LSD Microdosing Study Shows no Benefit
Published in Addiction Biology, a study into the effects of LSD “microdosing” found no evidence to back up proponents’ claims that it can improve mood and cognitive function.
The study’s lead author, Chicago University Professor Harriet de Wit, noted that the study doesn’t disprove microdosing’s possible benefits, and that more investigation is needed. The study does show that taking small doses of LSD is safe. Prof De Wit said the findings demonstrate the important role clinicians can play when it comes to therapeutics claims about recreational drugs.
“These drugs are already being used out in the world, and it’s important for us to test them under controlled conditions, ensure their safety and see whether there’s some validity to the benefits people claim,” she said. “That’s something that has been missing from the conversation.”
The researchers studied the effects of four repeated low doses of LSD, administered under lab conditions every three to four days. One group of participants received 13 micrograms of the drug, a second group received 26 micrograms, and the third received a placebo. To put these low doses into context, the doses of LSD that are used to “trip” or to get high are typically 100–200 micrograms, she said.
LSD was chosen for the study because it’s the most commonly used psychedelic drug in microdosing.
Participants received the drugs during five-hour, supervised laboratory sessions. They also attended a drug-free follow-up session three to four days after the last dose. Participants were not told what kind of drug was being tested in the study – whether it was a stimulant, a tranquiliser or a hallucinogen – or that the study was about microdosing.
“We removed any expectations that this was a psychedelic drug,” Prof de Wit explained. “Because in the real world, people’s expectations can strongly influence their responses.”
To assess their mood and mental performance, the participants completed cognitive and emotional tasks both during the drug administration sessions and at the drug-free follow-up session. Some participants who received the higher dose reported feeling a modest “high” during the drug sessions, but the effects were mild.
The drug did not improve mood or affect participants’ performance on cognitive tests, either during the drug sessions or at the follow-up session.
Prof De Wit said the results came as a disappointing surprise. “Because so many people claim to have experienced benefits from microdosing, we expected to document some kind of beneficial effect under laboratory conditions,” she said.
Neurobiological reasons had also suggested that LSD might improve mood, because LSD acts through serotonin receptors, where traditional antidepressants are known to act.
“We can’t say necessarily that microdosing doesn’t work,” Prof de Wit said. “All we can say is that, under these controlled circumstances, with this kind of participant, these doses, and these intervals, we didn’t see a robust effect.”
People who microdose often have strong expectations of beneficial effects. “It is possible that these expectations contribute to the apparent benefits, or they may interact with the pharmacological effect of the drug,” she said.
LSD was confirmed to be safe, an unsurprising find which is in line with previous human and animal studies.
In fact, de Wit noted, participants appeared to build a tolerance to LSD over the course of the study, with the strongest “high” reported at the first session, and the perception of a drug effect diminishing at each subsequent session. That’s a good sign because it confirms the drug does not stay in the body or accumulate over time, she said.
Getting authorisation to use a controlled substance made the experiment challenging, as did the participants’ necessary time commitment. However, Prof de Wit emphasised the importance of such research, especially as practices like microdosing become commercialised.
“There are a lot of companies getting into the drug business, either with psychedelic drugs, or drugs like cannabidiol,” she noted. “And really there’s not very much empirical support to back up their claims. So, I think we have a responsibility to investigate and validate the claims.”
Source: University of Chicago
