How I Research
Cognitive Enhancement
A transparent look at my evidence-based approach to studying nootropics, brain optimization, and mental performance
Core Philosophy
“Every recommendation must pass three filters: scientific evidence, real-world effectiveness, and safety. If it fails any one of these, it doesn’t make the cut—no matter how popular or profitable.”
— Peter Benson, Cognitive Enhancement Researcher
The 6-Step Research Process
Every nootropic, protocol, or technique I recommend goes through this rigorous evaluation process
Initial Literature Review
Before testing anything, I dive deep into the existing research. This includes:
- Peer-reviewed studies: PubMed, Google Scholar, research databases
- Meta-analyses: Comprehensive reviews synthesizing multiple studies
- Clinical trials: Human studies with controlled conditions
- Pharmacokinetics data: How the body processes the compound
- Historical use: Traditional medicine applications (if applicable)
Critical evaluation criteria: Sample size, study design quality, funding sources, replication, and publication bias assessment
Mechanism of Action Analysis
Understanding how something works is just as important as knowing if it works. I examine:
- Neurotransmitter systems: Which brain chemicals are affected
- Receptor interactions: How the compound binds to neural receptors
- Metabolic pathways: How it’s processed in the brain and body
- Gene expression: Long-term neuroplasticity effects (e.g., BDNF, NGF)
- Synergistic effects: How it interacts with other compounds
Why this matters: Understanding mechanisms helps predict effectiveness, side effects, optimal timing, and potential interactions
Safety & Risk Assessment
Safety comes before effectiveness. I thoroughly investigate:
- Adverse effects: Common and rare side effects from clinical data
- Toxicity data: LD50, safe dosage ranges, overdose risks
- Drug interactions: Potential conflicts with medications
- Contraindications: Who should NOT use this compound
- Long-term effects: Studies on extended use and safety profiles
- Quality concerns: Contamination risks, extraction methods, purity issues
Safety threshold: If a compound has significant safety concerns or insufficient safety data, I don’t test it—regardless of potential benefits
Personal Testing Protocol
Research is meaningless without real-world validation. My testing process:
Testing Parameters
- Baseline establishment: 1-2 weeks tracking without the compound
- Single variable testing: Only one new compound at a time
- Dosage protocol: Start at minimum effective dose, gradually increase
- Duration: Minimum 4-6 weeks of consistent use
- Washout period: 2-4 weeks off before testing the next compound
Tracking Metrics
- Subjective: Mental clarity, focus duration, mood, energy levels
- Objective: Cognitive testing apps (memory, reaction time, attention)
- Sleep data: Quality and duration tracked via wearables
- Side effects: Any adverse reactions or discomfort
- Productivity: Work output, task completion rates
Limitation acknowledgment: N=1 experiments have inherent limitations. My personal response doesn’t guarantee similar results for others. This is why I combine personal testing with scientific literature and community feedback.
Community Feedback & Real-World Data
One person’s experience is anecdotal. A pattern across hundreds is data. I collect:
- Reader experiences: Email feedback from subscribers implementing protocols
- Common themes: What consistently works across different individuals
- Failure points: Where protocols break down or don’t deliver results
- Side effect patterns: Adverse effects that emerge in real-world use
- Individual variations: Who responds well vs. who doesn’t (and why)
Continuous refinement: Recommendations evolve based on collective real-world experience. What works in theory doesn’t always translate to practice—I adjust accordingly.
Documentation & Transparent Reporting
The final step is sharing findings honestly and transparently:
- Cite sources: Link to actual studies so you can verify claims
- Acknowledge limitations: What we don’t know yet or where research conflicts
- Practical protocols: Translate research into actionable steps
- Realistic expectations: What to expect (and what not to expect)
- Individual variation disclaimer: Your results may differ
- Ongoing updates: Revise recommendations as new research emerges
Intellectual honesty: If something doesn’t work or if I was wrong, I say so. Building trust requires admitting mistakes and updating conclusions based on new evidence.
Research Quality Standards
Evidence Hierarchy
Prioritize systematic reviews and meta-analyses, then RCTs, then observational studies. Anecdotes are considered but not relied upon alone.
Funding Source Awareness
Scrutinize industry-funded studies more carefully. Note potential conflicts of interest. Prefer independent research when available.
Replication Requirement
One study isn’t enough. Look for multiple independent replications before drawing strong conclusions about effectiveness.
Human-Relevant Data
Animal and in vitro studies provide insights but aren’t definitive. Focus on human clinical trials with appropriate dosages and durations.
Sample Size Matters
Small studies (n<20) are suggestive but not conclusive. Prefer well-powered studies with adequate participant numbers for statistical significance.
Risk-Benefit Analysis
Even effective compounds aren’t recommended if risks outweigh benefits. Safety profiles weigh heavily in final recommendations.
What Makes This Methodology Different
✅ NeuroEdge Formula Approach
- Rigorous evidence evaluation before recommendations
- Personal testing with tracked metrics
- Transparent about limitations and unknowns
- Safety-first priority, always
- Honest about what doesn’t work
- Continuous updates as research evolves
- Free from industry conflicts
❌ Common Industry Practices
- Cherry-picking studies that support sales
- Making claims without personal testing
- Exaggerating benefits, hiding limitations
- Prioritizing profits over safety
- Ignoring negative results or failures
- Never updating outdated information
- Hidden sponsorships and conflicts
Important Limitations
⚠️ What This Methodology Cannot Do
1. Replace Medical Expertise
I am not a medical doctor. My research cannot diagnose conditions, prescribe treatments, or replace professional medical advice. Always consult qualified healthcare providers for health decisions.
2. Guarantee Individual Results
Individual biology varies dramatically. What works for me or others may not work for you. Genetics, health status, lifestyle, and countless other factors influence outcomes.
3. Keep Up With All Emerging Research
New studies are published daily. While I stay current, there’s always a lag between publication and my review/implementation. Recommendations reflect the best available evidence at the time of writing.
4. Eliminate All Risk
All interventions carry some level of risk, even well-researched ones. I minimize risk through careful evaluation, but I cannot eliminate it entirely. You assume responsibility for implementation decisions.
💡 What This Methodology CAN Do
- Provide evidence-based education on cognitive enhancement strategies
- Offer practical protocols backed by research and real-world testing