Skip to main content

Danilo Díaz Granados read: Rare Systematic Study Of The Effects Of Microdosing Psychedlics Finds Benefits, But Not Of The Kind That Users Most Expect

GettyImages-967113414.jpgBy Christian Jarrett

What if you could take a psychedelic drug regularly in such tiny quantities that the immediate effects were not discernible, yet over time it led to a range of psychological benefits, especially enhanced focus and heightened creativity? That’s the principle behind “microdosing” – a controversial technique that’s exploded in popularity ever since the publication of a 2011 book The Psychedelic Explorers Guide and a 2015 Rolling Stone article titled How LSD Microdosing Became The Hot New Business Trip. Large online communities of microdosing enthusiasts have since emerged on sites like Reddit, where dosing tips are shared and the supposed manifold benefits of the practice are espoused.

However, actual scientific investigations into the effects of microdosing can be counted on one hand. Earlier this year, PLOS One published one of the few systematic investigations ever conducted into the practice, by Vince Polito and Richard Stevenson at Macquarie University. Though exploratory and tentative (there was no placebo control or randomisation in this research), the results suggest that microdosing can be beneficial, although not in the ways that users most expect, and not necessarily for everyone.

The researchers recruited hundreds of volunteers from Reddit.com/r/microdosing and other online psychedelic groups (people with mental health problems were asked not to take part). The participants completed a comprehensive battery of questionnaires at baseline tapping nine domains of functioning including personality, mental health and wellbeing; then for six weeks they reported daily any microdosing they’d engaged in the previous day, and provided brief daily ratings (of how they’d felt the previous day) regarding various psychological measures. Finally, at the study end, they completed the same battery of tests as at baseline.

Sufficiently complete data was obtained from 63 mentally well participants who, during the study, engaged in microdosing of a serotonergic psychedelic (a substance, most commonly LSD or magic mushrooms/psilocybin, that acts on the functioning of the brain chemical serotonin).

In terms of the daily ratings, on days that participants had microdosed, they scored higher than usual across all the measures: connectedness, contemplation, creativity, focus, happiness, productiveness, and wellbeing. However, only focus and productivity showed slight, sustained increases on the drug-free days that followed microdosing. “The pattern of results here is somewhat inconsistent with narrative accounts that claim that the effects of microdosing linger for multiple days,” the researchers said.

On most of the more in-depth battery of measures taken at the study start and end, participants did not show any change. However, they did display reductions in stress, depression and mind-wandering, alongside greater absorption (experiencing intense imaginative experiences and “peak-like altered states of consciousness”). A final change that surprised the researchers was a slight increase in trait neuroticism (i.e. greater emotional instability), which they speculated may have been due to an overall increase in emotional intensity, positive and negative.

That last finding regarding increased neuroticism was reflected in some of the participants’ open-ended descriptions at the study debrief: “…another negative is that all emotions get amplified. So whenever I feel down or not loved the microdose makes it even harder,” wrote one volunteer.

A major drawback of a study such as this, in which participants knew which substance they had taken and there was no placebo group, is that the reported effects may simply have been a result of participants’ expectations or their imagination. To gain insight into this possibility, the researchers conducted a second study with hundreds more participants from online microdosing communities, and this time asked them to say how they thought they would change on the same various psychological measures used in the first study, if they were to microdose for six weeks.

In contrast with the first study’s results, these participants predicted that after six weeks microdosing they would change on all the psychological measures. Although most of their predictions were for change in the same direction as the limited changes that were actually observed in the first study, these participants’ strongest predictions were for increases in creativity, wellbeing and mindfulness (in line with the positive media coverage of microdosing and generally positive chat in online forums), but in fact none of these variables increased over the course of the first study. Also, these participants predicted that neuroticism would decrease, when it actually increased.

The fact that the predictions of participants in the second study did not match the actual reported experiences of those in the first, argues against the experiences of the first group of participants being driven purely by their expectations and hopes. The mostly positive effects reported also chime with the findings from more controlled research of larger doses of psychedelics, which have mostly been positive. However, the researchers also noted that they did not observe a dose-response effect in the first study (there was no correlation between the doses the participants reported taking and the psychological effects), which is surprising, and “is a reason to interpret these findings cautiously,” they said.

Overall, Polito and Stevenson said their tentative findings suggested several “disconnects” between media coverage and anecdotal chat around the effects of microdosing and actual experiences of microdosers as recorded systematically in this research. In particular, effects mostly did not seem to linger on non-dosing days, and the main changes over the course of the study were not in productivity and creativity as is commonly claimed, but “mainly involved reduced mental distress and changes in constructs such as absorption and mind wandering that are not as commonly discussed”.

The researchers said that their “most surprising” finding was the observed increase in neuroticism, especially considered in light of the handful of open-ended descriptions of negative experiences. “In a context of considerable hype around the practice of microdosing, particularly with regards to its potential as a business tool, it is important to acknowledge that microdosing may not be universally beneficial,” the researchers said.

A systematic study of microdosing psychedelics

Christian Jarrett (@Psych_Writer) is Editor of BPS Research Digest



View Source

Popular posts from this blog

Danilo Díaz Granados read: “Skunk” Cannabis Disrupts Brain Networks – But Effects Are Blocked In Other Strains

By Matthew Warren Over the past decade, neuroimaging studies have provided new insights into how psychoactive drugs alter the brain’s activity. Psilocybin – the active ingredient in magic mushrooms – has been found to reduce activity in brain regions involved in depression , for example, while MDMA seems to augment brain activity for positive memories . Now a new study sheds some light into what’s going in the brain when people smoke cannabis – and it turns out that the effects can be quite different depending on the specific strain of the drug. The research, published recently in the Journal of Psychopharmacology , suggests that cannabis disrupts particular brain networks  – but some strains can buffer against this disruption. Cannabis contains two major active ingredients: tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD). THC is responsible for many of the drug’s psychoactive effects, such as the feeling of being stoned and the anxiety that people sometimes feel, as well as ...

Danilo Díaz Granados read: Beyond the invisible gorilla – inattention can also render us numb and anosmic (without smell)

By Emma Young It’s well-known that we can miss apparently obvious objects in our visual field if other events are hogging our limited attention. The same has been shown for sounds: in a nod to Daniel Simons’ and Christopher Chabris’ famous gorilla/basketball study that demonstrated “inattentional blindness”, distracted participants in the first “inattentional deafness” study failed to hear a man walking through an auditory scene for 19 seconds saying repeatedly “I am a gorilla”. Now, two new studies separately show that a very similar effect occurs in relation to touch ( inattentional numbness ) and to smell   ( inattentional anosmia ).   Sandra Murphy and Polly Dalton (a co-author on the inattentional deafness paper) at Royal Holloway, University of London report in the journal Cognition on inattentional numbness. They wanted to go beyond the way we rapidly tune out ongoing tactile stimulation, like the sensation of our clothes, and explore what happens when we’re tou...

Danilo Díaz Granados read: A New Study Has Investigated Who Watched The ISIS Beheading Videos, Why, And What Effect It Had On Them

By Emma Young In the summer of 2014, two videos were released that shocked the world. They showed the beheadings, by ISIS, of two American journalists – first, James Foley and then Steven Sotloff. Though the videos were widely discussed on TV, print and online news, most outlets did not show the full footage. However, it was not difficult to find links to the videos online. At the time, Sarah Redmond at the University of California, Irvine and her colleagues were already a year into a longitudinal study to assess psychological responses to the Boston Marathon Bombing, which happened in April 2013. They realised that they could use the same nationally representative sample of US adults to investigate what kind of person chooses to watch an ISIS beheading – and why. Their findings now appear in a paper published in American Psychologist .   By late spring 2013, the researchers had recruited 4,675 adults online, and assessed their mental health, TV-watching habits, demographics,...