You must log in or register to comment.

AutoModerator t1_j2e7r3y wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.


UnkleRinkus t1_j2eb874 wrote

This is accepted understanding in the mushroom community. Science is confirming common experience.


E_PunnyMous t1_j2ehj3h wrote

This isn’t news to aficionados, but it’s good that it’s being confirmed; it’s another data point in the possibility of using psychedelics medicinally within western scientific pharmacology.


Publius82 t1_j2ekt2f wrote

That's often the way it turns out, but it's still a very important part of the scientific process. The real issue is why these basic ass studies weren't done/taken seriously decades ago


YoungHeartOldSoul t1_j2elar7 wrote

It's not that scientists didn't want to, they want to know everything. Having these things be so illegal is partly to prevent their study, drug companies know damn well that psilocybin and THC stand to threaten those control of the masses.


Gastronomicus t1_j2ew7fz wrote

I see two issues here. Firstly, why BMI and not mass? BMI is a ratio that scales with mass, so a 50 kg 1.45 m tall person could has the same BMI (25) as a 100 kg 2.0 m tall person. But the 100 kg person is larger and almost certainly requires more of the same drug to achieve the same blood concentration.

Secondly, only one dosage was tested (25 mg). It might just be that at that dosage a biochemical process is initiated that is similar for all. It is likely that the minimum dose to achieve this effect varies by mass.


UnkleRinkus t1_j2f34wd wrote

No argument at all. The Johns Hopkins studies on psilocybin, among others underway, are showing very promising results for treatment resistant depression patients, of whom I am one. About 70 percent of patients experience relief for several weeks after a 20 mg dose. Microdosing is not showing results better than placebo at this time

The war on drugs rhetoric impeded progress for a long time, but seems to be relaxing.


PornstarVirgin t1_j2f9ypp wrote

Not to mention that BMI is an extremely antiquated system.


SoylentRox t1_j2faik3 wrote

That's what I was thinking. For example if it stimulates synapses at some minimum dose, the type of synapses it acts on will saturate the ability of their target axon to carry any more signals. So doses above the minimum won't have a stronger effect.

For example, an injection of lidocaine has a minimum dose, but doses above the minimum don't make the nerves in the region any more numb.


Weaselpanties t1_j2fhceq wrote

It's explained in the source paper:

> Background:

> Psilocybin is a serotonin type 2A (5-HT2A) receptor agonist and naturally occurring psychedelic. 5-HT2A receptor density is known to be associated with body mass index (BMI), however, the impact of this on psilocybin therapy has not been explored. While body weight-adjusted dosing is widely used, this imposes a practical and financial strain on the scalability of psychedelic therapy. This gap between evidence and practice is caused by the absence of studies clarifying the relationship between BMI, the acute psychedelic experience and long-term psychological outcomes.


Gastronomicus t1_j2fjdhd wrote

>While body weight-adjusted dosing is widely used, this imposes a practical and financial strain on the scalability of psychedelic therapy

That just doesn't make sense. I don't see how they can claim that since the effect does not scale with BMI this somehow mitigates the need to dose according to body mass, for which dosage almost certainly scales.


Gastronomicus t1_j2fjt6b wrote

For the same reason I gave here:

>But the 100 kg person is larger and almost certainly requires more of the same drug to achieve the same blood concentration.

More mass = higher necessary dosage. A greater volume of blood/body fluids means a more diluted product in the bloodstream. Beyond a certain dosage the effect might be similar because you've saturated the receptors. Not sure that applies here or not, probably not since higher dosages are linked to more intense experiences.


Weaselpanties t1_j2fl9hv wrote

That isn't what it says they're claiming at all. "this imposes a practical and financial strain on the scalability" is just a way of saying that it gets more expensive for bigger people.

They did the study in part to determine if it's actually necessary to scale up for people whose additional size is mostly fat, or if they can take the same (smaller, cheaper) dose as someone who is their height but has less body fat.


nzdennis t1_j2fms6a wrote

So even a fat bastard like myself can get high?!


stooloo t1_j2fp7iy wrote

“I’m a big guy. I can handle it.” *Eats a quarter ounce.


PuerhBear t1_j2ftvfv wrote

As an avid user/producer of psilocybin-containing fungi, you're off your rocker mate. Regardless of the potential efficacy of drinking your laced urine, it's entirely unnecessary and ridiculous. That being said, there are traditional rituals in which amanita muscaria are processed through the digestive tracks of reindeer and the urine then consumed, but that has an entirely separate active ingredient with wildly different effects.