5 ms·

I'm just going off of the title, but I would expect microdosing to naturally involve only small effects.

by l0b0 6y ago

eurasiantiger 6y ago
The thing is, psychedelics act on neurotransmitter systems that are very sensitive; a few micrograms change in dosage can be a VERY different experience.
- ranguna 6y ago
  Apparently not
  - eurasiantiger 6y ago
    You base that judgment on a single study of N=191 that employs a non-rigorous methodology which does not control for the purity or even existence of a psychedelic substance. What if some of the participants were only able to source fake drugs, e.g. sugar cubes without any LSD in them?
    - pas 6y ago
      How would that invalidate the results? The study heavily builds on self-reported belief about group membership (placebo or treatment [microdose]) for each trial day. If someone believes they are on shrooms all the time while not, and their psychological parameters improve, it's placebo. If someone produces some arbitrary pattern of on-off while actually not on anything, that's just noise for the study. That's why there's statistical significance testing.
      - eurasiantiger 6y ago
        How many of the participants tested that their drugs actually contained the correct amount of the correct compound? I’m going to say few to none. This study seems very unreliable, and I wouldn’t count out the possibility that it is junk science published to drive down stock prices of psychedelic health companies.
        pas 6y ago
        > [...] and I wouldn’t count out the possibility that it is junk science published to drive down stock prices of psychedelic health companies. What's the supporting empirical support for this very complex claim? One one hand I'm inclined to believe the study because it confirms the placebo effect. (Which is very well established, plus the theory and the data are simple. The result is completely in concordance with the regular ineffectiveness of most low-dose not-really-psychoactive medications - meaning how SSRIs and other anti-depressants are about as effective as placebo.) On the other hand it's also possible that the study is junk, like most studies. > How many of the participants tested that their drugs actually contained the correct amount of the correct compound? https://elifesciences.org/articles/62878 https://elifesciences.org/articles/62878 "The inclusion criteria were: >18 years of age, good understanding of English, intention to microdose with psychedelics, previous experience with psychedelics (either micro- or macrodosing), no use of psychedelic drugs from a week before the start until the completion of the post-regime timepoint (other than the study’s microdoses), and willingness to follow the study protocol." Of course it's still citizen science. So who knows really.

I'm just going off of the title, but I would expect microdosing to naturally involve only small effects.

by l0b0 6y ago

I'm just going off of the title, but I would expect microdosing to naturally involve only small effects.

The thing is, psychedelics act on neurotransmitter systems that are very sensitive; a few micrograms change in dosage can be a VERY different experience.

ranguna 6y ago
Apparently not
- eurasiantiger 6y ago
  You base that judgment on a single study of N=191 that employs a non-rigorous methodology which does not control for the purity or even existence of a psychedelic substance. What if some of the participants were only able to source fake drugs, e.g. sugar cubes without any LSD in them?
  - pas 6y ago
    How would that invalidate the results? The study heavily builds on self-reported belief about group membership (placebo or treatment [microdose]) for each trial day. If someone believes they are on shrooms all the time while not, and their psychological parameters improve, it's placebo. If someone produces some arbitrary pattern of on-off while actually not on anything, that's just noise for the study. That's why there's statistical significance testing.
    - eurasiantiger 6y ago
      How many of the participants tested that their drugs actually contained the correct amount of the correct compound? I’m going to say few to none. This study seems very unreliable, and I wouldn’t count out the possibility that it is junk science published to drive down stock prices of psychedelic health companies.
      - pas 6y ago
        > [...] and I wouldn’t count out the possibility that it is junk science published to drive down stock prices of psychedelic health companies. What's the supporting empirical support for this very complex claim? One one hand I'm inclined to believe the study because it confirms the placebo effect. (Which is very well established, plus the theory and the data are simple. The result is completely in concordance with the regular ineffectiveness of most low-dose not-really-psychoactive medications - meaning how SSRIs and other anti-depressants are about as effective as placebo.) On the other hand it's also possible that the study is junk, like most studies. > How many of the participants tested that their drugs actually contained the correct amount of the correct compound? https://elifesciences.org/articles/62878 https://elifesciences.org/articles/62878 "The inclusion criteria were: >18 years of age, good understanding of English, intention to microdose with psychedelics, previous experience with psychedelics (either micro- or macrodosing), no use of psychedelic drugs from a week before the start until the completion of the post-regime timepoint (other than the study’s microdoses), and willingness to follow the study protocol." Of course it's still citizen science. So who knows really.