The sometimes shocked The benefits of microdosing – often with the help of small amounts of psychedelic drugs such as lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) – can be overemphasized, new research indicates this week. The study found that people with microdosing experienced psychological benefits, including a greater sense of well-being, but that these benefits did not differ significantly from the way others felt when they took a placebo instead. The findings of the experimental study indicate that at least some of the positive aspects of microdosing can be attributed to the placebo effect, but the study does have its own reservations.
The treatment of psychedelic drugs has emerged over the past few years as a promising approach to improving the mental health of people. Some studies have suggested that drugs such as LSD and psilocybin, the main ingredient in magic mushrooms, can help treat anxiety and depression, especially when combined with therapy. Other research has found testimony positive changes in the brain cells of animals or humans when exposed to psychedelics, further strengthening the case to a real biological benefit. One method of using these drugs is microdosing, that is when people regularly take smaller doses than they use recreationally.
However, much of the evidence for the benefits of microdosing is based on observations in the world or anecdotal experiences, which have its limitations. Some people’s self-reported symptoms while using a drug will improve, for example, even if the drug has not treat the underlying condition that is causing the symptoms. One clear way to overcome the limitations of anecdotal evidence is through a placebo-controlled study, but these studies are generally expensive and take a lot of time and resources to pull off. This is especially true for microdosage studies, as these drugs are still illegal in many countries and scientists have to jump through barriers to use them for research.
The authors behind this new study, published in eLife Tuesday decided to take a unique approach to conducting their placebo-controlled study. They enlisted the help of people who had already done regular microdosing, and then helped them to carry out the experiment essentially.
G / O Media can get a commission
These civic scientists were instructed to make the experiment placebo-controlled so that they would not know if they were using a placebo or the actual drug (mostly LSD, but some also took psilocybin). This included placing the drug, which was in powder form, in opaque gel capsules, and then placing the capsules and placebo capsules in envelopes containing a week’s supply of four doses. Some envelopes contain nothing but placebo, others contain a mixture of both placebo and the drug.
There was a QR code with all the envelopes that allowed the researchers to know the contents of each envelope and the specific order of the pills taken that week, but not the volunteers. Some of the subjects of the study were randomly assigned to microdoses two of the four weeks and received placebo during the other two weeks, and some received the placebo all the time. During the study, all the volunteers completed regular surveys about their ongoing psychological condition.
A total of 191 people completed the experiment, according to the authors the largest placebo-controlled study of its kind. Microdosing volunteers reported psychological improvements from their baseline, including reduced anxiety and a greater sense of well-being, but also people who took placebo, and in general, there were no significant differences between all three groups.
“The findings suggest that anecdotal benefits of microdosing can be explained by the placebo effect,” the authors wrote.
There are some important reservations to these findings. First, the study found a small but statistically significant difference on certain outcomes when comparing the placebo group with the microdose group; it included improvements in mood, energy and creativity. But the researchers argue that there is also an everyday explanation for this. About 72% of the time, better than chance, the volunteers could accurately guess whether they were using a placebo or drug. It is therefore possible that their expectations of feeling better increased when they correctly suspected that they were taking the drug as opposed to placebo, meaning that the blindness was not completely infallible.
The study also could not control variables such as the purity or actual dose of the microdose because it depended on the typical drugs the volunteers had already used (users took an average of 13 micro.grams of LSD per dose, but the authors could not test how much of the active ingredient people take). And while they tried to make sure people followed the instructions they were given, the nature of the study meant they had less control or everything was followed correctly. Regarding the ethics of this research, the authors stated that they only reach out to self-identified microdosers and that they do not collect any other identifiable personal information from them other than their email (the study was cleared by an external committee) .
It is also worth emphasizing that psychedelic drugs are studied in different ways and taken for mental health, and microdosing is only one approach. Some researchers have argued that it is the intensive experience of using psychedelics (in relatively high microdoses or macrodoses), coupled with guided therapy, that offers people the most obvious benefits. In 2019, the drug was ketamine adapted in an FDA-approved treatment for depression. It is taken in smaller doses than when it is taken recreationally and under medical supervision, but it can also be a higher dose than people would take themselves during microdosing.
Importantly, the authors also note that the volunteers of the study were generally healthy, with only 7% currently having a mental health diagnosis. They therefore do not reduce the possibility that microdosing may still be useful for people who experience mental illness.
Of course, no single study should be seen as the final word on any topic, especially if it relies on an experimental approach. Yet the authors hope that their unique study design can be used in the future for other difficult research areas where it is difficult to include a placebo control. One immediate benefit may be cost, as this study requires only about 1% of the funding typically used to conduct a clinical trial. Other possible applications for this approach include studying downtown, nootropics and nutrition, they write.