Posted by undopaminergic on June 7, 2008, at 17:00:16
In reply to Re: Ritalin (methylphenidate) vs Dextroamphetamine, posted by dbc on June 6, 2008, at 12:04:48
> >
> > You may find the "coming down" from MPH unpleasant, but wait till you see that of DXP, and all your adverse experiences with MPH will seem exceedingly benign. Remember the storage vesicles that were emptied by DXP? They have to be refilled, and during the time it takes for that process to complete, you will essentially be dopaminergically deficient. To add insult to injury, this refractory period of neurotransmitter replenishment is in addition to the downregulation of receptor density or sensitivity that also occurs with MPH, but that is much more severe with DXP due to its greater potency.
> >
> Woooah there, this is quite the opposite. The crash from MPH for most people is a sudden hard crash which is extremely abrasive much like its bigger brother cocaine and people often find themselves desiring to stay at a certain level MPH use to avoid this.
>A stable level of MPH should be maintained until you're ready to retire for the day. This means at least three repeated doses of immediate release products, or one or at most two of Concerta or other extended release formulations.
Many years ago when I tried MPH the first time, I did notice a bit of a crash, but these days it's so exceedingly subtle that I rarely notice until I look at the clock at and see that it's the time it should be wearing off. Furthermore, the greatly worsened lethargy that occurs if one doesn't take PEA is not noted with MPH, and it sometimes takes a few hours after waking before I take MPH - such a thing was unthinkable with PEA, which always had to be one of the first things done in day in order to ascend from the fatigue and get started. Finally, the withdrawal syndrome that occurs upon cessation of PEA or even just selegiline, is much more prolonged and severe than anything I've ever noted with MPH.
I suppose it could be that PEA is more destructive than dextroamphetamine, but the latter is generally considered more potent in practically every respect. On the other hand, the withdrawal symptoms certainly occur fast after frequent intake of PEA is stopped, and it's much easier to mainlain stable levels of dextroamphetamine. However, this doesn't explain why the withrawal syndrome upon cessation would be more prolonged than with dextroamphetamine, and I don't think it would be.
I'm not sure whether MPH or cocaine is the bigger brother, as MPH is slightly more potent and considerably longer lasting, although cocaine is certainly more popular - and more suitable - for abuse. Anyway, a crash from intranasal, intravenous, or inhaled administration is likely to be harder, and to occur sooner, and it's really interesting to hear that there are people who experience phenomena resemling that with oral MPH products.
> Dexedrine on the other hand while rewarding at first doesnt like repeated dosing or you experiance some sort of autoreceptor feedback and the only way to fix it is to escalate the dose and if you're sane you will not do this.
>Those using the drug medically rarely take repeat doses in a short amount of time, but at least two, and sometimes three doses a day would generally be required with the immediate release products, as opposed to the spansules, etc.
> In the long run the racemic mixtures of amphetamine are more dangerous simply due to the nature of the L-AMP and im pretty certain thats pretty agreed upon.
>I think the L-isomer is probably more dangerous in terms of cardiovascular risks, but I would certainly consider the D-isomers of both amphetamine and methamphetamine more addictive, and almost certainly more neurotoxic, although that is mainly relevant at doses higher than those used therapeutically.
poster:undopaminergic
thread:833197
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20080606/msgs/833513.html