How Long Should I Wait to Microdose Again

• Journal List
• Int J Neuropsychopharmacol
• v.22(7); 2019 Jul
• PMC6600464

Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2019 Jul; 22(7): 426–434.

Motives and Side-Effects of Microdosing With Psychedelics Among Users

Nadia R P Due west Hutten

Department of Neuropsychology & Psychopharmacology, Faculty of Psychology & Neuroscience, Maastricht Academy, The Netherlands

Natasha Fifty Stonemason

Department of Neuropsychology & Psychopharmacology, Faculty of Psychology & Neuroscience, Maastricht University, The netherlands

Patrick C Dolder

Section of Neuropsychology & Psychopharmacology, Faculty of Psychology & Neuroscience, Maastricht Academy, Holland

Kim P C Kuypers

Department of Neuropsychology & Psychopharmacology, Faculty of Psychology & Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Kingdom of the netherlands

Received 2019 Mar 1; Revised 2019 May twenty; Accepted 2019 Jun 5.

Abstruse

Background

Microdosing with psychedelics has gained considerable media attention where it is portrayed as a performance enhancer, especially popular on the work floor. While reports are in general positive, scientific bear witness about potential negative effects is defective aside from the prevalence and motives for employ. The present written report addressed this gap by surveying psychedelic users about their experience with microdosing including their dosing schedule, motivation, and potential experienced negative effects.

Methods

An online questionnaire was launched on several websites and fora between March and July 2018. Respondents who had consented, were 18 years of age or older, and had experience with microdosing were included in the analyses.

Results

In full, 1116 of the respondents were either currently microdosing (79.5%) or microdosed in the past (20.5%). Lysergic acid diethylamide (10 mcg) and psilocybin (0.5 g) were the most unremarkably used psychedelics with a microdosing frequency between ii and 4 times per week. The bulk of users, even so, were oblivious virtually the consumed dose. Functioning enhancement was the primary motive to microdose (37%). The most reported negative furnishings were of psychological nature and occurred acutely while under the influence.

Determination

In line with media reports and anecdotes, the majority of our respondents microdosed to enhance performance. Negative furnishings occurred more often than not acutely after substance consumption. Even so, the main reason to take stopped microdosing was that information technology was not effective. Future experimental placebo-controlled studies are needed to exam whether operation enhancement can be quantified and to assess potential negative effects after longer term microdosing.

Keywords: psychedelics, microdose, motives, side-effects

Significance Statement

Microdosing with psychedelics, the practice of taking a low dose of a psychedelic every couple of days, seems to exist an increasing tendency among science, engineering, engineering, and mathematics professionals. Multiple anecdotal reports propose performance enhancing effects; withal, these positive reports may overshadow potential negative experiences. The present study aimed to assess motives to microdose and potential negative furnishings. Findings prove that the majority of the respondents indeed microdose to raise performance. Just one-fifth experienced negative effects of which most occurred acutely after consumption of the substance. Negative furnishings were not a reason to terminate microdosing whereas absenteeism of self-rated efficacy was.

Introduction

Recently microdosing, the exercise of repeatedly using low doses of psychedelics like lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) and psilocybin, has gained considerable media attention, where information technology is portrayed as a performance enhancing activity (Glatter, 2015; Solon, 2016; Dean, 2017; Fadiman, 2017; Reddit, 2018; thethirdwave, 2018; Tomaszewski, 2018). In contrast to a regular dose that is characterized by perceptual changes and hallucinations, a microdose past definition does not induce perceptual alterations (Greiner et al., 1958; Vollenweider and Kometer, 2010; Liechti, 2017; thethirdwave, 2018; Yanakieva et al., 2018; K.P.C. Kuypers et al., unpublished observations). The virtually widely suggested do is taking one-tenth of a regular, recreational dose of a psychedelic once every 3 days (Fadiman, 2011; thethirdwave, 2018). At that place is some early research on using low doses of psychedelics (for review, see Passie, 2019); however, the exact dose along with the skilful dosing schedule people apply today is non known.

Anecdotal reports suggest that microdosing is fairly prevalent, peculiarly in a work environment, with an increasing trend in Silicon Valley among young scientific discipline, technology, applied science, and mathematics professionals and a spread to other work places and countries (Glatter, 2015; Morrison and Woords, 2016; Solon, 2016; Dean, 2017; Sahakian et al., 2018; Tomaszewski, 2018). The Global Drug Survey 2018 (GDS2018) reported that last year's prevalence of LSD microdosing among their respondents was 28.6% (Winstock et al., 2018). Notwithstanding, scientific data on the prevalence of microdosing with psychedelics other than LSD as well as the prevalence of microdosing in the piece of work environment are lacking.

The most frequently reported motives and effects of microdosing are stimulating productivity, for example, increasing focus, energy levels, and creativity and inducing positive mood (Johnstad, 2018; Prochazkova et al., 2018; Winstock et al., 2018; Polito and Stevenson, 2019). Withal, the first modern placebo-controlled study reported no meaning changes in subjective levels of mental focus when comparison the astute effects of 3 dissimilar single microdoses of LSD with a placebo (Yanakieva et al., 2018). Another ordinarily reported motivation and subsequent outcome is the alleviation of psychological symptoms including depressive mood and anxiety and/or physiological symptoms such as pain (Smith, 2017; Wong, 2017; Johnstad, 2018; Waldman, 2018), though it has not been scientifically tested whether microdoses are effective in combatting diseases. While the latter is beyond the telescopic of this paper, the electric current study aimed to provide a detailed insight into individuals' motivations to microdose.

Despite the media's focus on the positive effects of microdosing, users besides report negative psychological and physiological effects, such as feet and migraines (Fadiman, 2017; Johnstad, 2018). Recently a preclinical written report suggested increased feet behavior in rats later on subchronic intermittent administration of low doses of psilocybin and ketamine, a dissociative agent (Horsley et al., 2018). These findings support the anecdotal reports of symptom intensification in users (Fadiman, 2017). In line with this, an observational study in humans showed an increase in the personality trait neuroticism; a mood trait associated with feelings of anxiety, fear, and frustration, after a period of 6 weeks of microdosing with serotonergic psychedelics (Polito and Stevenson, 2019). In addition, unwanted "trips" were mentioned when using higher doses than intended, along with tolerance to the desired effects after daily use (Fadiman, 2017; Johnstad, 2018). Taken together, these reports and findings advise that negative effects tin can occur simply may exist underrepresented compared with positive effects.

In summary, the aim of the present study was to examine via an online questionnaire the lifetime history of psychedelic use, microdosing exercise and dose, motives, and the prevalence rate of negative effects in a sample of psychedelic users.

Methods

Design

An online questionnaire was advertised to psychedelic users on several (psychedelic) websites and fora between March and July 2018. The questionnaire was not targeted to microdosers; moreover, "microdosing" was not mentioned in the advertizement. To be eligible to complete the survey, respondents had to be ≥xviii years and have had experience with a psychedelic substance. Later having read the study information and having had the opportunity to ask questions about the study, respondents gave their informed consent to continue with the survey. Ethics approval was received from the Ethics Review Committee of Psychology and Neuroscience (ERCPN-177_06_03_2017). Qualtrics was used as the platform to create the survey.

Questionnaires

Demographic Information

Demographic details included age, gender, continent of origin, daily occupation, and the highest level of didactics. Daily occupation consisted of 6 pre-fix options respondents could cull from; learning/studying, physical work, estimator/office work, working with people, travelling, and artistic piece of work. The level of teaching was separated into 3 main categories; primary (elementary), secondary (high school, academies, gymnasium, etc.), and tertiary education (university, trade school, higher). Furthermore, respondents were asked whether they were diagnosed with a psychiatric, neurological, or physical disorder by a medical doc or therapist.

Psychedelic Substance Employ History

Respondents were asked whether they have had a total psychedelic experience (regular dose) with LSD, 1P-LSD, ALD-52/1A-LSD, psilocybin, ayahuasca, DMT, 5-MeO-DMT, Salvinorin A, Mescaline, three,four,-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)/Ecstasy, N-benzyl Methoxy (NBOMe)s, 2Cs, or any other psychedelic drug. Note: The psychedelic substance psilocybin mentioned throughout this paper refers to psilocybin-containing truffles or mushrooms. If respondents indicated that they have used regular doses of the substance, they were further asked nigh their apply, including whether they currently use the substance or used in it the past and do non intend to use it over again, as well as the average corporeality used. In case the respondent did not know the average dose of the substance s/he used, information technology was suggested to fill up in "999," which signaled this lack of cognition.

In add-on, respondents were asked whether they take microdosed with the listed psychedelic substances, followed by the same questions. Two further microdosing-specific questions were asked, namely the route of administration and the frequency of apply. In addition, respondents were asked to betoken where they constitute their microdosing schedule.

Motivation to Microdose

Respondents were asked to point the main reason they microdosed by choosing i of the 8 pre-set answers or they had the option to write a dissimilar reply in a text box. The answers were clustered afterwards into v master categories: performance enhancement (increase free energy, to report, increase concentration, enhance creativity), symptom consolation (psychiatric symptom alleviation and physiological symptom alleviation), mood enhancement, curiosity, and other. In addition, respondents were asked whether they microdosed to go to piece of work.

Motivation to Stop Using Psychedelics

When respondents indicated to have used a substance in a regular or microdose in the past and do non intend to utilize information technology once again, they were asked to betoken the reason why they stopped, with answer options including: negative experience, can no longer find the substance, used the substance for a purpose and no longer need it, lost involvement, change in lifestyle, and other. For microdosing an actress answer option, "non constructive," was added.

Negative Furnishings of Microdosing

Respondents were asked if they ever experienced any negative side furnishings while microdosing and, if yes, to signal the type of effect: physical, psychological, or both. Respondents were given examples for type of effect: for example, nausea, dizziness, tiredness every bit physical symptoms; and paranoia, anxiety, low every bit psychological symptoms, simply respondents did not have the option to specify this blazon of effect. In add-on, they were asked when this effect emerged: acutely, while nether the influence of the substance; sub-acutely during the days after the use; or both.

Statistical Analysis

Information were entered into the statistical program SPSS (version 24.0). Respondents who reported to have never microdosed were excluded from analyses. Respondent demographics were categorized into those who currently microdose and those who used to microdose. Frequencies were reported for age, gender, educational activity, continent of origin, daily occupation, psychiatric/neurological/physical diagnoses, and psychedelic use history. Mean (±SD) is given for age.

Outliers, defined as 3 SD away from the mean of the average amount used per psychedelic per route of assistants, were calculated using z-scores for regular doses and microdoses. This resulted in a full of eight and 17 outliers for regular doses and microdoses, respectively. Considering the wide range (min-max) in reported doses (Tables 2 and ​ three), mode is given for dose per psychedelic.

Tabular array 2.

Number (percentage) of respondents in the microdosing sample who indicated use of one of the listed substances in a regular dose, with the self-reported dose in mode and the percent of respondents who did non know the dose or failed to consummate this item

	Psychedelic users per substance	Regular dose details		Users who do not know the dose or did non fill up out this question
Substance	due north (%)	Corporeality, mg	Dose range, mg (min–max)	Practice not know, n (%)	Missing, n (%)
1P-LSD	200 (17.nine)	0.1	0.001–300	xx (10.0)	31 (15.5)
2Cs	281 (25.2)	twenty	0.03–500	78 (27.8)	71 (25.iii)
5-MeO-DMT	66 (5.9)	twenty	0.05–1,000	23 (34.8)	19 (28.viii)
ALD-52/1A-LSD	99 (8.9)	0.2	0.001–300	15 (15.ii)	20 (20.2)
Ayahuasca	113 (10.1)	50	25–60,000	74 (65.five)	28 (24.8)
DMT	398 (35.vii)	l	0.01–1,000	122 (thirty.7)	63 (xv.viii)
LSD	910 (81.5)	0.2	0.00025–1,500	218 (24.0)	75 (8.2)
MDMA/ecstasy	746 (66.eight)	100	0.1–800	181 (24.3)	161 (21.half-dozen)
Mescaline	187 (16.8)	400	one–30,000	76 (40.half dozen)	71 (38.0)
NBOMes	132 (11.8)	ane	0.02–1,000	44 (33.iii)	53 (40.2)
Other	350 (31.iv)	50	0.02–fifteen,000	71 (twenty.3)	228 (65.1)
Psilocybin	954 (85.5)	3500	0.05–3,000,000	236 (24.seven)	105 (11.0)
Salvinorin A	312 (28.0)	100	0.2–8,000	159 (51.0)	113 (36.ii)

Table 3.

Number (percentage) of respondents who indicated use of one of the listed substances as a microdose, with the self-reported dose in style and the percentage of respondents who did not know the dose or failed to consummate this item

	Psychedelic users per substance	Microdose details		Users who do non know the dose or did not fill out this question
Substance	northward (%)	Amount, mg	Dose range, mg (min–max)	Exercise not know, north (%)	Missing, due north (%)
1P-LSD	129 (11.half-dozen)	0.01	0.0005–75	nine (seven.0)	9 (seven.0)
2Cs	22 (2.0)	3–iv	0.75–25	3 (xiii.6)	3 (13.half dozen)
five-MeO-DMT	v (0.iv)	0.005	0.005–7	–	2 (40.0)
ALD-52/1A-LSD	41 (3.7)	0.01	0.0005–75	3 (7.3)	six (14.half-dozen)
Ayahuasca	15 (1.3)	14	14–500	10 (66.seven)	2 (xiii.3)
DMT	64 (5.7)	10	00.5–25	nineteen (29.7)	fifteen (23.4)
LSD	666 (59.7)	0.01	0.00001–500	113 (17.0)	sixty (nine.0)
MDMA/ecstasy	71 (half dozen.4)	50	0.02–100	18 (25.four)	21 (29.6)
Mescaline	26 (two.3)	fifty	0.3–1000	14 (53.8)	4 (15.iv)
NBOMes	9 (0.viii)	0.5–50	0.5–fifty	3 (33.3)	iv (44.4)
Other	60 (v.iv)	v	0.01–1000	15 (25.0)	24 (forty.0)
Psilocybin	645 (57.8)	500	0.025–8000	146 (22.half-dozen)	93 (fourteen.iv)
Salvinorin A	31 (2.8)	0.two	0.2–200	xvi (51.6)	x (32.iii)

Frequencies are reported for the route of assistants per psychedelic drug and mean (±SD) is given for frequency of use per week.

Motivation to microdose was assessed by summing the total amount of responses for each of the 5 master motivation categories. Responses that were reported in the "other" category were moved into one of the chief categories in case of a match; in case at that place was no fitting category, they remained in the "other" category. Furthermore, frequency is reported for respondents that microdosed to work, followed by the frequency of their daily occupation.

In addition, for those who indicated they stopped using at least i psychedelic substance, frequencies are reported separately for regular and microdoses. Furthermore, frequencies of past use reasons are reported. Chi-square tests of independence were calculated comparing the frequency of reasons to stop per dose (regular/micro).

In addition, frequencies of experienced negative side effects are reported for microdosing. Further chi-square tests of independence were calculated for the frequency of negative side-effects of microdosing, separated by current and by users.

Results

Demographic Information

In total, 3590 of 5681 respondents consented, were 18 years or older, and completed the questionnaire. Ii respondents (both aged 117 years old) were removed from further analyses due to untrustworthy answers, and 2472 respondents were removed from farther analyses considering they did not take any feel with microdosing, resulting in a full sample of 1116 (20%) respondents. It took respondents about xvi minutes to complete the questionnaire, depending on the number of substances a person had ever used before and whether they microdosed. The demographic details of the microdosers are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Demographic information of respondents divided in those who currently microdose and stopped microdosing

	Electric current microdosing (n = 887; 79.5%)	Stopped microdosing (n = 229; 20.5%)
Mean age (SD)	28.half-dozen (10.0)	27.4 (9.vii)
Due north (%)
Gender
Male person	747 (84.2)	198 (86.five)
Female	126 (14.2)	29 (12.vii)
Other	xiv (1.6)	2 (0.9)
Level of education
Primary	nine (1.0)	2 (0.nine)
Secondary	252 (28,4)	71 (31.0)
3rd	626 (seventy.half-dozen)	156 (68.i)
Continent of origin
Due north America	554 (62.five)	154 (67.2)
Europe	264 (29.8)	61 (26.vi)
Australia	34 (three.8)	8 (3.v)
Asia	13 (1.five)	4 (1.seven)
Southward America	16 (1.8)	1 (0.iv)
Africa	6 (0.seven)	ane (0.4)
Antarctica	–	–
Daily occupation
Learning/studying	283 (31.nine)	74 (32.3)
Physical work	116 (xiii.ane)	38 (16.6)
Computer/office piece of work	232 (26.2)	53 (23.1)
Working with people	138 (15.6)	36 (15.7)
Travelling	7 (0.8)	1 (0.four)
Artistic work	106 (12.0)	24 (x.5)
Missing	v (0.vi)	3 (1.iii)
Diagnosed	324 (36.5)	86 (37.six)

Psychedelic Substance Utilise History of Microdosers

Regular Doses of a Psychedelic

—All microdosers indicated feel with at least i regular dose (full psychedelic experience) of a psychedelic substance. Psychedelic substance utilize history details regarding a regular dose are presented in Table 2; it is shown that the 3 almost used substances in descending order were: psilocybin (n = 954; 85.five%), LSD (n = 910; 81.5%), and MDMA/ecstasy (n = 746; 66.eight%); the three to the lowest degree frequently used substances in ascending club are 5-MeO-DMT (n = 66; 5.nine%), ALD-52/1A-LSD (due north = 99; 8.9%), and ayahuasca (northward = 113; ten.1%).

Microdoses of a Psychedelic

—Microdose use history details are presented in Table iii. It is shown that the 3 most used substances for microdosing in descending guild were: LSD (n = 666; 59.vii%), psilocybin (n  = 645; 57.eight%), and 1P-LSD (north =129; xi.6%); the 3 to the lowest degree used substances in ascending gild were 5-MeO-DMT (n = five; 0.iv%), NBOMes (n = nine; 0.viii%), and ayahuasca (northward = 15; i.three%).

Almost i-half of the respondents who microdosed (n =546; 48.ix%) indicated that they designed their own microdosing schedule. Other respondents plant their schedule on the internet (n = 371; 33.2%), received from a friend (due north = 96; 8.half dozen%), read in a book (n = 38; 3.4%), via a retreat (n = xiii; one.2%), or via another way (north = 42; iii.8%) such as podcasts, a combination of resource, or a briefing. Some (n = x; <i%) indicated to not accept a microdosing schedule at all.

An overview of route of administration and frequency of utilize per psychedelic for microdosing is presented in Table 4, which shows that the frequency of microdosing ranges betwixt 2 and vii times per week, depending on the substance. For instance, 57% up to 78% of the respondents that microdosed with LSD and psilocybin reported to utilise microdosing several times per week, ranging between 2 and 4 times per week.

Table 4.

Number (percent) of respondents who indicated to (have) use(d) the listed psychedelic substance to microdose via the listed route of administration ^a and the corresponding frequency of apply (Hateful (SD), range

	Route of assistants, n (%)									Frequency of microdosing per week
Substance	Number of respondents who answered, n (%)	Oral	Sublingual	Inspiration	Intranasal	Ocular	Cutaneous	Rectal	Other	Number of respondents who answered N (%)	Frequency of dosing per week M (SD)	Range of dosing per week (min–max)
1P-LSD	120 (77.5)	71 (55.0)	28 (21.seven)	–	–	–	–	one (0.8)	–	76 (58.9)	2.13 (2.23)	0.001–14
2Cs	13 (59.i)	11 (50.0)	–	–	1 (iv.5)	–	–	1 (4.5)	–	ten (45.v)	2.89 (4.eleven)	0.ii–fourteen
5-MeO-DMT	2 (30.0)	1 (20.0)	–	–	–	–	–	1 (20.0)	–	two (twoscore.0)	7.5 (nine.19)	ane–14
ALD-52/ 1A-LSD	28 (68.3)	18 (43.9)	9 (22.0)	–	–	–	–	1 (2.4)	–	22 (53.vii)	2.23 (2.82)	0.005–14
Ayahuasca	7 (46.vii)	v (33.3)	–	ane (6.7)	–	–	–	1 (6.7)	–	half dozen (xl.0)	4.37 (5.16)	0.25–14
DMT	35 (54.7)	2 (iii.1)	–	32 (50.0)	–	–	–	ane (ane.6)	–	25 (39.ane)	two.26 (iii.17)	0.002–14
LSD	491 (73.7)	387 (58.1)	99 (14.9)	–	1 (0.2)	1 (0.2)	–	i (0.two)	ii (0.three)	384 (57.7)	2.02 (1.89)	0.0001–15
MDMA/ ecstasy	34 (47.9)	24 (33.8)	2 (2.viii)	–	7 (ix.9)	–	–	1 (ane.4)	–	19 (26.8)	2.08 (iii.46)	0.005–14
Mescaline	12 (46.2)	11 (42.3)	–	–	–	–	–	1 (three.8)	–	6 (23.1)	iii.46 (5.26)	0.25–fourteen
NBOMes	3 (33.3)	–	2 (22.2)	–	–	–	–	ane (eleven.1)	–	three (33.3)	v.67 (7.23)	1–14
Other	26 (43.3)	16 (26.seven)	–	6 (x.0)	2 (3.3)	–	1 (1.7)	i (1.vii)	–	21 (35.0)	6.78 (6.98)	0.5–30
Psilocybin	416 (64.5)	415 (64.3)	–	–	–	–	–	1 (0.two)	–	325 (78.3)	iii.74 (3.35)	0.001–30
Salvinorin A	15 (45.4)	3 (ix.seven)	2 (half dozen.5)	8 (25.8)	–	–	–	ane (3.ii)	1 (3.ii)	8 (25.8)	ii.63 (4.65)	0.01–14

Motivation to Microdose

The bulk of the respondents reported to have microdosed for functioning enhancement (north=409; 36.vi%). Other reasons were mood enhancement (n=325; 29.one), symptom relief (north=156; 14.0%), curiosity (northward=170; 15.2%), and other reasons such every bit enhancing empathy and spirituality (n=56; v.0%) (Figure 1). Almost one-half (n = 531; 47.6%) indicated to take microdosed to get to piece of work, of which the about frequent occurring daily occupation in descending society was studying (31.eight%) and computer/office work (29.9%), working with people (14.3%), creative piece of work (11.3%), physical work (xi.1%), and travelling (0.9%), whereas some did not fill up in their daily occupation (0.vi%).

Per centum of respondents who indicated their main motivation to microdose, presented per category (performance enhancement: black bars; symptom alleviation: night grey bars; mood enhancement: grey bar; curiosity: light gray bar; and other: white bar).

Reasons to Stop Using Psychedelics

Around one-fifth of all microdosers (n = 229; 20.v%) indicated to have stopped microdosing completely. 1-half of the respondents (n = 636; 57.0%) indicated to accept stopped using at least 1 psychedelic substance in regular doses, and around one-tertiary (n = 336; xxx.one%) indicated to have stopped microdosing with at to the lowest degree 1 psychedelic substance, of which the past utilise reasons are presented in Figure 2A.

A) Percentage of respondents who stopped using at to the lowest degree 1 psychedelic substance in a regular dose (white bar) or a microdose (black bar) depicted per reason. (B) Percent of respondents who experienced negative side effects and currently microdose (light gray bar) or who experience negative side effects and stopped microdosing (night grey bar) depicted per type result. (C) Per centum of respondents who experienced negative side effects and currently microdose (lite gray bar) or who experienced negative side effects and stopped microdosing (dark greyness bar) depicted per effect onset.

Separate chi-square tests of independence per reason to stop revealed a significant consequence of dose (regular/micro) on negative experiences (ten ² (ane) = 40.86, P < .01) and on the loss of interest in the substance (x ² (1) = 50.77, P < .01), indicating that negative experiences and loss of involvement were more frequently reported as a reason to accept stopped regular dosing compared with microdosing. No statistically pregnant differences were shown between types of dose (regular/micro) for the other past use reasons: can no longer find the substance (x ² (1) = 0.94, P = .33), used the substance for a purpose and no longer demand it (x ⁱⁱ (1) = 0.73, P = .39), change in lifestyle (x ^two (1) = 0.04, P = .85), and other (x ^two (one) = ane.47, P = .23).

Negative Furnishings of Microdosing

About i-fifth (due north = 225; 20.2%) of the responders that microdosed experienced negative effects. Both current and past microdosers reported to have experienced psychological side effects, which in general occurred acutely, that is, while under the influence of the substance. A chi-square exam of independence revealed that the co-occurrence of psychological and physical furnishings differed statistically between past and current microdose apply (ten ^two (one) = 7.52, P < .01), with these furnishings being reported more frequently amongst respondents who stopped microdosing with psychedelics compared with those who are nonetheless microdosing. Analysis did not reveal statistically pregnant differences between current and past users with respect to merely psychological effects (10 ² (1) = 0.27, P = .61) and but physical furnishings (10 ² (1) < 0.01, P = .98) (Figure 2B). The elapsing or occurrence of the negative issue relative to intake (e.yard., long term, acute, or both) did not differ between by and current use: acute (x ² (1) = 0.77, P = .38), long term (x ² (one) = 2.31, P = .thirteen), and both acute and long term (ten ² (1) = 0.85, P = .36) (Effigy 2C).

Give-and-take

The present study aimed to investigate, by means of an online questionnaire, the history of psychedelic apply among microdosers, the dose and schedule they use, the prevalence of microdosing in the work environment, their motivation to microdose, and the potential negative effects. The survey was not specifically advertised as a microdosing survey but rather a psychedelic survey in full general. Detailed questions about motives to use were only presented for microdosing since the study was not set up to test differences in motivations for employ of regular doses and microdoses.

Findings showed that all respondents in the nowadays survey had at least used ane regular dose of a psychedelic, which was expected as the survey was advertised for psychedelic users. The nearly frequently reported psychedelics used, both in regular and microdoses, were LSD and psilocybin. The well-nigh reported regular and microdose for LSD was 200 mcg and x mcg, and for psilocybin three.5 g and 0.v grand, respectively. However, most respondents (up to 67%) indicated non knowing the dosage they normally consume. In addition, one-half of the respondents (48.9%) that microdosed followed their own microdosing schedule. The majority of respondents who microdosed with LSD and psilocybin (57–78%) reported using microdosing several times per week, ranging between 2 and 4 times per week, respectively. One-half of the microdosers (47.six%) indicated to take microdosed while working, of which studying and computer/office work were the about prevalent daily occupations. The motives to microdose in descending guild were for performance enhancement (37%), mood enhancement (29%), out of curiosity (xv%), and for self-medication (14%). The most reported side furnishings while microdosing were psychological in nature and occurred acutely.

The nowadays written report demonstrated that the bulk (58–78%) of our microdosing respondents (using LSD and psilocybin) reported to accept microdosed on a regular footing, while this was only two% in the GDS of 2017 (Winstock et al., 2018). While both surveys included respondents from all continents, the majority of respondents in our survey were from North America (62–67%) while the majority of respondents of the GDS2017 were from Europe (70%) (Winstock et al., 2017). In addition, the male person to female ratio in the GDS2017 was two:i, while our survey this ratio was around 5:1. Furthermore, our survey specifically addressed psychedelic users while the GDS is known to assess the prevalence of a broader range of substances including alcohol, not exclusively focusing on psychedelics. Overall both surveys included a slightly unlike sample, which could indicate that these differences in demographics play a part in whether people microdosed on regular basis. Hereafter studies might focus on these demographical differences. Yet, it cannot be excluded that the prevalence of microdosing has increased over the last twelvemonth, which might be due to the enhanced media attending and the all-encompassing data bachelor on the cyberspace about the effects and methods of use (Andersson et al., 2009).

The almost reported microdoses of LSD (10 mcg) and psilocybin (0.5 g) are comparable with the doses reported in previous studies (Johnstad, 2018; Winstock et al., 2018; Polito and Stevenson, 2019) and in line with the reported one-tenth of a regular dose (Chandler, 2018; thethirdwave, 2018). The limitation here is that people might have reported the dose they were told to accept bought or that they simply report one-tenth of the regular dose they have. However, it is concerning that up to 67% of the respondents reported to not know the dose they were consuming. Our proportion of microdosers unaware of the dose is higher than the 46% reported by the GDS2018 (Winstock et al., 2018); however, the latter survey just included numbers on LSD microdosers in contrast to our survey, which included a broad range of psychedelics. Still, LSD was one of the about prevalent psychedelic substance to microdose with in the current survey as well as in previous studies (Johnstad, 2018; Polito and Stevenson, 2019). The preference to microdose with LSD may exist due to feasibility, as users tin measure the amount with a pipet or cutting the blotter paper into smaller tabs. Accordingly, the GDS2018 reported that 52.5% use the cut method to dose LSD (Winstock et al., 2018), despite the fact that LSD can be unevenly distributed on the blotter paper and is therefore non the near precise manner of dosing (thethirdwave, 2018). Notwithstanding, specifying the verbal dose is difficult for respondents (Johnstad, 2018), which might be due to non knowing its purity and/or not having the right equipment to adequately dose when using such small amounts (thethirdwave, 2018). With regard to microdosing motives, the majority of the respondents (37%) indicated they microdosed for performance enhancement, such as to increase energy, creativity, and concentration. Accordingly, the majority of the microdosers did then at the workplace, of which computer/office work and studying was their main daily occupation. The utilise of enhancing substances to improve operation at work or while studying gives ascension to some ethical questions, which are extensively discussed in the literature (Bostrom and Sandberg, 2009; Maslen et al., 2014; Santoni de Sio et al., 2014; Garasic and Lavazza, 2015). For instance, the utilise of cognition enhancing substances to pass exams or to get a promotion at work tin can exist seen equally adulterous (Savulich et al., 2017; Colzato, 2018) and may non be off-white to those who cull not to use it. Furthermore, observing others engaging in these practices could in some people create the idea that information technology might be necessary to use substances to keep up in a competitive environs, such as school or a workplace (Academy of Medical Sciences et al., 2012). Withal, despite these practices and attention past the media there is no scientific support for this to date (Glatter, 2015; Solon, 2016; Dean, 2017; Tomaszewski, 2018; Yanakieva et al., 2018). Placebo-controlled experimental studies are needed to quantify the alleged effects of microdosing with psychedelics.

Chiefly, ane-fifth (xx%) of all microdosers reported to have experienced some kind of psychological or physical negative furnishings. Furthermore, experiencing the co-occurrence of psychological and physical negative effects was a pregnant reason for users to cease microdosing. Conversely, results demonstrate that when users experienced only psychological or only concrete negative furnishings, they continued to microdose. Overall, the nigh reported negative side effects were psychological (current microdosing: 9.4%, and stopped microdosing: 10.5%). In general these effects occurred acutely, while nether the influence of the substance. This is in line with previous anecdotal reports that reflect the intensification of symptoms, such as feet (Fadiman, 2017; Johnstad, 2018). Nevertheless, in two placebo-controlled studies no psychological changes were noted after LSD doses <20 mcg (Greiner et al., 1958; Yanakieva et al., 2018); however, the lack of effects in both studies might exist due to low power. Notwithstanding, merely a small proportion of the microdosers (ane–3%) in the present written report indicated that the negative effects lasted for days later on dosing. Interestingly, the main reason for users to have stopped microdosing was not due to negative side furnishings but rather because they deemed it to non exist constructive. This perceived lack of efficacy can be related to the expectations people accept adult of microdosing, for instance by anecdotal reports in the media. A recent follow-up study found a mismatch between expected effects and the perceived psychological changes when microdosing for 6 weeks (Polito and Stevenson, 2019). Accordingly, the expected changes were the ones most reported in the media. It is possible that due to these positive reports, people feel attracted to microdosing and beginning with high hopes and expectations. When no changes are experienced or they are smaller or other than expected, users could go disappointed and stop using. Afterward, future studies nevertheless need to examine the efficacy of microdosing.

To accept a more generalizable sample, the nowadays survey was not express to only healthy respondents, which is in dissimilarity to previous studies (Prochazkova et al., 2018; Polito and Stevenson, 2019). Nevertheless, results need to exist interpreted with caution since this survey was advertised on fora focusing on psychedelics, and therefore information technology specifically targeted the psychedelic community. Consequently, we may not have reached the population that has experience with microdosing without having experienced a regular dose. These individuals' motives to microdose may be different from our sample and maybe more than related to curiosity. In improver, people who might have stopped using psychedelics because of negative experiences will be less probable to fill in the survey, equally they might not be visiting these internet fora. Furthermore, the range of reported microdoses in the nowadays survey was very broad; for case for LSD this was 0.00001 to 500 mg. This wide range could indicate that more respondents than reported did not realize the actual dose they are taking. However, this might also exist a result of typing errors or misreading the dosing units in which they needed to written report (due east.grand., reading mcg instead of mg). Future studies might utilise multiple-pick options and may inquire every bit to how respondents measure out their dose(s). Furthermore, the survey did not allow responders to specify unlike kinds of negative effects, and so it could not be evaluated whether, for example, "anxiety" or "depression" was a more than common (psychological) side effect. In addition, the crusade of negative effects is unknown. Specifically, negative effects could exist due to taking higher doses than intended due to the mental state of the respondents, considering of the set and setting and/or the impurity of the substance (Smith, 1969; Carbonaro et al., 2016; Carhart-Harris et al., 2018). Therefore, future clinical studies should focus on investigating potential acute and long-term side-effects, as this question cannot be reliably answered in an online survey.

To conclude, this study demonstrates that microdosing is by and large used to enhance operation. Furthermore, the majority of microdosers are unaware of the dose they are really taking. Importantly, psychological and physical negative effects were reported but in general do non outlast the "acute" phase. To clarify whether effects of microdosing on performance are restricted to a subjective level or are quantifiable with performance measures, placebo-controlled studies are needed. In addition, it will exist important in these studies to assess the acute and long-term positive and negative effects to capture the full result of microdosing with psychedelics.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the people who advertised our survey on their websites (Reddit, shroomery, dhpforum.nl, and Stichting OPEN).

Statement of Interest

None.

References

• Academy of Medical Sciences, the British Academy, the Purple Academy of Engineering, the Regal Society (2012) Man enhancement and the hereafter of work. London, UK: Articulation Academies meeting report. [Google Scholar]
• Andersson C, Kristinsson J, Gry J (2009) Occurrence and use of hallucinogenic mushrooms containing psilocybin alkaloids. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers. [Google Scholar]
• Bostrom N, Sandberg A (2009) Cognitive enhancement: methods, ideals, regulatory challenges. Sci Eng Ethics 15:311–341. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Carbonaro TM, Bradstreet MP, Barrett FS, MacLean KA, Jesse R, Johnson MW, Griffiths RR (2016) Survey study of challenging experiences after ingesting psilocybin mushrooms: acute and enduring positive and negative consequences. J Psychopharmacol 30:1268–1278. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Carhart-Harris RL, Roseman L, Haijen East, Erritzoe D, Watts R, Branchi I, Kaelen M (2018) Psychedelics and the essential importance of context. J Psychopharmacol 32:725–731. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Chandler CRH. (2018) Microdosing: 'smart' psychedelics explained Available at: https://www.healthline.com/health/beginners-guide-to-microdosing#1. Accessed February 26, 2019.
• Colzato LS. (2018) Responsible cerebral enhancement: neuroethical considerations. J Cogn Enhanc 2:331–334. [Google Scholar]
• Dean J. (2017) Micro-dosing: the drug habit your boss is gonna love. Bachelor at: https://www.gq.com/story/micro-dosing-lsd. Accessed January 21, 2019.
• Fadiman J. (2011) The psychedelic explorer'southward guide: rubber, therapeutic, and sacred journeys. Rochester: Bear & Visitor. [Google Scholar]
• Fadiman J. (2017) Microdose research: without approvals, control groups, double-blinds, staff or funding by Dr James Fadiman. Available at: https://psychedelicpress.co.britain/blogs/psychedelic-printing-blog/microdose-research-james-fadiman. Accessed November 30, 2018.
• Garasic MD, Lavazza A (2015) Functioning enhancement in the workplace: why and when healthy individuals should disclose their reliance on pharmaceutical cognitive enhancers. Forepart Syst Neurosci 9:13. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Glatter R. (2015) LSD microdosing: the new task enhancer in Silicon Valley. Bachelor at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertglatter/2015/11/27/lsd-microdosing-the-new-chore-enhancer-in-silicon-valley-and-beyond/#71b93afb188a. Accessed November thirty, 2018.
• Greiner T, Burch NR, Edelberg R (1958) Psychopathology and psychophysiology of minimal LSD-25 dosage; a preliminary dosage-response spectrum. AMA Curvation Neurol Psychiatry 79:208–210. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Horsley RR, Páleníček T, Kolin J, Valeš K (2018) Psilocin and ketamine microdosing: effects of subchronic intermittent microdoses in the elevated plus-maze in male wistar rats. Behav Pharmacol 29:530–536. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Johnstad PG. (2018) Powerful substances in tiny amounts: an interview report of psychedelic microdosing. Nord Stud Alcohol Dr 35:39–51. [Google Scholar]
• Liechti ME. (2017) Modern clinical inquiry on LSD. Neuropsychopharmacology 42:2114–2127. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Maslen H, Faulmüller N, Savulescu J (2014) Pharmacological cognitive enhancement-how neuroscientific research could advance upstanding contend. Forepart Syst Neurosci eight:107. [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Morrison L, Woords M (2016) Due west Australian clinically trained psychologist explains microdosing. Available at: https://www.abc.internet.au/news/2016-12-07/take-a-trip-into-the-world-of-microdosing/8101276. Accessed January 21, 2019.
• Passie T. (2019) The science of microdosing psychedelics. London: Psychedelic Press. [Google Scholar]
• Polito V, Stevenson RJ (2019) A systematic study of microdosing psychedelics. Plos One xiv:e0211023. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Prochazkova L, Lippelt DP, Colzato LS, Kuchar M, Sjoerds Z, Hommel B (2018) Exploring the upshot of microdosing psychedelics on creativity in an open-label natural setting. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 235:3401–3413. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Reddit (2018) r/microdosing. Bachelor at: https://www.reddit.com/r/microdosing/. Accessed Nov xxx, 2018.
• Sahakian B, d'Angelo C, Savulich Grand (2018) 'Microdosing' LSD is not just a Silicon Valley tendency - it is spreading to other workplaces. Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/lsd-microdosing-california-silicon-valley-california-drugs-young-professionals-a8259001.html. Accessed February 26, 2019.
• Santoni de Sio F, Faulmüller North, Vincent NA (2014) How cognitive enhancement can modify our duties. Front end Syst Neurosci 8:131. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Savulich Grand, Piercy T, Brühl AB, Fox C, Suckling J, Rowe JB, O'Brien JT, Sahakian BJ (2017) Focusing the neuroscience and societal implications of cognitive enhancers. Clin Pharmacol Ther 101:170–172. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Smith DE. (1969) Use of LSD in the haight-ashbury. Observations at a neighborhood dispensary. Calif Med 110:472–476. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Smith P. (2017) Tin y'all microdose to treat depression? Available at: https://thethirdwave.co/microdosing-depression/. Accessed November thirty, 2018.
• Solon O. (2016) Nether pressure, Silicon Valley workers turn to LSD microdosing. Available at: https://www.wired.co.united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland/article/lsd-microdosing-drugs-silicon-valley. Accessed November 30, 2018.
• Thethirdwave.co (2018) Microdosing. Available at: https://thethirdwave.co/microdosing/ Accessed November thirty, 2018.
• Tomaszewski Chiliad. (2018) LSD to GTD: Can yous improve at work by microdosing LSD? Available at: https://zety.com/work-life/drugs-at-work-and-other-cognitive-enhancers. Accessed Jan 21, 2019.
• Vollenweider FX, Kometer Yard (2010) The neurobiology of psychedelic drugs: implications for the treatment of mood disorders. Nat Rev Neurosci 11:642–651. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Waldman A. (2018) A really adept day: how microdosing made a mega difference in my mood, my spousal relationship, and my life. Anchor Books. [Google Scholar]
• Winstock AR, Barrett MJ, Ferris JA, Maier LJ (2017) Global Drug Survey (GDS) 2017. Global overview and highlights. Bachelor at: https://www.globaldrugsurvey.com/wp-content/themes/globaldrugsurvey/results/GDS2017_key-findings-report_final.pdf. Accessed Jan 21, 2019. [Google Scholar]
• Winstock AR, Barratt MJ, Maier LJ, Ferris JA (2018) Global Drug Survey (GDS) 2018. Fundamental Findings Study. Bachelor at: https://world wide web.globaldrugsurvey.com/gds-2018/. Accessed January 21, 2019. [Google Scholar]
• Wong S. (2017) Leading the high life. New Sci 234: 22–23. [Google Scholar]
• Yanakieva S, Polychroni Due north, Family unit N, Williams LT, Luke DP, Terhune DB (2018) The effects of microdose LSD on time perception: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Psychopharmacology (Berl). doi: 10.1007/s00213-018-5119-x. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

---

Articles from International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

---

dorseyvatread.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6600464/

Share this post