Join us for a live NeuroNoodle Neurofeedback Podcast Q&A session! π§ β¨ Our expert panel is here to answer your burning questions about neurofeedback, brain training, and mental health! Donβt miss this opportunity to connect and learn! π When: Monday, January 8th at 6 PM CST | 4 PM PST | 7 PM EST π Where: YouTube Live Meet the Hosts: Pete Jansons Dr. Mari Swingle Jay Gunkelman Anthony Ramos Joy Lunt John Mekrut Joshua Moore Santiago Brand Dr. Andrew Hill π Don't forget to support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/c/NeuroNoodle π’ Got a question? Ask in the live chat or comment below! π Hit the bell to be notified so you wonβt miss it! #Neurofeedback #NeuroNoodle #MentalHealth #LiveQandA #BrainTraining #NeurofeedbackExperts #BrainHealth
Episode Summary
I joined the panel on the NeuroNoodle Neurofeedback Podcast for a live Q&A with practitioners in the field. Watch the original conversation. What follows is drawn from my own answers during that discussion, organized into the topics we covered: how to hack your sleep, what alcohol and cannabis training actually does to tolerance, how remote training works, and why the dismissive ADHD headlines keep missing the mark.
What are the top brain-regulation habits outside of neurofeedback?
Three habits do most of the work, and they all run through your circadian system. Time your eating so you finish two to three hours before bed. Get up consistently early. Do gentle exercise before your morning caffeine.
These are the things I cover on my Monday livestream, where I walk through biohacking topics and healthy habits that help you take control of your own resources. If you stack them with neurofeedback, you get a brain that regulates better from both directions.
How do you actually hack your sleep?
The single strongest circadian cue is when you eat. Stronger than light, stronger than when you sleep. Your body listens for food timing more than almost anything else. Eat in the time zone you want to live in. You can shift your clock toward a new zone about an hour a day, because the human brain can absorb roughly one hour of circadian slop per day without much trouble.
The timing matters because of what happens to blood sugar and hormones. Give yourself two to three hours of dropping blood sugar before sleep, and you set up a growth hormone release after you fall asleep. That release is itself a circadian event. The day-to-day pattern of when you eat builds your insulin and cortisol rhythm. Eat in a pattern and you create that pattern in your hormone regulation. This is why a late eater who keeps a consistent schedule can still sleep well.
My second rule: get up early. The only light that really matters for entrainment is morning light. The spectral quality of light in the first hour or so after sunrise carries the circadian signal. Light beyond that window does not do the same job. Get some ambient light in that first hour after sunrise.
The third rule: go for a walk. You wake up with cortisol and a blood sugar bump that pulled you out of sleep. Burn it off without calling for more. Do not sit on the couch and eat sugar. Do some yoga, take a walk. That drains the morning activation and completes the other half of the circadian seesaw that started the night before. If you want the deeper version of this, I lay it out in my piece on biohacking sleep.
Why do you get sleepy after a big late-night meal?
Blood sugar drop. There is also a reason you crave the pizza and beer in the first place. As the day ends, melatonin rises, and melatonin suppresses pancreatic insulin release. You get a sudden drop in that insulin trickle. A falling insulin signal reads to the body as a cue to snack. If you have insulin available, the body might as well push more calories into storage. That insulin-availability swing at the end of the day, on an empty stomach, is what drives the late-night snack urge.
Is neurofeedback therapy or brain training?
Functionally, mechanically, what we do is coaching. It is iterative. It chases phenomena and experiences, then uses data and adjusts the intervention between sessions. That is coaching, not the construction of a clinical container with transference and the rest.
The clearest evidence that this is operant conditioning rather than talk therapy: the early work was done on cats, where sensorimotor rhythm training raised seizure thresholds without any cognitive participation (Sterman & Friar, 1972). You do not have to be a cognitive or emotional participant for neurofeedback to work. The brain learns the pattern through operant conditioning below conscious awareness. The training game runs when your brain produces the target frequency pattern and dims when activity drifts toward what you are training away from. Your conscious mind is not steering the feedback. The brain shapes the response on its own.
Do you need a clinical license to provide neurofeedback?
It depends on the population and the goal. For a lot of people and a lot of goals, you do not need to be a therapist. For others, a clinical team absolutely should be involved.
If you are a solo neurofeedback provider without a clinical background, you should not be working alone with suicidal ideation, thought disorders, untreated mania, or dysregulated borderline presentations. That is difficult and risky to work with, and a coach is not a clinician. That does not mean these brains can never train. I have worked alongside people in acute psychiatric crisis, as part of a team with their psychiatrist and psychologist. I help the psychiatrist read brain patterns that can inform medication discussions. I help the psychologist time attachment or EMDR work so it lands better. I am additive in that role, never the treatment provider.
It is worth being plain about credentials here. No research links a specific neurofeedback license or certification to better outcomes. A clinical license or a BCIA or QEEG-D certification is at most a baseline-training signal, never a guarantee of skill, and some of the best practitioners built their skill through years of supervised practice rather than a certification pathway. What actually predicts good work is whether the practitioner understands the technology and the neuroscience, individualizes from QEEG data, tracks outcomes with objective measures, re-maps periodically, and is honest about non-response.
The frame I keep coming back to is agency. Is there a brain resource this person can understand? Can we demystify how their brain works and give them some agency over it? That is valuable even when you are not the one deciding the next step in their care.
Does neurofeedback change tolerance for alcohol and cannabis?
For cannabis, beta and SMR training tend to reduce tolerance, often substantially. Low tolerance is excellent for moderation. If now is the time to moderate, that walking-down of tolerance gives people agency without the stigma. With cannabis and alcohol, both social drugs, you can teach this gently, barring gross dysregulation.
For alcohol specifically, the substance-use literature on alpha-theta and related protocols goes back to the early controlled work (Peniston & Kulkosky, 1989). There is no categorical effect on alcohol use itself. What changes is the underlying driver. With a mix of alpha and SMR training over six to eight weeks, people report reregulating their ability to turn the mind off, to relax, to fall asleep. The anxiety, the sleep problems, the discomfort with their own emotions, the unresolved trauma. Those tend to settle, and the drinking behavior backs out behind them. People trying to moderate find it easier.
Occasionally you see potentiation instead, where someone gets a stronger effect from alcohol or caffeine after training. It happens, but it is not common. I have also seen a few people who had been addicted to sugar suddenly lose the taste for it after enough training. It tastes disgusting to them and they spit it out. Again, uncommon.
Why does neurofeedback reduce cravings for a drug of choice?
There are two different processes here, and they are worth separating.
One is satiety. Part of what training does looks like hitting satiety, the orexin versus leptin kind of signaling. It does not abolish the craving so much as make you feel satisfied, so the pull drops away.
The other applies to true addiction, which requires both dependence and tolerance. Not everything we call addiction qualifies. When there is a genuine addictive process, with the opponent-process reaction, fewer positives and more negatives over time (Solomon & Corbit, 1974), neurofeedback appears to make the brain more plastic and gives it an opportunity to move out of that learning cycle. I think most addiction is a form of learning. Becoming dependent and building tolerance is learning. You can back that learning out more effectively when the brain is more plastic. For the circuit-level view of compulsive patterns, see my work on biohacking bad habits.
Why is neurofeedback so common for autism?
Very little does for autistic needs what neurofeedback can do. Change that is rapid, visible, wanted by the person, and that tends to stick. I came out of a neurodevelopmental population before I went into this field, and what struck me was simple: people were changing. The kid who used to have a behavior no longer had it. That is shocking in that landscape.
The same logic explains why the field clusters around addiction, seizure, and autism as populations. The work can be effective in those areas. The fact that it works is why those needs found their way to neurofeedback.
A note on plasticity and psychedelics
Plasticity is not the bottleneck. You are walking around plenty plastic. The adult brain continues to generate new neurons in the hippocampus into old age (Eriksson et al., 1998). You do not lack the raw resources. What is hard is shaping change in the direction you want. Shift happens. Getting the direction of that shift is the work, and there are simpler routes to more plasticity: meditation, sleep, new environments, physical exercise.
This matters for the psychedelic conversation. If you have a thought disorder, bipolar presentation, or a seizure-prone brain, you do not need more plasticity, and dissociatives, ketamine, and other psychedelics are not a good idea in that state. These are tools, and you need real knowledge to wield a tool that claims to be therapeutic. We see a parallel with high-potency cannabis and reports of cannabis-associated psychosis in young people first exposed at college age (Di Forti et al., 2019). The legacy of "safe" attached to weaker products no longer matches what is on the market.
One upside of prohibition lifting: research is finally catching up, and we will know far more about cannabis over the next decade or two.
How does remote neurofeedback work?
It is not as hard as it sounds. We ship the equipment, then meet over video to supervise the QEEG brain mapping, make sure signals is clean, and coach before and after each session. We never just send gear out and let people run on their own. We monitor sessions, stay in touch about how they feel, and track progress.
The software is built for home use. We can set the start date so nobody jumps in before their first live session. In practice, people do not try to get ahead. At the start they are more intimidated than they will ever be again, often asking what they are even doing. That eases quickly after the first session or two. We run live sessions for the first couple of weeks, then keep support open throughout. The full picture is in my remote neurofeedback guide.
How long does a real program take?
I ask people to commit to two months as a starting point, which gives me time to get thirty-plus sessions in without a lot of wasted slop, then map again. Thirty sessions is a solid dose for seeing real change in the data, and a follow-up map at the half-dose point shows whether we are on track. The pricing runs higher for the first two months, where all the teaching and hard setup happens, then drops for the next two once the brain is making good progress and we already know it well. Like most neurofeedback, this is predominantly out-of-pocket. Many insurers classify it as investigational or not medically necessary, and Medicare reclassified it in 2024 from experimental to not medically necessary while still not covering it. That is real money, so be wary of high-pressure prepaid packages with no reassessment built in.
What about the ADHD research that says neurofeedback does not work?
Read those meta-analyses closely and they say something narrower than the headline. When you isolate the properly controlled studies with standard protocols and blinded outcome ratings, the effect shows up (Arns et al., 2009). The studies that wash out are the ones that do neurofeedback nothing like the way it is done in well-run practices.
Good neurofeedback is iterative. You adjust for the individual brain, the complaints, and the goals, session to session. The research version is usually ten or twenty fixed sessions, two populations, no individualization, not enough length. That is like putting everyone through the identical workout regardless of their goals and never changing it, then concluding workouts do not work.
You cannot do the same thing with different brains. Twenty people with an ADHD label can show very different patterns on the QEEG. So when a paper gets touted as dismissing the field, it is a little disingenuous. The literature showing no effect from pooled fixed-protocol studies is not the same claim as "neurofeedback does not work." For my full read of the evidence, see is neurofeedback legitimate.
A note for practitioners building a neurofeedback practice
The ongoing skill of building protocols from data, complaints, goals, and history is where the real learning curve lives. That comfort level takes training, supervision, and a whole infrastructure to manage a practice. You end up teaching therapists to think like coaches, which is a real shift from the work that trained them.
For the First Responders in California dealing with the fires while I wrote this from a couple of miles inside the watch line: my offices are offering free brain maps in January for firefighters, police, and paramedics. After running into danger to save people, it is worth checking under the hood. You can find me at Peak Brain Institute and on YouTube at Dr Hill.
References
- Sterman (1972). Suppression of seizures in an epileptic following sensorimotor EEG feedback training. doi:10.1016/0013-4694(72)90028-4
- Peniston (1989). Alpha-theta brainwave training and beta-endorphin levels in alcoholics. doi:10.1111/j.1530-0277.1989.tb00325.x
- Forti (2019). High-potency cannabis and incident psychosis: correcting the causal assumption - Authors' reply. doi:10.1016/s2215-0366(19)30176-2
- Arns (2009). Efficacy of Neurofeedback Treatment in ADHD: The Effects on Inattention, Impulsivity and Hyperactivity: A Meta-Analysis. doi:10.1177/155005940904000311