In culture, there are trends and there are fads. Trends are waves of social evolution and change that grow and swell into communities. They often have lasting cultural impact. Fads are splashes that dramatically crash onto shore and quickly disappear into the mist.
Is “microdosing” a trend or a fad?
There is evidence that “microdosing” is a trend. Let’s have a look and see if you agree.
Current Concept:
This is the description from the Microdose Institute (https://microdosinginstitute.com/). It reflects the most common understanding and attitude among the active psychedelic community as well as, at least in part, what most persons in the general population may understand from social media and friendly conversation.
“Microdosing is best described as the practice of regularly consuming a very small amount of a psychedelic substance, usually 5–10% of a regular dose, with the intention of improving one’s quality of life. Microdosing does not cause classic psychedelic effects such as visual disturbances; instead, microdosers experience more subtle, “sub-hallucinogenic”, effects from the practice. Microdosing is a practice that yields best results when it’s done over an extended period of time following a dosing scheme, or protocol. The exact effects and results of this practice depend greatly on the person, the substance, the dosage and many other personal factors such as their intention, their expectations and mindset.”
There is good evidence that psychedelic compounds have played a significant role in developing human civilization. Archeological evidence and anthropological analysis all give credibility to the idea that psychedelic compounds in human use have been around a very long time. They seem to have been often restricted to special persons with the community and also limited to special groups at ceremonial gatherings. There is evidence derived from current indigenous cultures to support these ideas. The emerging impression is that the compounds were used at higher doses to induce stimulating and sometimes dramatic altered states. Broad popular “recreational” use is much harder to assess and is less likely. It is also not clear that practices representing “microdosing” have a real place along this historical timeline.
The mid-20th century represents an inflection point in the awareness in popular modern society of psychedelic compounds. Anthropological interactions with indigenous cultures began to create new levels of curious interest in psychedelic plants. Around the same time, Albert Hofmann, a Swiss pharmacological researcher, accidentally synthesized LSD in 1938 from the ergot fungus and experienced the ever-first LSD trip. LSD was first utilized in psychotherapy and scientific study in the 1950s, mostly to treat anxiety, depression, addiction, and psychosomatic diseases. LSD was the subject of intensive (psycho) pharmacological study, which resulted in almost 10,000 scholarly papers. In the years that followed, medical experts, scientists, and even the U.S. government expressed an interest in the novel chemical. The CIA’s infamous MK ULTRA program looked at the use of LSD for “mind control”. (https://microdosinginstitute.com/)
To stay on target regarding “microdosing”, it is time to introduce James Fadiman. Fadiman is often credited as being the Father of Microdosing.
James Fadiman is an American writer known for his research on microdosing psychedelics. Fadiman received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Harvard University in 1960 and a Master's degree and a doctorate (both in psychology) from Stanford University, the PhD in 1965. While in Paris in 1961, his friend and former Harvard undergraduate adviser, Ram Dass (then known as Richard Alpert), introduced him to psilocybin. In the early sixties Fadiman was also part of the team in the psychedelics in problem-solving experiment at the International Foundation for Advanced Study, which was abruptly halted in 1966. Fadiman’s 2011 book The Psychedelic Explorer’s Guide discussed the use of psychedelics in sub perceptual doses and unknowingly helped to drive the modern microdosing movement. (https://www.esalen.org/faculty/james-fadiman)
“In 1966, a team of scientists under the leadership of Dr. James Fadiman studied the influence of psychedelic agents on participants’ creative problem-solving skills. In the “Psychedelic agents in the creative problem-solving” experiment, they tested 27 people working in creative professions such as engineers, architects, scientists, and designers. They gave them 200 milligrams of mescaline sulfate (This is comparable to 100 micrograms of LSD, so hardly a microdose) and had them work on a work assignment or problem. The results were positive, leading many participants to come up with technologically advanced project proposals, products, and solutions that have been mostly accepted by their clients.
Participants reported various forms of increased performance:
- Less burden of inhibitions and fears
- The ability to see a problem in the right context
- Increased idea generation
- Better ability to visualize and use fantasy
- Better concentration
- Increased empathy for external processes and issues
- Increased empathy for people
- Access to unconscious information
- Increased motivation to complete a project
- Visualizing solutions
Shortly after this experiment, the FDA banned all scientific research on psychedelics. The influence of psychedelics on our creativity and problem-solving ability could not be investigated further for decades that followed.” (https://microdosinginstitute.com/)
It is apparent that the current concept of “microdosing” is inseparably linked to the chemical nature of psychedelic compounds. The definition above, supplied by the Microdose Institute, states “The exact effects and results of this practice depend greatly on the person, the substance, the dosage and many other personal factors such as their intention, their expectations and mindset.” As you can see, there are a lot of factors and variables involved with the process of “microdosing”.
Is it possible that there exists some unrecognized unifying principle that allows for a more cohesive understanding of “microdosing”? Spoiler alert – the answer is YES, and it is hidden in the actual neurology of our brain.
It is now time to also introduce both the Grandfather and Great Grandfather of “microdosing”.
An Unexpected Lineage:
These two Canadians may or may not be familiar to you, especially in the context of “microdosing. Meet Hans Selye, the Great Grandfather and Donald Hebb, the Grandfather.
We will start with Hans Selye (1907 – 1982) – The Great Grandfather of Microdosing
Hans Selye & Stress:
To start with Selye is known more commonly as the Father of Stress Research. Here, he is also recognized as a key link in the evolution of the neurological foundation of “microdosing”. (Hang in there, we will make this clear down below.) Selye’s relentless work ethic was evident in his publications, which numbered more than 1,600 scientific articles and about 40 books. He was a nominee for the Nobel Prize in 1949, won many accolades, and published his best-known book, The Stress of Life, in 1956.
So, what does “stress” have to do with “microdosing”? Now is the time to put on your “thinking cap” for a little while.
Today, the concept of stress and the word itself have a strongly negative connotation. In 1939, Selye introduced his landmark theory of stress. Selye saw “stress” in more complex ways and was very inventive in his exploration. He is most famous for what is known as the General Adaptation Syndrome (GAS) but we will not focus on that major insight. Rather we will look at a few of his more fundamental understandings.
These are the factors that link Selye/stress/neurology to “microdosing”.
Selye #1 – Stress in and of itself is neither good or bad – its nature depends on a number of related factors.
Selye #2 - Some type of “agent” acts to introduce challenge into the system – if the degree of challenge (aka “stress”) is sufficient to match and slightly exceed the minimal level of excitation, it will result in an arousal of the adaptive response in the system.
Selye #3 – The stressor “agent” perturbs the “status quo” of the system – the “agent” acts to disrupt or de-stabilize the system and provoke an adaptive response.
Selye #4 – The stress “agent” is not the main factor but instead it is the degree or amount of challenge that is at the core of its action.
Selye #5 – Depending on the context, the challenge may be either a “eustress” (positive) or a “distress” (negative).
Selye #6 – As much as “distress” is definitely a negative, “eustress” is not only positive…it is critical for growth, learning, adaptation and even survival itself.
Selye #7 - Eustress occurs when the gap between what one has and what one wants is slightly pushed, but not overwhelmed. The goal is not too far out of reach but is still slightly more than one can handle. This fosters challenge and motivation since the goal is in sight. The function of challenge is to motivate a person toward improvement and a goal. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eustress)
Now we have the insightful elements collected from Selye that allow us to clarify the first step in linking “microdosing” to our innate neurology.
- An adaptive response in our system is triggered fundamentally by the degree of stress and not the type of the stressing agent.
- A small degree (low level/micro) of any stressing agent is capable of eliciting a positive eustress response.
- The eustress response will drive the system towards positive new growth and adaptive change.
- Any stressor “agent” that can be calibrated into lower (or higher) degrees of challenge can act to induce a “eustress” response.
- It is well known that psychedelic compounds at higher levels act to significantly disrupt or de-stabilize common neurological activities in our brain – it can be assumed that the same compounds are capable of very gentle de-stabilizing “eustress” actions at much lower, “micro” levels.
- It is noted that the current approach to Conventional Compound Microdosing utilizes a range of different types of compounds some of which are not even considered classic psychedelics.
- Following the principle, any stressor “agent” (and not the type) that can be calibrated to low levels of “dose” can also trigger the same neurological adaptive responses.
Next, we have Donald Hebb (1904 – 1985) – The Grandfather of Microdosing
Donald Hebb & Neuroplasticity:
Donald Hebb was a Canadian psychologist who was influential in the area of neuropsychology, where he sought to understand how the function of neurons contributed to psychological processes such as learning. He is best known for his theory of Hebbian learning, which he introduced in his classic 1949 work The Organization of Behavior. He has been described as the father of neuropsychology and neural networks. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_O._Hebb)
Hebbian Learning is now called “neuroplasticity”. Neuroplasticity is the concept that states that the adult human brain is capable of positive neurological growth, change and new adaptive learning. Adult brain neuroplasticity occurs predominantly in the hippocampus area of the brain which is responsible for learning, long term memory formation and memory retrieval. (https://www.news-medical.net/health/Hippocampus-Functions)
The basis of the theory is when our brains learn something new, neurons are activated and connected with other neurons, forming a neural network. These connections start off weak, but each time the stimulus is repeated, the connections grow stronger and stronger, and the action becomes more intuitive. (https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/neuroscience/hebbian-learning)
Above, we asked what does Selye and “stress” have to do with “microdosing”? It is fair to ask the same basic question now. What does Hebb and “neuroplasticity” have to do with “microdosing”?
These are the factors that link Hebb/neuroplasticity/neurology to “microdosing”.
Hebb #1 – the adult brain can change in positive ways if it is induced to change with effective stimulation.
Hebb #2- to get the neurology to change you must “fire it to wire it” (which goes very nicely with “use it or lose it).
Hebb #3 – in neuroplasticity, “the brain changes what matters” – which means you have to “get the attention” of the brain by inducing a disruptive or de-stabilizing challenge (aka a “stressor”).
Hebb #4 – the challenge must not be too great and all at one time – the challenge must act at a low level and create just “marginal demand”. (Here you may recall from above Selye #7 – “Eustress occurs when the gap between what one has and what one wants is slightly pushed, but not overwhelmed.”)
Hebb #5 - a “eustressor” is a gentle but effective trigger for neuroplastic adaptation and positive change – other than the low level of stimulation, the amount of regular repetition and reinforcement is mandatory for actual integration – the “firing” must repeat for the “wiring” to stabilize.
Hebb #6 – Repeating the low-level stressor at regular periods will slowly move the “short-term state change” (which relies on the stimulus to be present) towards “long-term trait change” (which is now habituated and does not require the stimulus to be present) – this is the State to Trait principle of new neurological learning.
Now we have gathered from Hebb understandings about “neuroplasticity” that allow us to even further clarify the realistic linking of “microdosing” to our innate neurology.
- Actual neuronal connections and growth can change towards positive new learning and behaviors – this is a natural and innate capacity of our adult human brain.
- Repeated low-level, “marginal demand” “eustress agents” are capable of gently and reliably triggering positive neuroplastic change.
- The types of “eustressor agents” include psychedelic compounds while also including a wide range of other agents that are capable of triggering the “marginal demand” aspect of neuroplastic change.
- With repeated “doses” of the “eustress agent” as stimulation combined with reinforcement, the process will lead to progressive integration of the new positive neuroplastic change – State to Trait transformation.
Putting It All Together:
Like we say in the title of this paper…It’s the Little Things that Count.
Our adult brain is still capable of positive change. Just nudge it along with a eustress agent of any kind at low-levels of marginal demand and repeat it often enough that the brain accepts it as a State to Trait integration.
A “eustress agent” must be able to gently perturb the “status quo” of our brain without triggering an outright defensive reaction (a “distress” instead of a “eustress”).
To better understand the brain, remember that our brain is physical. So much of what you have learned about our physical body also applies to your brain…because our brain is physical!
Think about your experience in doing stretching exercise for your muscles. A little bit every day and you will get progressively more flexible. If you aggressively attempt to lengthen the muscle all at once, it will tear. Major OUCH. The same is true of strengthening your muscles. A little bit of “marginal demand” on a regular basis will result in stronger muscles. Try to heavy lift all at once…and again the result is injury. So, perhaps think of making your brain stronger yet more flexible in small regular steps. Consider microdosing.
Exploring the Fadiman Protocol as an Example:
When looking at “microdosing” from a neurological brain point of view instead of solely focusing in the psychedelic compound as the stimulating agent, we have new fascinating information emerge. Here the classic Fadiman Protocol serves as a great template.
Essentially, the human organism organizes itself around core principles. Harmonic relationships are one such principle.
First, let us consider the dynamics of fundamental neuroplastic change.
1) Neuro-Stimulation (the "input reaction"); 0 - 2 hours
2) Neuro-Modulation (the "reaction response"); 2 - 8 hours
3) Neuro-Relaxation; (the "response relief"); 8 - 24 hours
4) Neuro-Differentiation (the "relief result") 24 - 48 hours
Now let's break these down to better understand.
1) Neuro-Stimulation is like giving information/food to a hungry brain. It has an appetite and is hungry for the info/food because it is the way it can keep the learning going and solve the problem. It is mandatory for self-organization and adaptation. It triggers a mobilization of self-regulation and things immediately begin to improve even at this very early stage. Yummy!
2) Neuro-Modulation now kicks into gear and all of the multiple Brain Networks have an improvement of functions. This decreases the super-sensitivities that have formed as the Brain has been lacking certain Adaptive responses. Perhaps most importantly, the Neuro-Modulation stage allows the Brain Stem "Reticular Activating System" (RAS) to "reset" which is wonderful because it means that the "arousal level" that was causing all those "super-sensitivities" to manifest gets "calmed down" and normalized (whew, that feels better:-).
Neuro-Relaxation happens after the Neuro-Modulation does its work by re-setting the "arousal levels" and calming those "super-sensitivities. All the Brain Networks and associated circuits get to "Rest &a Restore" themselves.
This is great because now the (#2 above) Neuro-Modulation activities get to keep at work by "flipping ON" many dormant circuits to engage in Movement, Mental and Sensory Neuroplastic stimulating signals. The signals are made more potent at converting their "brain signals" into "mind messages". It is only with corrected self-regulation via brain modulation, brain rest, and adequate energy restored, can the brain rhythms be restored.
This is the stage when a person has the chance of overcoming the maladaptive learning involved in the Limbic Trauma Loop (aka PTSD) as well as other mal-adaptations.
Neuro-Differentiation is the resultant long-lasting stage when enduring positive learning can be integrated into the Stable State brain functioning. Now the new habits take charge.
Now, now look at the Fadiman Protocol:
Day 1 (0 – 24 hours) > Dose,
Day 2 (24 – 48 hours) > Transition,
Day 3 (48 – 72 hours) > Normal/Rest.
Now, let’s consolidate the Neuroplastic Change dynamics with the Fadiman Protocol dynamics.
What is Drug-Free Microdosing:
Considering all the information above, it is definitely realistic to consider Microdosing in a different and expanded neurological light. Microdosing appears to an approach of gently and progressively inducing positive neuroplastic changes in our brain. The keys appear to be low-level eustress agents that are capable of safely inducing triggers of change in the brain. With repetition and eventual integration, the State to Trait evolution will occur.
Exploring Microdosing (whether Conventional Compound or Drug-Free) from the neurological perspective instead of the chemical opens the doors to many critical insights –– “Microdosing – it’s all about your brain regardless how you get there”.
One dynamic approach to Drug-Free Microdosing is the regular application of well-crafted Light and Sound stimulation as a series of progressive “eustress agents”. The stimulation acts in a manner similar (if not perhaps as the same) as a low-level psychedelic compound.
The concept of Drug-Free Microdosing is not meant as a replacement for Conventional Compound Microdosing but rather as an optional alternative or even companion – there is no intention of discrediting the psychedelics as a means of Microdosing – if anything, these insights into the dynamics of Microdosing can be viewed as a support to the credibility of the use of sub-perceptual psychedelics when viewed neurologically as effective “eustressors” (positive stimulation) triggering beneficial neuroplastic changes in the brain.