"Eat better, get exercise, reduce distractions" isn't a very sexy answer though, when compared to, "take a pill and become awesome like that guy in Limitless."
I've never understood these sorts of comments, although they appear reliably in almost every story on this subject. What in the world do diet, exercise, sleep, and clean living have to do with the subject of the story, which is the ethics and effectiveness (or lack thereof) of nootropic drug use?
If anything, having seen concrete beneficial effects from the dietary and lifestyle changes you've made to date, doesn't that make you even more curious about how far such effects can be pushed?
Those sorts of comments tend to appear with another claim: persistent benefits. Which is something which the short-term solutions rarely offer. In that way, they're perfectly on-topic, and calling into question the use of the short-term solutions at all, especially when long-term benefits have not been shown (consistently, at all, take your pick).
Well, for starters, "reduce distractions" isn't very actionable advice in this context. It's equivalent to saying "cheer up" to people who have clinical depression.
I'd be glad to be shown data that better diet and exercise are effective in the treatment of adults with ADD (which is the topic of this subthread). Of course, good diet and exercise are good for you, but that's not the point.
You are correct. The point is that there's no data that shows that ADD medication has any lasting affects, aside from addiction. There's even data that it tends to work for only a few years, and then tapers off. This implies it isn't a solution, and we should be looking for alternatives rather than temporarily putting off the problem.
Here's one. It's anecdotal, but it won't hurt you to try, which can't really be said about the drugs. Then there's also the likelihood that it'll almost never be suggested, because there's little money in getting people to live better - who would fund the research? What studies could be done to show strong connections that wouldn't be easy to write off, when the very act of changing your lifestyle introduces countless variables?
More specifically, 'reduce distractions' is far more actionable than 'cheer up'. One advises a step to reduce the temptation to be distracted, the other advises you to achieve the goal with absolutely no directions.
It doesn't have to be either/or, too. A combination of both might make him even more productive than one or the other. However, if diet and exercise are proven to be effective, they will likely have better long term health benefits than consistent stimulant dosing.
Think in terms of job-to-be-done. For someone diagnosed with ADHD, the desire for something that will allow the sufferer to be able to be productive and focused is real. Medication and lifestyle changes are two answers to the same question.
I've never understood these sorts of comments, although they appear reliably in almost every story on this subject. What in the world do diet, exercise, sleep, and clean living have to do with the subject of the story, which is the ethics and effectiveness (or lack thereof) of nootropic drug use?
If anything, having seen concrete beneficial effects from the dietary and lifestyle changes you've made to date, doesn't that make you even more curious about how far such effects can be pushed?