• Psychedelic Drugs Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting RulesBluelight Rules
    PD's Best Threads Index
    Social ThreadSupport Bluelight
    Psychedelic Beginner's FAQ

Miscellaneous LSD microdosing does not appear to improve mood or cognitive ability, according to new placebo-controlled study

T

The Shadow Self

Bluelighter
Joined
Feb 17, 2013
Messages
647
The Shadow Self said:
www.psypost.org

LSD microdosing does not appear to improve mood or cognitive ability, according to new placebo-controlled study

A new randomized controlled study of LSD microdosing has failed to find evidence that the psychedelic practice results in improvements to mood or cognition.
www.psypost.org

A link to the study.

For whatever it's worth.
Click to expand...

Note that it seems they took the “tests” while under the influence of the microdoses. Most say the benefits are seen in the days off. On top of that the benefits (if they are present) would not show in such a short time frame. It takes at least 2-3wks for neurogenesis from these doses to finally begin showing any signs of improved mood or cognition.

While I’m not a proponent of microdosing I still think this study is flawed.

-GC
 
Well, it certainly is the not alpha and omega of anything, nor should anyone expect it to be such. And for the record, coming from someone who has performed research, design and analysis for many years, there is no study that is without flaws.
But it has to begin somewhere...
 
It does, but I think they could of started a little closer if you know what I mean.. If they had even taken the 2 seconds to understand the likely mechanism behind the increased mood and cognition they would have known they were wasting their time with the model they used.

I’m also done giving leniency for the stupidity of researchers that then gets used to push agendas by even dumber individuals that can barely read let alone the abstract.

-GC
 
I hear you. There is also going to be a whole lot of red tape attached to such things, sadly enough. Overall, as long as there is forward progress happening I will take everything with a grain of salt, as I always do.
 
i'm not sure what special neurogenesis goes on after two weeks.
I have been of the opinion that a kind of neurogenesis is an ongoing thing anyway during memory formation as in making tiny connections.

but I am a persistent microdose user for over a decade (10-12ug lysergamide every 3rd day) and it invariably is a huge mood enhancer.
The in between days are fine but the micro dose day is better,
one out of 4 sessions for me is over 25ug, and one out of 20 sessions is ~50ug rarely higher than that
25 is usually strong for me, but the smaller dose does not interfere with anything except scheduling the next session.
 
Above they mention cognitive performance and emotional tasks, below they draw conclusions about psychomotor or emotional tasks. Rather odd. A lot can go wrong with measuring cognition, from conceptualization to the test's construct validity.. but apparently also sticking with what they wanted to do in the first place?

My mood wouldn't be enhanced either in a lab environment having to obey orders.
 
Does not remotely surprise me, although I'm glad that this study has been done, it's surely a good first step on a longer road. IMO, though -

“We removed any expectations that this was a psychedelic drug,” de Wit explained. “Because in the real world, people’s expectations can strongly influence their responses.”
Click to expand...
While this would be standard practice for practically anything else, I think in the context of microdosing psychedelics, this is actually a questionable methodology. Most people who embark upon microdosing regimes will not do so with no expectation that the drug they are taking is a psychedelic drug - quite the opposite in fact - so this approach is an immediate divergence from how microdosing is actually done in the real world.

I'm not certain of the solution, obviously placebo controls are important, and I commend those involved in this study for trying, but we all already know that no psychedelic is truly a miracle drug and the quantifiable benefits are obviously fairly murky even for macrodoses, although I believe there are more well quantified correlations observed in macrodose studies for therapeutic benefit of the aforementioned substances. I think a major problem is that our metrics for quantifying human consciousness are imperfect, and until we have figured out a better way to quantify consciousness (not just linear cognition, but "soft" qualities, I know "mood" has been attempted to be quantified in all sorts of ways but the word is so vague as to be almost useless) it's going to be difficult to measure the highly nuanced impact that microdosing may or may not have on any of these as yet undefined scales of properties of human consciousness.
 
Vastness said:
I think a major problem is that our metrics for quantifying human consciousness are imperfect, and until we have figured out a better way to quantify consciousness (not just linear cognition, but "soft" qualities, I know "mood" has been attempted to be quantified in all sorts of ways but the word is so vague as to be almost useless) it's going to be difficult to measure the highly nuanced impact that microdosing may or may not have on any of these as yet undefined scales of properties of human consciousness.
Click to expand...
That's been the problem since the beginning. How do you measure the psychological effects in a way that won't compromise the efficacy and stands up to accepted methodologies?
The biggest mistakes in psychedelic research have always happened when the results have been wide open for intepretation and could not stand up to scrutiny.
I think all the way up until the later research, the data although insightful in lots of ways, couldn't be held to expected standards.

Today the only way to really make progress with research (and get funding) has been to give up on the notion of explaining what cannot be explained in terms of our scientific language, and rely on current understanding on a biological level. Brain scans showing what areas of the brain psychedelics activate and deactivate and how that affects health have been the only ones to push the boundaries of psychedelic research. It's a shame because the promise of psychedelics in the beginning seemed to offer a door into exploring and quantifying parts of the human psyche we yet had thorough understanding of. The spiritual work has been amazing but also often undermined, as has lots of research that according to the dogma of current science has no place in science. So we are no better off in many ways. Materialistic science wins again!
 
imo_incolae said:
Today the only way to really make progress with research (and get funding) has been to give up on the notion of explaining what cannot be explained in terms of our scientific language, and rely on current understanding on a biological level. Brain scans showing what areas of the brain psychedelics activate and deactivate and how that affects health have been the only ones to push the boundaries of psychedelic research. It's a shame because the promise of psychedelics in the beginning seemed to offer a door into exploring and quantifying parts of the human psyche we yet had thorough understanding of. The spiritual work has been amazing but also often undermined, as has lots of research that according to the dogma of current science has no place in science. So we are no better off in many ways. Materialistic science wins again!
Click to expand...
I understand your viewpoint (I think) and I generally agree, but I say this as a believer in the utility of materialistic science - for the most part. The Scientific Method I believe can overcome the limitations of materialism, although it will take time. Materialist approaches, I believe, are, have been, will continue to be, very useful modes of thought when we are attempting to examine the immaterial. This sounds contradictory - but I contest that it is not. Material is a first order layer, and conceptual confinement that it is critically important to define as a fundamental element of our seemingly shared reality. Our insight and mastery (Large Hadron Collider, Higgs bosons, deep spectral analysis of primordial "light") of the material world as a species is - tautologically - unprecedented,

Having laid this foundation (in the context of the topic at hand - small doses to alter brain chemistry, ergo, material impact on immaterial metrics - snap, damn, I do apologise, I am drunk - what am I even saying here? :ROFLMAO:)

Right - given that material reality is quantifiably the most potent source of truth that I, an incarnate conscious being within this reality can identify - in my mind, this is still the best route to figuring out what reality actually is. Materialism fails only because right now, at this instant on the static time crystal of eternity (if such a thing exists, I'm basically referencing myself here) immateriality is just entirely outside the scope. But, it will not always be so.

It occurs to me that, bluntly, the main issue with materialism is that immaterial things are the fabric of our shared existence. Each of us lives within an immaterial reflection of the material substrate of the reality that we think that we know - but really, we don't. But we can. Immaterial events and objects - of which the latter linguistic class can easily englobe the former - are the first order layer of our lived reality, which is to say, of course, in maybe simpler language - we all live only inside our minds. But we are capable of probing the bounds of the substrate within which we find ourselves. The material is a logical starting point. But the immaterial is not really immaterial, we just do not understand how to conceptualise the parallel substrata. This, itself, of course - is a limitation that is built in to the substrate of our own consciousness - there is the "real world"... and then there is the mind.

The most disastrous iteration of materialism is the one that ignores the unavoidable fact that the immaterial mind is the theatre that hosts the worlds. But - this is understandable, because this is how our reality is built. If we are to find truth - we must continue to hammer at the anvil of the material world until it breaks, and exposes the irrefutable reality of what lies beyond.

Man... as I say, I'm slightly drunk, apologies that this is maybe veering a liiitle off-topic. But I think that I've made sense. :sneaky:
 
I don't believe in microdose if it is a dose that cannot be felt. I think the acute mental effect is inseparable from the longer term mental health gain.

However, i believe in low doses, perhaps exploring the threshold, perhaps learning to feel more subtle things.
 
@Vastness
AI processing promises a new method to map consciousness, by making sense out of the many neurological connections we ordinarily can't keep track of. That way you get new "soft" qualities, sometimes yet unnamed, but rooted into the objectivity of brain scans.

It primarily highlights why the common approach to go seek for what we've named things in the neuronal cosmic forest has been relatively unsuccessful, in other words why the mapping of culture on neurotopology makes for such a caricature of the most interconnected object in the known Universe. But such success of material science could eventually trickle up into a new psychology in a way undoubtedly providing a deeper insight into the psychedelic experience, as the various levels of magnification which it modulates gets bridged.

Note that this still would give a very incomplete picture of the mind because there are still levels of complexity below what current brain scans measure. You'd have to keep track of all the qubits of the modulo-space cellular automata inside each microtubule within each neuron, assuming that can be done without violating any law of quantum physics in the first place. Indeed, here lies the level where the old concept of matter breaks down, which you rightfully point out.
 
Vastness said:
I understand your viewpoint (I think) and I generally agree, but I say this as a believer in the utility of materialistic science - for the most part. The Scientific Method I believe can overcome the limitations of materialism, although it will take time. Materialist approaches, I believe, are, have been, will continue to be, very useful modes of thought when we are attempting to examine the immaterial. This sounds contradictory - but I contest that it is not. Material is a first order layer, and conceptual confinement that it is critically important to define as a fundamental element of our seemingly shared reality. Our insight and mastery (Large Hadron Collider, Higgs bosons, deep spectral analysis of primordial "light") of the material world as a species is - tautologically - unprecedented,

Having laid this foundation (in the context of the topic at hand - small doses to alter brain chemistry, ergo, material impact on immaterial metrics - snap, damn, I do apologise, I am drunk - what am I even saying here? :ROFLMAO:)

Right - given that material reality is quantifiably the most potent source of truth that I, an incarnate conscious being within this reality can identify - in my mind, this is still the best route to figuring out what reality actually is. Materialism fails only because right now, at this instant on the static time crystal of eternity (if such a thing exists, I'm basically referencing myself here) immateriality is just entirely outside the scope. But, it will not always be so.

It occurs to me that, bluntly, the main issue with materialism is that immaterial things are the fabric of our shared existence. Each of us lives within an immaterial reflection of the material substrate of the reality that we think that we know - but really, we don't. But we can. Immaterial events and objects - of which the latter linguistic class can easily englobe the former - are the first order layer of our lived reality, which is to say, of course, in maybe simpler language - we all live only inside our minds. But we are capable of probing the bounds of the substrate within which we find ourselves. The material is a logical starting point. But the immaterial is not really immaterial, we just do not understand how to conceptualise the parallel substrata. This, itself, of course - is a limitation that is built in to the substrate of our own consciousness - there is the "real world"... and then there is the mind.

The most disastrous iteration of materialism is the one that ignores the unavoidable fact that the immaterial mind is the theatre that hosts the worlds. But - this is understandable, because this is how our reality is built. If we are to find truth - we must continue to hammer at the anvil of the material world until it breaks, and exposes the irrefutable reality of what lies beyond.

Man... as I say, I'm slightly drunk, apologies that this is maybe veering a liiitle off-topic. But I think that I've made sense. :sneaky:
Click to expand...
You believe we can benefit from materialistic approaches. After all, fundamentally material is at the center of our existence. What you find challenging is the parts of our existence we cannot explain and we bound to the limits of our consciousness to explain it. And that a big failing in materialism is the ability to acknowledge other parts of our existence we cannot explain this way but we must keep moving forward until we go beyond material.

Do you think we will go beyond material if we continue attempting to explain what isn't material through materialistic means?
It does make sense. Sometimes in life you have to keep doing something that might sound absurd or impossible in order to go beyond perceived limitations. Reaching an elite level in a sport is one example. The limits are always being pushed proving each time the limits were not actually the limits and there exists potential beyond.

I'm not an advocate for microdosing as much as I am psychedelic therapy. It's not just the research which throws doubt on whether they actually work as intended, it's also whether the effects are really present at such doses to even illicit an ideal response in the individual. At this stage you are verging on placebo effects and if you are, well, you can achieve this level of transformation without taking a drug. You could keep swallowing inert pills everyday and get the same results. I think we should be careful not to be too overly ambitious about the potential benefits of psychedelics hoping no matter what we do with them they will still provide benefits. They are not a panacea. I do get the promise of microdosing though. What's not to like about the idea of taking something which only 100ug or so above a microdose (which is not even a pin prick) would transform consciousness and 200ug above would send you off into other realities while taking it at such a low dose does nothing of the kind.

This is my theory. Microdoses are a way to popularize psychedelics among the non-psychedelic population. Its fairly ingenious really. How do you get a load of investors onboard to show an interest in psychedelics without the fraught experience of a powerful trip? How do you normalize psychedelics? You give them a microdose. They believe they are part of the psychedelic club. Most will probably not have prior experience nor will probably ever take a psychedelic dose and most will come conditioned to assume the worst about the drugs but their defense is "What? Its a microdose!". Problem solved. What was all the fuss about in the first place they think. There's no "harm" at this dose which then leads on to there's no harm at all. Opinions are rewritten.

The money trickles in, the articles are written, the research is conducted (albeit in reality with controversial inconclusive results) but nonetheless, the audience is there. You now have a growing population using psychedelics in a non-medical setting without the need to prescribe the drugs through normal protocol from the comfort of their own homes.

I don't think the intention really is to make microdosing a real medicinal solution. How would you regulate that? The distinction between a bag of mushrooms and a few sprinkles and this in certain parts of the country or world where different laws apply? A few sprinkles over being recreational use in some cases a few miles down the road? What about the logistics involved? And the cost/benefit ratio? I think it was always supposed to be a homegrown solution that was never meant to reach regulators with approval but, it does put psychedelics on the map and lightens the world for stigma and persecution when people are normalizing their use without professing the benefits of a Terence McKenna silent darkness experience.

I just don't see the benefit. The benefit was and still is in their original application. Wishful thinking or just floating the boat out to see whether it takes on aside, stretching out the goal posts isn't needed. The pure scientific pursuit of making psychedelics and their deeply transformative experiences legally prescribed medicine for the ailments known to best respond to them is more important. And by then, when the research is successful, you won't need to tiptoe around suggesting halfbaked ideas for their use when the therapeutic and scientific groundwork will be already laid.

Besides, makes much more sense taking 100-150ug of legit acid every week, or 1-2g of good mushrooms once a week and pushing the boat out (given the set and setting) and get as close to a reset as you can get without crossing over into the void. That way you're not going overboard (if the messaging is how to take psychedelics without tripping hard and still get benefits) but you hit the reset button every week ready for the week following. In, get your feet wet, out. Ready for the world again.
 
Change your thinking and you change your world and experience of life. I don't believe there is a magical chemical with daily doses that will do this. imho its not the chemical, but the cognitive doors and windows it has the possibility to open. Then you have to run with it.. but you can run into and against a tech midevel time.

alter your thinking and it alters your perception which automatically changes your experience.

I dose almost exclusively on mushroom chocolates these days.. 3 to 4 times a year... but I sure let lose on the L if its right.
 
Last edited:
I find that microdosing depends on several factors.
For example, someone who has had strong experiences with psychedelics is probably more sensitive/receptive to low doses.

In Gabon, it's said that a high dose (flood) of iboga is given to "open the head" of the person, then he can take "booster" doses during his life, but much lighter. This corresponds well to my experience: a strong experience with cactus (San Pedro) has definitely changed the effects of cannabis for me (more psychedelics), then a very difficult experience with ayahuasca, made me very sensitive to any psychotropic product, even more than 10 years later...
 
in my opinion,

if it affects anything, possitively (even subjectively), and it doesn't make you clearly worse in others, like cognition.... then is a WIN.

maybe I'm too simpleton on this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top