctor- isnt-...](https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-doctor-isnt-in/) and [https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/how- psychiatry-l...](https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/how-psychiatry- lost-its-way/)

<comment><USER24> First of all, ADHD is hardly the only disease or disorder with an unclear cause. Alzheimer's, autism, and fibromyalgia come to mind.

Second of all, here is a comprehensive list of peer-reviewed studies defending the existence of ADHD and the efficacy of amphetamines for ADHD (much better than some random anecdote of an improperly diagnosed taxi passenger):

[https://www.reddit.com/r/ADHD/comments/3at2u2/psa_the_existe...](https://www.reddit.com/r/ADHD/comments/3at2u2/psa_the_existence_of_adhd_has_been_shown_by)

Admittedly, psychologists seem to have a problem properly diagnosing it, but let's not diminish a disorder suffered by millions every day.

<comment><USER23> Robert Whitaker makes the case in _Anatomy of an Epidemic_ [1] that psychiatric medications amplify the problems they supposedly treat.

[1] [http://www.madinamerica.com/product/62043/](http://www.madinamerica.com/product/62043/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> So glad that as I was growing up, my ADHD tendencies were seen more as just an individual issue I'd have to learn to control myself rather than a physiological condition in need of medication. Granted, in my street-wise years I've found stimulants and I get along really, really well, but there's a nagging feeling that I simply don't want to be on amphetamines daily. It might turn my writing into delusional drivel like Ayn Rand, a noted speed addict for decades.

<comment><USER26> People with ADHD react to amphetamines differently than people without it (at the correct dosages at least; I've never read anything about what happens to people with ADHD that take more than the correct dosage).

<comment><USER15> This is false and a common myth. If this was true then we would have the perfect test for ADHD, just give someone some stimulants and see how they react.

<comment><USER26> Speaking as someone who's wrestled with ADHD all my life, as has my spouse, this is definitely not false. And your claimed test makes no sense; if you haven't exhibited symptoms of ADHD, how can those symptoms be erased?

<comment><USER15> Perhaps I misunderstood your comment, you said that people with ADHD react differently and I was assuming you meant they do not respond in the same manor as someone else who just took a stimulant.

Often you hear this saying that people with ADHD feel relaxed when they take a stimulant and don't feel any increased energy or mood lift, which of course is false. That's what I was referring to.

<comment><USER26> People who are already energetic may not notice increased energy at therapeutic doses, though I certainly noticed. I don't think anybody feels relaxed, but it does quiet the hyperactive impulses and behaviors, which can easily be mistaken for being relaxed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> A lot of people are taking issue with what's called sensationalism in the article.

I think that's ignoring the elephant in the room. Before amphetamines, it was other drugs. The major point is that practice of capitalism in America is founded on a pattern of use and abuse of drugs. This is an elephant in the room because the dearly-held narrative in America is the idea of work hard, get rewarded. What's called a good work ethic here is seen as insane working hours outside of the US. And this ethos is reinforced by the dominance of US interest in the world.

Now you add in the Chinese startups working even more insane hours.

Is this really what we want our human civilization to move towards? This blind, tunnel-vision obsession over technological progress without actually reflecting on where it is that we are going?

Well, at least when you're using drugs that help you focus, these inconvenient ideas can be easily dismissed. Back to work now, y'all.

</comment><comment><USER28> The comments in this thread seem to suggest a reasonable subset of people here partake. Is there any reason you feel the need to?

I went to a pretty rough college where I had standard 24 hour straight homework sessions once or twice a week. And I used caffeine maybe once a week at most. I work at a startup where the work culture isn't as competitive as what I feel is the norm, but even listening to friends at there does not seem to be such a ridiculous need for overclocking yourself.

I just seem to have never done work that was hard enough to push me to require drugs, and it's not because I haven't done hard work. Most work seems to be either you just put in the 40 hours it takes to solve it or it hasn't been solved.

<comment><USER17> But have you tried using amphetamines while working? Perhaps you don't know what you're really capable of. I know people that are fine, happy, productive. But on speed, they are amazed at how much _more_ capable they are.

Apart from psychosis or heart issues, why should anyone settle for being less powerful?

<comment><USER8> For me, dependency and increased expectations. If I have to take drugs to succeed, then I'm stuck taking drugs throughout my career.

The earlier in a career, the worse of a problem this is. Which is why I think doing this as a student to enhance academic performance is a particularly bad idea. You're in school to prove to yourself and others what you're capable of. Doing so with drugs that you're not willing to take for the rest of your life is only lying to yourself.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Articles are either "We should be helping people with problems by giving them these medications", or "Doctors are over-medicating everyone. It has to stop!"

<comment><USER30> Yeah. Sometimes it seems like there's a standard cycle:

1\. Drug X works wonders for millions who suffer with Syndrome Z. But these evil politicians and FDA bureaucrats won't let people use it. Call your congressional rep and demand support for HR ABC123 today. Stop the suffering!

2\. (2-5 years later) Is Drug X Causing Millions to get Disease Y? Look at this new study released by the highly respected "Famous University". Mortality went up, and, even worse, Drug X is no better than a placebo!

3\. Greedy Big Pharma has been pushing pseudo-cure Drug X and it's destroying people's lives. Call your congressional rep and demand support for HR XYZ789 today!

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I can't be the only one thinking that this can not be good in the long run. I still remember my friend who had a prescription for ADHD -medication, and they cut off this medication, and he couldn't do nothing but sleep for 3 weeks almost.

What kind of state does prolonged use of amphetamines put the user ? Constantly being pushed to focus on one task, what kind of thought patterns does that create in the long run ?

I feel the biggest issue with this is that it's considered okay, like is coffee use, and still coffee and amphetamines are really strong stimulants, but it's so commonplace that we don't even think about it anymore.

Are we being just taught by the culture around us to work, work, work .. when we could be taking it more easy, having our thinking be more open, and not so closed and focused on the tasks ahead of us?

<comment><USER32> I was prescribed approximately 25mg daily Adderall for 7 or 8 years, so here's my anecdotal answer to your questions...

        > I still remember my friend who had a prescription for ADHD -medication,
        > and they cut off this medication, and he couldn't do nothing but sleep
        > for 3 weeks almost.

Wow. That is really irresponsible of them to cut him off so suddenly. I wouldn't wish that on anybody.

I definitely had a "crash" if I suddenly stopped taking it for a day, cold turkey. Would pretty much be stuck in bed.

However, if I slowly weaned myself off over a couple of days (25mg-->15mg-->5mg-->0mg) or something like that, it was no problem. Currently I haven't used any in six months.

        > What kind of state does prolonged use of amphetamines put the user ?
        > Constantly being pushed to focus on one task, what kind of thought
        > patterns does that create in the long run ?

Now that it's been six months past, I feel no long-term changes whatsoever. Mentally, I'm back to how I used to be before Adderall.

There's no denying, though, that Adderall often made me a bit more prone to anger while I took it regularly.

I also have to say that Adderall didn't really "push me to focus on one task." It helped my focus and energy somewhat, but I definitely didn't become some kind of extreme monotasker.

        > Are we being just taught by the culture around us to work, work, work ..
        > when we could be taking it more easy, having our thinking be more open,
        > and not so closed and focused on the tasks ahead of us?

Absolutely, yes.

I think what bothers me about America's workaholic mentality is that _it 's not even effective._ In the long run I firmly believe that we get _less_ work done if we constantly push ourselves to exhaustion. We try to treat our entire work careers like we're university students trying to power our way through an all-nighter. It just doesn't work. I continually remind myself of this... the hard way.

<comment><USER31> Thank you for your well put answer. I have no experience with amphetamines, but have been thinking about this subject, but it's not something that is exactly being talked about in public.

Sometimes I even felt it a little bit unfair as a programmer, that I am competing with people who are medicated. But I don't think like this anymore.

And yes, I agree on the doing less is more, with highly intelligent tasks you just start banging your head against the wall at some point, and anything beyond this point can be time just wasted, when we could be just relaxing and resting, to be more in tune again the next day.

<comment><USER32> I'd feel the same way in your shoes - it would feel a bit unfair.

But now that I've been on both sides of the fence I can safely say that it's not a big advantage. If programming was a footrace... on a _long term_ basis I'd say that Adderall is more like a knee brace than a pair of roller skates.

On a short-term basis it can be different. The first time you take it, you might be able to pull a very effective all-nighter. But you will have to catch up on sleep eventually. Much like caffeine, a person's body adapts to Adderall _very_ quickly. There's no free gains with this stuff.

The ideal usage pattern for Adderall might actually be closer to "take it sparingly 2 or 3 times a month" rather than "take it every single day."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> A word of caution to those readers who might want to try self-medicating:

I have used pharmaceutical grade methylphenidate and amphetamines. The former inevitably led to suicidal thoughts and feelings or worthlessness at the end of the day (i.e. once the dose is gone). This happened to all of my peers who tried it. The effects were mild, but still quite noticeable. And we were healthy (both mentally and physically) young men.

My advice is you just get a prescription from a doctor. They are unfortunately quite easy to come by. At least your dosage will be supervised, and you will have someone to talk to about possible side-effects without fear of reprisal.

<comment><USER34> What kind of doses were those? I'm honestly curious what kind of doses are used "recreationally", since I was titrated over months until the APRN and I found a dose that fit and didn't have alarming side effects.

<comment><USER33> They were Concerta (extended release) 36mg. We also had 54mg capsules once or twice. We all weighed around 140 pounds at the time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> This article is pretty poorly written. First off, methylphenidate is a phenethylamine - not an amphetamine. Its chemical structure doesn't resemble amphetamine. Secondly, Adderall is not simply dextroamphetamine, it is a racemic mixture of both amphetamine salts.

There have been studies showing that amphetamine leads to definitive cognitive improvement in the general population. Why restrict it? Human beings have a special relationship with psychostimulants.

<comment><USER36> > There have been studies showing that amphetamine leads to definitive > cognitive improvement in the general population.

Stimulants cause people to become psychotic. Some are more vulnerable to this effect than others.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance- induced_psychosis#Su...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance- induced_psychosis#Substances)

There are better, safer ways to cause a "cognitive improvement in the general population".

<comment><USER37> Based on your citation - I could also say "alcohol, marijuana, cough medicine, antihistamines and (possibly) caffeine cause people to become psychotic".

While technically true, it's a bit disingenuous to make blanket statements like this without qualifying the risk don't you think?

<comment><USER36> From my position as an observer of someone who has struggled with substances for a long time, Amphetamines are the worst of that list. My friend recovers from Alcohol and cocaine fairly quickly once she stops taking them. Cannabis (CBD, specifically) calms her down - it would be a great help if she could get it regularly.

Cough medicine is bad, but it's not nearly as potent of an addicting substance as the others on the list. She's used antihistamines as a hallucinogen before, but is not really tempted by them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> This is an important topic, not only from the perspective of drug dependency and substance use disorders (SUDs) research, but also re: potentially misleading statements which may discourage use among people who could benefit from stimulant-class medication.

I have treated several hundred individuals with amphetamine, methylphenidate and related compounds, primarily for ADHD in adults and adolescents. Everyone should know that ADHD is a very _common_ disorder, affecting >=4% of all adults. It is a disabling condition in many, perhaps the majority, of those who manifest its symptoms.

A troubling aspect is that only about 1/5 of sufferers seek treatment, and often treatment is suboptimal for a variety of reasons. Staying on topic, the most effective medication strategies remain the "stimulant" drugs.

The article contains errors re: drug effects and history. First of all amphetamine was synthesized well before 1929. What we now call amphetamine was created by a Romanian chemistry Ph.D. candidate, Lazăr Edeleanu, in Berlin, in 1887. It was rediscovered in 1927 by Gordon Alles who was unable to patent the compound because of Edeleanu's work 40 years earlier.

Amphetamine was initially marketed in the 1930's as Benzedrine. Significantly the remarkable efficacy of amphetamine in what's now call ADHD was described in _1937_ , and to this day no other class of drug has been demonstrated to be as effective as the stimulants.

As commented here, stimulant class medications have different effects in those who need them. At the optimal dose, ADHD patients are _not_ "amped up", in fact typically feel calmer, thoughts and actions more controlled and deliberate. In people who _don 't_ have ADHD may indeed experience "stimulating" effects.

Furthermore, ADHD adults perform much better with appropriate treatment, whereas unaffected users experience a boost only with simple tasks. Stimulant use will cause _decreased_ performance on cognitively demanding tasks. While college students are known to seek out amphetamines in order to "study better" for their final exams, in fact it's much more likely to decrement their results, myths notwithstanding.

Not to say that drug abuse is not a serious matter. Ethical practitioners prescribe stimulant class medications with great care to assure correct diagnoses and appropriate prescribing practices. No question that not everyone with a license is ethical. I firmly support taking steps to put those deliberately contributing to drug abuse out of business, and into jail.

It's imperative to avoid throwing babies out with the bathwater. Stimulant medications are an extremely useful tool when used along with due vigilance for misuse. Patients in my practice were carefully monitored, and were informed drug misuse could not be taken lightly. Over the years there were a few who were deemed too irresponsible to continue treatment with the medication.

<comment><USER39> Thanks for your comments.

A few years ago, in my late 30s, I was diagnosed with bipolar, ADHD, and anxiety disorder (all three have high comorbidity, interestingly). When I got the diagnosis, I was a little bothered. In my family and culture, it's considered a weakness to have mental illness or even talk about it. One is just supposed to 'tough it out'. And, I did tough it out up until then. But, I had finally reached my breaking point and sought out help.

One of the first things the doctor asked me was to describe my family history. My family is largely comprised of highly-intelligent underachievers. Although my parents and siblings are all in the 3 standard deviation IQ club, I was only the first to be able to hold down a regular job and finish college.

When I described my parents' behavior and history to the doctor, he was able to quickly see the patterns and inherited traits. We were all suffering from something similar that had held us back from success (and having general life satisfaction). In fact, after seeing how much easier life has become since I began treatment, I felt terrible for my parents. For most of their life they suffered and ended up self-medicating with much worse things.

I find the backlash against ADHD treatment and all mental illnesses to be extremely classist. There are likely large portions of the population who could have achieved much more happiness and success if they only had had treatment. There seems to be a movement to keep these people untreated for dubious reasons.

And, the downsides of ADHD treatment are quite minor in comparison. In fact, having experimented with different substances over the years, I find Adderall to be almost insignificant. I occasionally miss weeks at a time and feel no noticeable withdrawal. In comparison, alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine are all extremely difficult to quit both physically and psychologically.

<comment><USER38> Your story is one that's familiar to me and I appreciate the courage it takes to face the realities you describe. In my experience you have really nailed the important elements of dealing with these seriously disabling conditions, and comments like yours are enormously helpful to informing people about the nature of the problems.

The comorbidities and family history are often similar to your situation. I often said "comorbidity is the rule not the exception", and ADHD and bipolar D/O are known to be highly heritable conditions.

Tolerability of stimulant medications is usually quite good. Can't say the same for agents available for bipolar D/O, it's especially devilish to manage when ADHD and mood D/O are both present.

I glean that you've responded pretty well to treatment and that's great. One thing I learned is that treatment can help patients improve tremendously, essentially functioning in the "normal" range. In the treatment field we consider "normalization" to be the "gold standard" of success. It takes time, years in most cases, but the benefit of persistent treatment is in my view extremely clear.

The key advice I always offered was "keep up the good work".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> At your work you may not get free food or a lot of breaks, but I bet you get unlimited free coffee.

I'm not sure why one stimulant is socially taboo and the other acceptable, even encouraged.

</comment><comment><USER41> No mention of modafinil/armodafinil (provigil/nuvigil)?

<comment><USER42> This is a fun article about provigil - [http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/27/silicon- val...](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/27/silicon-valley-s- eating-up-super-ritalin-i-got-the-best-of-it.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> There sure are a lot of people with very little experience with drugs sounding off here. Downplaying the power of amphetamines. hrm.

</comment><comment><USER44> Does anyone have any adderall or vyvanse for sale?

</comment><comment><USER45> Comments on this thread are insightful, people on amphetamine defending their way of life.

<comment><USER43> +1

<comment><USER43> awesome how one can get voted down on hacker news like this. there is nothing incorrect or even mean stated here. you just don't like what is being said about you. the moderators on this site are so screwed up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> As an aside, I'd be willing to bet there's a direct correlation between Hackernews karma and amphetamine use.

<comment><USER16> I'd be really interested in an anonymous hackernews drug survey...maybe I'll make one...

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> This attitude, painting cognitive enhancers with a broad and critical brush, is not helping things. Cognitive enhancers have the ability to improve persona lives and and society on the whole. But, there is a double standard with all things in healthcare. If you want to fix something, then by all means, take as many pills as you want and don't worry about changing lifestyle choices. Take insulin, for example. Or blood pressure medicine. Society may be harsh on folks that need these medicines, but these folks will have no problem getting the medicine. But, if we want to be better than "fixed", if we want to improve our cognitive performance, to do that in a safe physician guided manner, and have that translate to a better emotional, psychological, and economic future for themselves and their family. The economic benefits are real and shouldn't be limited to those in higher socioeconomic strata.

This article shows sleep deprived surgeons benefit from modafinil: [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21997802](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21997802)

Modafinil Does Not Serve as a Reinforcer in Cocaine: [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842996/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842996/)

... Ok, I won't make it one of those posts. But, do some research. We will all be better off if we can drop the FUD rhetoric and treat cognitive enhancers like we treat other drugs, something that can help and hurt. And we need to stop thinking of health care as something we do when something is broken, and start thinking about it as another tool in the toolbox that we can use to _improve_ our lives.

<comment> nommm-nommm This article is about amphetamine use. Modafinil is not an amphetamine nor is it amphetamine-like.</comment></comment>


List of Blogs - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_blogs <comment><USER2> Huh! I wonder what the criteria for notability to be included in this list are. Edit: Ah, judging by the talk page, the main notability criterion appears to be "has a Wikipedia article of its own". Seems reasonable.</comment>


Haskell vs. Lisp vs Erlang for Concurrency Oriented Programming? - <AUTHOR> <comment><AUTHOR> History- Learned Lisp in High School in the 1980s. Since then, procedural (Pascal & C) and then about 17 years of object oriented development.. C++, Java, Ruby, Objective-C.

I am interested in concurrency oriented programming now... and have been directed to Erlang. Others seem to talk about Lisp alot. (I remember enjoying it, but feeling that it wasn't too practical.. but it was only the 3rd or 4th language I learned and I was 17 at the time.)

What seems to be the natural parallelism in Erlang really appeals to me. The 1960s era syntax does not. (I still think in objects.) I haven't investigated Haskell much, or Lisp recently.

If one wants to solve a problem that is naturally highly parallel (like raytracing) what language would you recommend?

I'm open to hearing about other languages than the ones I mentioned.

I'm not interested in careful programming to be thread safe, or mutexes, etc.

Also, I don't really want to start a flame war... but haven't seen many opinions, or specifically an argument for Lisp from a concurrency viewpoint. And if there's a much better language than Erlang out there, I'd love to find out about it now.

And of course, meta arguments by posting links to others advocacy of particular language also appreciated.

<comment><USER2> Scheme is cleaner than common lisp. I think Gambit-C has an implementation of Erlang's message passing and mailbox idea for each process and in addition to that it doesn't use OS threads for individual processes it uses first class continuations. In one test it performed similar to Erlang running as many as 900K processes on a 1GB ram P4.

<http://people.csail.mit.edu/gregs/ll1-discuss-archive-html/msg03309.html>

Having said this. I'm really interested in Erlang because of mnesia. I'm not sure if I want to spend a bit of my life writing a database in Gambit.

Here are thoughts from someone who choose Erlang over Scheme. <http://theschemeway.blogspot.com/>

I don't really agree with his point of view. I think if your problem doesn't really have a strong concurrency element in it which you would solve by using shared data then it probably doesn't make sense to use the message passing model. Having said that if you are writing for the web one day it definitely will have a strong need for concurrency.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks very much for the pointers! I followed up on them and they led to some interesting reading... still leaning toward erlang.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I'm not interested in careful programming to be thread safe, or mutexes, etc.

This is like saying I am not interested in solving any real problem, just in concurrency for the sake of it.

<comment><AUTHOR> On the contrary, it is simply saying I've already rejected that strategy since it doesn't actually solve the problem. You cannot grow a shared memory system efficiently.

Since someone has actually solved the problem, I'm going with that solution... but was asking if there was an even better solution.</comment></comment>


Show HN: ConstantNew.Info - Yet another aggregator - <AUTHOR> http://constantnew.info

<comment><USER2> I find myself clicking on all the different news tabs just to see that loading animation for some reason...</comment>


Why You Should Always Hire an A-Team - <AUTHOR> http://levifig.com/articles/why-you-should-always-hire-an-a-team/ … or "A Story And An Advice". <comment><USER2> <https://www.datashack.net/dedicated/> I definitely recommend datashack, we've run a very successful minecraft server on it (averaging 50+ players).</comment>