Microdosing with psilocybin mushrooms: a double-blind placebo-controlled study
1–10 of 303 posts
Re: Microdosing with psilocybin mushrooms: a double-blind placebo-controlled study
#2The TL;DR essence from the abstract:
> The reported acute effects were significantly more intense for the active dose compared to the placebo, but only for participants who correctly identified their experimental condition. [...] For all other measurements there was no effect of microdosing except for few small changes towards cognitive impairment. According to our findings, low doses of psilocybin mushrooms can result in noticeable subjective effects and altered EEG rhythms, but without evidence to support enhanced well-being, creativity and cognitive function. We conclude that expectation underlies at least some of the anecdotal benefits attributed to microdosing with psilocybin mushrooms.
Re: Microdosing with psilocybin mushrooms: a double-blind placebo-controlled study
#3(It's strange that we're using the term microdose, even in scientific contexts - prefixes have meanings - it should be called a decidose.)
Anecdotally, I've had a degree of short term success treating my depression with smallish doses of mushrooms, but I've never had the continuing access required for a microdosing regiment.
It'd be nice if the government were willing to come to the table on this, but alas.
That said, every time that I've had a months long lift, it hasn't been a small dose, but an epic dose that often cast me into a night of turmoil.
(Which would make the rigours of double-blind testing completely ineffectual.)
Re: Microdosing with psilocybin mushrooms: a double-blind placebo-controlled study
#4The N of this study is 34, but it’s probably multiple observation. How do you calculate power in this case? Is it just based off N, in which case, seems low…
Re: Microdosing with psilocybin mushrooms: a double-blind placebo-controlled study
#5Maybe the trendy hallucinogenic microdosers should try microdosing food, water, air, speech and constantly being the center of attention. It just isn't interesting giving credibility to a new ignorant generation rediscovering what was known in some cases 60-80 years earlier, in some cases thousands of years earlier. Rediscovery is not interesting. It is embarassing.
Re: Microdosing with psilocybin mushrooms: a double-blind placebo-controlled study
#6(It's strange that we're using the term microdose, even in scientific contexts - prefixes have meanings - it should be called a decidose.) Anecdotally, I've had a degree of short term success treating my depression with smallish doses of mushrooms, but I've never had the continuing access required for a microdosing regiment. It'd be nice if the government were willing to come to the table on this, but alas. That said…
> It's strange that we're using the term microdose, even in scientific contexts - prefixes have meanings - it should be called a decidose.
Not really - its from the Greek for small, rather than a SI prefix in this context. If the suffix were quantitative then you might have a case, but we talk quite happily about microphones and microscopes. Microdose is useful because it is not conditional on a particular regular dose size, we just know it is much lower than usual.
Re: Microdosing with psilocybin mushrooms: a double-blind placebo-controlled study
#7Maybe the trendy hallucinogenic microdosers should try microdosing food, water, air, speech and constantly being the center of attention. It just isn't interesting giving credibility to a new ignorant generation rediscovering what was known in some cases 60-80 years earlier, in some cases thousands of years earlier. Rediscovery is not interesting. It is embarassing.
embarassing for whom?
Re: Microdosing with psilocybin mushrooms: a double-blind placebo-controlled study
#8The N of this study is 34, but it’s probably multiple observation. How do you calculate power in this case? Is it just based off N, in which case, seems low…
Power analyses for repeated measures designs are usually done with Monte Carlo simulations: you generate fake but plausible data sets with a hypothesized effect size, then analyze these data sets and count how often the effect is detected.
I agree that N=34 seems low. The effect would have to be quite large to be detected and there may be a risk of Type M (magnitude overestimated) and Type S (incorrect sign) errors. The results should therefore be interpreted in the light of a power analysis.
Re: Microdosing with psilocybin mushrooms: a double-blind placebo-controlled study
#9(It's strange that we're using the term microdose, even in scientific contexts - prefixes have meanings - it should be called a decidose.) Anecdotally, I've had a degree of short term success treating my depression with smallish doses of mushrooms, but I've never had the continuing access required for a microdosing regiment. It'd be nice if the government were willing to come to the table on this, but alas. That said…
> It's strange that we're using the term microdose, even in scientific contexts - prefixes have meanings - it should be called a decidose. Not really - its from the Greek for small, rather than a SI prefix in this context. If the suffix were quantitative then you might have a case, but we talk quite happily about microphones and microscopes. Microdose is useful because it is not conditional on a particular regular do…
What is the difference between "Low Dose" and "Microdose" though? I have heard the specific term Low Dose before.
Re: Microdosing with psilocybin mushrooms: a double-blind placebo-controlled study
#10I see the appeal of microdosing, but to me it renders similar to the kick you might get out of rebelliously sipping a pocket-flask at work. You get the mental boost of "letting loose" while impaired just below the radar.