About NeuroFPS
An independent research publication asking one question: how close can a competitive player get to their biological ceiling, and which of the usual answers survive contact with the evidence?
What NeuroFPS is
NeuroFPS treats a competitive player as a performance system: practice volume, sleep, circadian timing, fitness, nutrition, neurochemistry and psychology, all interacting. It borrows the marginal-gains mindset of elite cycling and Formula 1, and applies the evidence standards of sports science.
It is independent. It has no sponsors, sells no supplements and publishes no protocols or dosing guides.
How claims are handled
- Primary sources only. Every figure traces to a named, linked study. Millisecond values appear only when the paper reports them. Percentages and standardised effect sizes are never converted into invented milliseconds.
- Population matters. Each study is labelled for who was tested (rested or sleep-deprived, gamers or not) and how directly it applies to competitive play.
- Lab is not the server. Faster responses on a reaction task are reported as exactly that, not as better aim or more wins, unless a study measured those things.
- Established vs plausible. Every compound and claim is marked as established, plausible, contradictory or speculative.
Evidence grades
A: consistent effects across many controlled human trials. B: several controlled trials agree, with clear caveats. C: small, mixed or condition-specific evidence. D: mostly animal, cell or anecdotal data.
Not medical advice
NeuroFPS discusses pharmacology, including prescription and experimental compounds, as science. Nothing on the site is a recommendation to take any substance. Speak to a doctor or pharmacist before changing anything you take.