Microdosing
Sub-perceptual dosing of psychedelics for mood, creativity, and focus, covering common protocols, substances used, and what the current research suggests.
Microdosing is the practice of taking roughly one-tenth to one-twentieth of a recreational dose of a psychedelic — typically 0.1-0.3 g of dried psilocybin mushrooms or 6-15 micrograms of LSD — on a recurring schedule. The most common protocols are James Fadiman's (one day on, two days off), Paul Stamets's (four days on, three days off), and weekend-only schedules. Doses sit below the perceptual threshold, producing no visual effects or major cognitive shifts; rigorous placebo-controlled trials remain mixed on subjective benefits despite enthusiastic survey reports.
What Microdosing Is
Microdosing refers to taking roughly one-tenth to one-twentieth of a standard psychedelic dose, an amount intended to be sub-perceptual, meaning it should not produce hallucinations or significant alterations in consciousness. The practice gained mainstream attention through James Fadiman's research and Silicon Valley anecdotes, but its roots stretch back further. People typically microdose psilocybin mushrooms or LSD, though other substances are sometimes used.
Protocols and Practices
The two most cited protocols are the Fadiman protocol (one day on, two days off) and the Stamets Stack (four days on, three days off, combined with lion's mane mushroom and niacin). Practitioners often keep journals to track mood, creativity, energy, and focus over weeks or months. The practice is self-directed and unregulated in most jurisdictions, which makes reliable dosing and quality control significant concerns.
What the Research Says
The scientific evidence for microdosing remains mixed. Several large surveys report subjective improvements in mood, focus, and creativity, but randomized controlled trials have so far struggled to distinguish microdosing effects from placebo. A 2021 study in Nature found that microdosers reported greater well-being, but the study could not rule out expectancy effects. The field is young, and researchers caution against strong claims in either direction. What seems clear is that the practice warrants further rigorous investigation.
