New LaBerge study on Galantamine published (it works)

Pre-sleep treatment with galantamine stimulates lucid dreaming: A double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study

Quote:

---

Together our results show that galantamine substantially and significantly increases the frequency of lucid dreaming. The double blind and placebo-controlled design of this study provides strong evidence that cholinergic enhancement with galantamine causally increases the frequency of lucid dreams in a dose-related manner.

Increased incidence of lucid dreaming was observed for both 4 mg (27%) and 8 mg (42%) doses compared to 14% for the active placebo, with an increased incidence of lucid dreams in the 8 mg dose compared to 4 mg dose.

In addition to assessing galantamine’s influence on lucid dreams, our study tested an integrated protocol for inducing lucid dreams, which combined some of the most effective existing methods of lucid dream induction reported in previous studies (including sleep interruption [18, 32] and the Mnemonic Induction of Lucid Dreams (MILD) technique [7]) together with cholinergic enhancement.

This combined protocol resulted in a total of 69 out of 121 participants (57%) successfully having a lucid dream on at least one out of two nights on an active dose of galantamine. This protocol is one of the most effective methods for inducing lucid dreams known to-date, and holds promise for making lucid dreaming available to a wider population.

---

Quote:

---

Participants (N = 121) with high dream recall and an interest in lucid dreaming were randomly assigned counterbalanced orders of 3 doses of galantamine (0, 4 and 8 mg). On 3 consecutive nights, they awoke approximately 4.5 hours after lights out, recalled a dream, ingested the capsules and stayed out of bed for at least 30 minutes. Participants then returned to bed and practiced the Mnemonic Induction of Lucid Dreams technique while returning to sleep. The percentage of participants who reported a lucid dream was significantly increased for both 4 mg (27%, odds ratio = 2.29) and 8 mg doses (42%, odds ratio = 4.46) compared to the active placebo procedure (14%). Galantamine also significantly increased dream recall, sensory vividness and complexity (p<0.05). Dream recall, cognitive clarity, control, positive emotion, vividness and self-reflection were increased during lucid compared to non-lucid dreams (p<0.0001). These results show that galantamine increases the frequency of lucid dreams in a dose-related manner.

---

Now, I'm all for research and it was indeed one of LaBerge's books that really impelled me on the journey with LDing :) but...

Isn't the study somewhat contradictory in stating that

Quote:

---

This protocol is one of the most effective methods for inducing lucid dreams known to-date, and holds promise for making lucid dreaming available to a wider population.

---

whilst at the same time having a study sample consisting principally of

Quote:

---

Participants (N = 121) with high dream recall and an interest in lucid dreaming

---

and then the somewhat unnatural ^{(i.e. not likely to be so well controlled in a domestic environment)} situation of

Quote:

---

On 3 consecutive nights, they awoke approximately 4.5 hours after lights out, recalled a dream, ingested the capsules and stayed out of bed for at least 30 minutes. Participants then returned to bed and practiced the Mnemonic Induction of Lucid Dreams technique while returning to sleep.

---

The point I am making is that the general wider population is not necessarily going to have high dream recall to begin with, nor will they necessarily know about lucid dreaming techniques and the mechanics of sleep even if they are interested in LDing. Would an untrained novice really create such an intruding situation into their sleep just to use a LDing aid? And if someone has sleep problems but is interested in LDing, adding that sort of situation into their sleep may feel counter-intuitive, just to use an aid. As such it seems to me that the study is actually still highlighting the importance of the usage of lucid dreaming techniques like MILD, which perhaps do yield better results while taking this sort of aid.

Therefore I am not so much questioning the LDing results with the joint use of the LDing techniques, but I am questioning the claim that it would make it available to a wider population. Of course, what a wider population is, does not seem to be defined in the study (correct me if I'm mistaken), so I have to unreasonably define what the meaning of a "wider population" is by myself, as it is a very vague statement without being given explicit detail.

Edit: And I personally would be a bit wary anyway of a prescription-only medication that is used for Alzheimer's, simply because things that are prescription-only are generally that way for the associated risks of taking them. But this is my view, of course.

Gee; it only took Stephen about 16 years to write that paper...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkestDarkness

The point I am making is that the general wider population is not necessarily going to have high dream recall to begin with, nor will they necessarily know about lucid dreaming techniques and the mechanics of sleep even if they are interested in LDing. Would an untrained novice really create such an intruding situation into their sleep just to use a LDing aid? And if someone has sleep problems but is interested in LDing, adding that sort of situation into their sleep may feel counter-intuitive, just to use an aid. As such it seems to me that the study is actually still highlighting the importance of the usage of lucid dreaming techniques like MILD, which perhaps do yield better results while taking this sort of aid.

Therefore I am not so much questioning the LDing results with the joint use of the LDing techniques, but I am questioning the claim that it would make it available to a wider population. Of course, what a wider population is, does not seem to be defined in the study (correct me if I'm mistaken), so I have to unreasonably define what the meaning of a "wider population" is by myself, as it is a very vague statement without being given explicit detail.

---

That's a good point. I think what you're seeing there is LaBerge quietly nodding to the fact that gallantamine will only tend to work when used as a supplement to an already mentally prepared LD'er -- you can't just take the pill and be lucid; you gotta do some prep work on your own. Stephen really really wants an instant, no effort lucidity product to exist, but knows it doesn't, so I'm not surprised that he is simultaneously calling his experiment a rousing success but is still careful to include lots of caveats about that success.

So yeah, gallantamine will be very helpful to a wider population, as long as they still do the day work, learn a good technique like MILD, and have the fundamentals firmly planted in their heads. There are certainly lots of folks out there who do all the work, have their heads in the right place, and still can't get lucid; gallantamine might indeed be just what they need.

Quote:

---

Edit: And I personally would be a bit wary anyway of a prescription-only medication that is used for Alzheimer's, simply because things that are prescription-only are generally that way for the associated risks of taking them. But this is my view, of course.

---

As far as I know, gallantamine is an over-the -counter supplement that doesn't need a prescription (at least in the U.S.); did he mention some other product?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sageous

As far as I know, gallantamine is an over-the -counter supplement that doesn't need a prescription (at least in the U.S.); did he mention some other product?

---

No, he did not mention some other product, but I do not know the legal status for it everywhere, but I do know that where I live (which is not in the US) it is prescription-only for patients that suffer from Alzheimer's. I honestly had never even heard of it before anyway, so like I said, that was my view only. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkestDarkness

Now, I'm all for research and it was indeed one of LaBerge's books that really impelled me on the journey with LDing :) but...

Isn't the study somewhat contradictory in stating that

whilst at the same time having a study sample consisting principally of

and then the somewhat unnatural ^{(i.e. not likely to be so well controlled in a domestic environment)} situation of


The point I am making is that the general wider population is not necessarily going to have high dream recall to begin with, nor will they necessarily know about lucid dreaming techniques and the mechanics of sleep even if they are interested in LDing. Would an untrained novice really create such an intruding situation into their sleep just to use a LDing aid? And if someone has sleep problems but is interested in LDing, adding that sort of situation into their sleep may feel counter-intuitive, just to use an aid. As such it seems to me that the study is actually still highlighting the importance of the usage of lucid dreaming techniques like MILD, which perhaps do yield better results while taking this sort of aid.

Therefore I am not so much questioning the LDing results with the joint use of the LDing techniques, but I am questioning the claim that it would make it available to a wider population. Of course, what a wider population is, does not seem to be defined in the study (correct me if I'm mistaken), so I have to unreasonably define what the meaning of a "wider population" is by myself, as it is a very vague statement without being given explicit detail.

Edit: And I personally would be a bit wary anyway of a prescription-only medication that is used for Alzheimer's, simply because things that are prescription-only are generally that way for the associated risks of taking them. But this is my view, of course.

---

He said the method tested is one of the most effective, and that method was clearly laid out (WBTB+MILD+galantamine with people interested in LD'ing). Also the participants were not super experienced LD'ers or anything, I think the average amount of LD's in the past year for them was 1-3.

It makes the LD state more available to a wider population because it simply generates more lucids, it's pretty well established that the biggest issue with LD'ing catching on with people is the amount of effort and time it takes to get it to start happening. People do some MILD and some WBTB for a bit, don't see results and so they stop. Adding the G to it significantly raises the % of lucids, providing much needed experience of the lucid state and motivation for continuing the practice.

And the Alzheimers patients take a LOT more then you do for LD'ing, and they take it on a daily basis too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tofur

He said the method tested is one of the most effective, and that method was clearly laid out (WBTB+MILD+galantamine with people interested in LD'ing). Also the participants were not super experienced LD'ers or anything, I think the average amount of LD's in the past year for them was 1-3.

(...)

And the Alzheimers patients take a LOT more then you do for LD'ing, and they take it on a daily basis too.

---

Thank you for pointing that out about the participants. I've taken a bit more time today to read it the study in some more detail and yes, you're right about the stated number of LDs the participants had and what their previous experience in general was like.

I know that this study is probably more US-centric, but I get the idea that the interest here is for it to be of global interest. Just want to add that where I live the recommended dosage (which is prescribed) for Alzheimer's patients is 8-16mg daily, depending on the type of release (immediate/non-immediate). For reference to those that are only reading this thread and haven't checked the study yet, the dosages used in the study are stated to have been 0 (none), 4mg and 8mg, assigned at random to the participants, as I understand.

Though, maybe I missed something in the study, about the frequency of the dosage during the experiment; was it stated somewhere? How often did participants take a dose? Did they take a dose every night of the study, or with a specific interval of nights between taking doses or did they just take it on specific nights? I couldn't find it mentioned explicitly but understood it to be one of the latter cases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tofur

(...) it's pretty well established that the biggest issue with LD'ing catching on with people is the amount of effort and time it takes to get it to start happening. People do some MILD and some WBTB for a bit, don't see results and so they stop. Adding the G to it significantly raises the % of lucids, providing much needed experience of the lucid state and motivation for continuing the practice.

---

I suppose my question here is if it is of interest to get LDing to "catch on"? People are interested in whatever they are interested, aren't they? Do they need to be pushed toward something they might not have found otherwise? I don't try to push my enjoyment of art on those who don't particularly have any appreciation of it. The only reason I can personally see (maybe I'm shortsighted) of benefit is that, if LDing were more popular there might be more research around it, but to be honest, even just regarding research around my health condition, a lot of research tends to be very narrow (I suppose because it has to be), and it takes a very long time for real-world applications.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure a lot of people find enjoyment in new things that they would never have done before without a nudge from someone else, I just don't personally believe a drug is necessarily the correct incentive, that's all. But if it could be considered safe, I would say the choice would be up to each person, anyway. My main concern is simply about the safety of it, which I'm sure is a primary concern for researchers, too.

My personal context is that I have at most 1 lucid a year on average, and when I started practicing techniques it took a long time to see any results, but I personally don't think this would be a solution for me. Sure, I have lost motivation at some points, but that's true for more than just LDing. :cheeky:

I certainly understand what you mean about providing the experience of the lucid state. It does make one realise a few things. Thank you for having replied.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkestDarkness

Thank you for pointing that out about the participants. I've taken a bit more time today to read it the study in some more detail and yes, you're right about the stated number of LDs the participants had and what their previous experience in general was like.

I know that this study is probably more US-centric, but I get the idea that the interest here is for it to be of global interest. Just want to add that where I live the recommended dosage (which is prescribed) for Alzheimer's patients is 8-16mg daily, depending on the type of release (immediate/non-immediate). For reference to those that are only reading this thread and haven't checked the study yet, the dosages used in the study are stated to have been 0 (none), 4mg and 8mg, assigned at random to the participants, as I understand.

Though, maybe I missed something in the study, about the frequency of the dosage during the experiment; was it stated somewhere? How often did participants take a dose? Did they take a dose every night of the study, or with a specific interval of nights between taking doses or did they just take it on specific nights? I couldn't find it mentioned explicitly but understood it to be one of the latter cases.

---

In this study they took it nightly for 3 nights, I think only once in the night though. General thought is to put a few nights in between uses for LD'ing to avoid tolerance buildup though they didn't see any evidence of that here, probably would take more then 3 nights to do it.

So if a patient is taking 16mg daily that's 112mg per week. LD practitioner takes it 2 or 3 times a week in a 4mg dose that's 8-12mg a week. Pretty big difference.

Quote:

---

I suppose my question here is if it is of interest to get LDing to "catch on"? People are interested in whatever they are interested, aren't they? Do they need to be pushed toward something they might not have found otherwise? I don't try to push my enjoyment of art on those who don't particularly have any appreciation of it. The only reason I can personally see (maybe I'm shortsighted) of benefit is that, if LDing were more popular there might be more research around it, but to be honest, even just regarding research around my health condition, a lot of research tends to be very narrow (I suppose because it has to be), and it takes a very long time for real-world applications.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure a lot of people find enjoyment in new things that they would never have done before without a nudge from someone else, I just don't personally believe a drug is necessarily the correct incentive, that's all. But if it could be considered safe, I would say the choice would be up to each person, anyway. My main concern is simply about the safety of it, which I'm sure is a primary concern for researchers, too.

My personal context is that I have at most 1 lucid a year on average, and when I started practicing techniques it took a long time to see any results, but I personally don't think this would be a solution for me. Sure, I have lost motivation at some points, but that's true for more than just LDing. :cheeky:

I certainly understand what you mean about providing the experience of the lucid state. It does make one realise a few things. Thank you for having replied.

---

I think it's the issue of ease of success more then trying to get uninterested people suddenly interested, which I agree will only happen when there's a guaranteed LD creating thing on market, whether that be a drug or a device or something like that.

I can't even imagine the number of people who have been interested in LD'ing and try to do it for some stretch of time but get discouraged by lack of results. Psychologists have long known about this, basically if something is too easy or too hard for our current level of skill/ability we lose motivation to keep doing it, there's a goldilocks zone where it's a bit challenging but also do-able where we thrive and stay motivated. This I think is where LaBerge is getting the notion that this program (wild+mild+galantamine) could open this up for more people. It would greatly increase their chances of getting some lucids early on which would "hook" them so to speak.

I dunno just my thoughts on it, I've known that Galantamine works for awhile so it's nice to see a proper double blind placebo controlled study confirming that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tofur

In this study they took it nightly for 3 nights, I think only once in the night though. General thought is to put a few nights in between uses for LD'ing to avoid tolerance buildup though they didn't see any evidence of that here, probably would take more then 3 nights to do it.

So if a patient is taking 16mg daily that's 112mg per week. LD practitioner takes it 2 or 3 times a week in a 4mg dose that's 8-12mg a week. Pretty big difference.

---

Thanks for the clarification, was really not spotting that info properly, and I'd agree they'd probably need to trial it for much longer to see about tolerance. I do see your point about the dosage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tofur

Psychologists have long known about this, basically if something is too easy or too hard for our current level of skill/ability we lose motivation to keep doing it, there's a goldilocks zone where it's a bit challenging but also do-able where we thrive and stay motivated. This I think is where LaBerge is getting the notion that this program (wild+mild+galantamine) could open this up for more people. It would greatly increase their chances of getting some lucids early on which would "hook" them so to speak.

I dunno just my thoughts on it, I've known that Galantamine works for awhile so it's nice to see a proper double blind placebo controlled study confirming that.

---

Yeah, I usually take that notion of the challenge vs ease notion even in my own daily life when I need to think of how to spend my energy and for mood management.

I do appreciate your discussion here, and I didn't mean to come off as overly critical in my initial reply by the way; I just prefer to remain skeptic on some things, since I'd rather keep my expectations low rather than high, if that makes sense. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkestDarkness

Thanks for the clarification, was really not spotting that info properly, and I'd agree they'd probably need to trial it for much longer to see about tolerance. I do see your point about the dosage.



Yeah, I usually take that notion of the challenge vs ease notion even in my own daily life when I need to think of how to spend my energy and for mood management.

I do appreciate your discussion here, and I didn't mean to come off as overly critical in my initial reply by the way; I just prefer to remain skeptic on some things, since I'd rather keep my expectations low rather than high, if that makes sense. :)

---

Yep no problemo, skeptical is always good especially when it comes to dream supplements haha

I did more research and seems like Alzheimer patients can take 16-32mg daily, tons comparatively, but still people should do less then 8mg and only every few nights at maximum.

After his ground breaking research, experiments and publications, it seems like LaBerge has not really continued and pushed his LD research forward that much. Maybe I´m wrong. He´s known about galantamine for years, I think it was him that put it on the map (it is very popular nowadays all over the internet as the number one LD supplement.) Yet, I think LaBerge reached a research/scientific climax many years ago and then probably got lots of money and said, "why bother with this research stuff", (including his LD mask that never is), and just decided to LD away and indulge and cash in with his Hawaiian LD retreats. Not bashing him, just saying....if anyone could push the envelope on scientific LD research, it could have been him, but where is it? After all these years, a paper on Galantamine?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkestDarkness

No, he did not mention some other product, but I do not know the legal status for it everywhere, but I do know that where I live (which is not in the US) it is prescription-only for patients that suffer from Alzheimer's. I honestly had never even heard of it before anyway, so like I said, that was my view only. :)

---

I bought Galantamine easily off of Amazon. It is not available in stores here in Spain, but got it in the mail with no problem. Of course, it all depends on your countries customs rules and inspections.

G is probably the number one supplement for LD dreaming. It´s reviewed and talked about all over the Internet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fly_by_Night

After his ground breaking research, experiments and publications, it seems like LaBerge has not really continued and pushed his LD research forward that much. Maybe I´m wrong. He´s known about galantamine for years, I think it was him that put it on the map (it is very popular nowadays all over the internet as the number one LD supplement.) Yet, I think LaBerge reached a research/scientific climax many years ago and then probably got lots of money and said, "why bother with this research stuff", (including his LD mask that never is), and just decided to LD away and indulge and cash in with his Hawaiian LD retreats. Not bashing him, just saying....if anyone could push the envelope on scientific LD research, it could have been him, but where is it? After all these years, a paper on Galantamine?

---

Yeah you're prob right, but then again I don't think anyone had done a proper study on G for lucid dreaming, I'm grateful he did it so I can link it to people who doubt it's usefulness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tofur

Yeah you're prob right, but then again I don't think anyone had done a proper study on G for lucid dreaming, I'm grateful he did it so I can link it to people who doubt it's usefulness.

---

everybody is going to reply to you citing Thomas Yuschack´s book and research. He really gets into it. He also disappeared. But there are other studies also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fly_by_Night

After his ground breaking research, experiments and publications, it seems like LaBerge has not really continued and pushed his LD research forward that much. Maybe I´m wrong. He´s known about galantamine for years, I think it was him that put it on the map (it is very popular nowadays all over the internet as the number one LD supplement.) Yet, I think LaBerge reached a research/scientific climax many years ago and then probably got lots of money and said, "why bother with this research stuff", (including his LD mask that never is), and just decided to LD away and indulge and cash in with his Hawaiian LD retreats. Not bashing him, just saying....if anyone could push the envelope on scientific LD research, it could have been him, but where is it? After all these years, a paper on Galantamine?

---

^^ That.

This is just my opinion, and I barely know the guy, but I have a feeling that LaBerge might have run into a wall that he could not transcend: he may have discovered that science might not ever be able to bring lucidity to the masses. By using science he gave a serious boost to interested LD'ers with his devices and his introduction of gallantamine, but he may have come to realize in the end that a lucid mindset is developed primarily through dedication, focus, and maybe some hard work, and there is currently nothing in science that can remove that part of the formula. In a sense, consistent lucid dreaming is a personal decision to develop mind and spirit, and that decision cannot be made for you by a pill or a toy. And, barring some sudden evolution of mind or perhaps that elusive coming singularity, the number of folks willing and able to make that decision will likely remain very low for quite a while, regardless of the aids created... the masses may have to settle for VR, I guess.

Oh, and in his defense, I doubt LaBerge ever made much money; he's a lousy businessman. His NovaDreamer2 has been ready to go for at least a decade now, but he seems to lack the ability -- or perhaps interest -- to get it to market, and I remember that almost 20 years ago now he had a big plan to trademark gallantamine as a LD'ing supplement and retire rich; yet somehow he let that get right by him. He always meant well, but it just wasn't in his nature to build these things into a money-making business. I also think his retreats are little more than a free vacation for him each year; they might be expensive for his guests, but I doubt there is much profit in them, given the costs of running a show in Hawaii.

^^ That

How disappointing. One daydreams about living a life with fat bank accounts fueled by book sales, royalties and workshops, sipping piña coladas on a hawaiian beach, helping people LD, and LDing all night long.

^^ Yeah, okay; good point. He might not be rich, but being a LD'ing guru has been very good to him! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fly_by_Night

everybody is going to reply to you citing Thomas Yuschack´s book and research. He really gets into it. He also disappeared. But there are other studies also.

---

Did they do double blind placebo controlled studies?

^^

I don´t think so, it´s more about results of his own usage, but he goes into depth concerning data about dosages, peak plasma levels, etc. and he covers many others supps and subjects. His work is very popular, if you are interested in LD supplements it´s a must read. "Advanced Lucid Dreaming - The Power of Supplements".