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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Because they were federally illegal to study..?

[removed]

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.

Not to mention that BMI is an extremely antiquated system.

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.

[removed]

Yes of course, I'm not criticizing scientists as a whole, I'm criticizing policy makers.

>It is likely that the minimum dose to achieve this effect varies by mass.

Why do you say this is likely?

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.

>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.

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.

When I'm on mushrooms, very rare instance to happen, I piss into a cup, drink it and get high again.

https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/20804287/fpart/1/vc/1

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.

The only two drugs I know of that are mass-dependent are DXM and alcohol. Where are you getting that, in general, more mass = higher necessary dosage?

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

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

Psychedelics are very rarely body weight dependant.

This isn't a new concept...

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0269881121991822

It most certainly does not scale with body mass. This isn't the first time a paper published this common knowledge among users.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0269881121991822

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.

Being off my rocker would be the point of consuming mushrooms, not sure why you chose to respond other than adding the reindeer part, that's cool.

I'm specifically referring to the OP paper where they make this claim based on BMI, not body mass.

Science will always be reluctant to prove hippies right.