111–120 of 303 posts
The quantity was anything but microdoses though. Each time I had them the amount ranged from 6x to 10x individual dried caps (over a period of 4-5 hours each time).
I'm not sure about its impact on my creativity though, but it sure did not impact negatively.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Also, 1 microbe is 1/1000000 of be.
Whilst I'd generally hate for a 1 meter bee to exist, it might be worth it just for the nerd joke.
So purely factually, a microbe is only 1/10000th of a bee
In studies such as these with huge intersubject variability, and probably also quite large intrasubject variability from day to day on many scales, it makes sense to look at change from baseline for individuals in the various groups rather than just differences in raw scores between treatment groups. It seems by a cursory glance that most analyses done were of the latter kind, and I think then a study such as this, w…
- Assume that a microdose either improves an outcome, or does nothing. Then, averaged over a large group, such random improvements would lift the group's outcome a little. It's a microdose worth taking.
- Assume that a microdose can both improve and worsen the outcome, or have no effect. If the experimental group's averaged results are indistinguishable from the control group's averaged results, it means that the microdose worsens the outcome about as often and / or as much as it improves it. This, to me. means that a microdose is a gamble not worth taking.
There is, of course, a difference between a microdose having no effect at all, or having an effect which can be either positive or negative. This difference is important for further research. For usage here and now, it's sadly irrelevant.
If a microdose only works when the person taking it knows it works, then it's basically the placebo effect. A good placebo can be useful, at least for commercial purposes.
(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…
In reality, in Ancient Greek the opposite of "micro" was "mega", i.e. "big" (so megameter vs. micrometer was a correct addition to the metric system in 1873, like also the name Micromegas, which was coined by Voltaire in one of his novellas), while "macro" meant "long", not "big".
("macro" is cognate with words from other European languages which mean slim/slender/thin/lean, only in Ancient Greek its meaning has shifted from "slim" to "long", replacing the older word for "long", "dolicho").
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a daily Kratom user, I would not recommend using Kratom for something like depression. You're treating the symptomps at best while cultivating addiction.
Yeah, always best to not fuck around with chemicals that bind to gabba receptors (alcohol, benzodiazepine, kratom). It will give you a hell of a withdrawal if you take high doses. This is why there are alcoholics.
(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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uh, so you took a break from your ADHD medication to microdose? And you claim it is the microdose that made you less productive? I posit you need to take a microdose with your normal ADHD medication, otherwise the anecdote is meaningless even as a personal reference.
Quoted post unavailable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does "if it works for you" also go for things like aspirin, antihistamines, antihypertensives, antibiotics, etc? I've never heard anyone say "if aspirin works for you then take it, but it doesn't work for me". I've only heard this kind of thing said for things like homeopathy, astrology, accupuncture, osteopathy, and microdosing, of course. Hence, I'm very skeptical. [Edit: OK, I've heard people say that aspirin does…
psychoactive drugs are a whole different category. You bring your whole mental baggage with you when you take them, unlike aspirin.
Also, just to be clear, I don't think you're saying that you have to be in a special frame of mind for psychoactive drugs to make a difference. For example, I've been told that homeopathy doesn't work for me because I "don't believe in it", but I'm pretty sure that a sufficient dose of psilocybin would get me just as high as anyone else (modulo tolerance), belief or no belief.