A walk in nature is better than microdosing | Hacker News Reader

A walk in nature is better than microdosing

victorrotariu.com

248 pointsunifiedtheory209 comments

I've gone on super long runs (10+ miles) through cities, parks, and other beautiful environments.

These runs can be transcendental. During them, I felt like I was at peace and all my problems almost went away. Now I think back on them and feel nostalgia, also I appreciate nature and architecture a lot more. For me, runners high is very real.

I've never taken drugs or psychedelics, but I would be interested in hearing people who've done both compare the two. I really think it's a similar experience.

They're pretty different in my experience (used to take LSD, run instead these days). LSD can be different things to different people, but for me it was a really intense experience, where everything was really vivid and alive. I think I get the runner's high you talk about, but it's much more meditative and (for lack of a less loaded term) wholesome. The comedown from LSD can be pretty grim, but running first thing in the morning improves my entire day.

Edit: Actually, if the comparison is microdosing I've never done that. But I'd take a run over microdosing any day, even if I could get guaranteed pharmeceutical-grade LSD on tap.

> These runs can be transcendental.

I truly believe it. The happiness you feel after a race, or a good workout, is indescribable. I've never been happier than when I routinely worked out for 90 minutes a day, 6 days a week. I was floating, and had random endorphins highs during the day.

I've never microdosed, but from what I've read I think running (and more generally sport) can be similar to it. Maybe similar to meditating, too.

Before a family vacation recently, I went on a long 11 mile hike by myself. It helped just completely empty my mind, especially the transition from work mind -> family mind. Planning to do it more often...

When I do “tranquil” things like being on a trail I mostly wind up thinking about others things I can be doing

Like I get motivated to do things I’m procrastinating on, except now I’m in the middle of a trail and cant

This can have redeeming benefits like sorting out thoughts for things I hadnt considered and I can enjoy it when I get into it, but this is a different experience than psychadelics

Also not all trails I can get into. Some start boring and stay boring.

An exercise high where you zone off into your thoughts and get a (theorized) release of dopamine and serotonin from your muscles aching is very different than psychedelics

Some/Many people on the trails around you are also on psychadelics. You shouldnt be able to tell, but especially if they are microdosing.

I would say while using psychadelics that stimuli guides your thoughts differently. Your mind is sorting different things. And primarily different neuron groups are communicating that typically aren’t, or are now communicating at higher bandwidth. This is all theorized based on shared experiences and some MRIs that show enhanced activity but arent capable of corroborating how neurons are connected. The serotonin released is also considered to be amplified. For many, this has redeeming benefits. More study is needed so at least less redeeming side effects can be listed on the bottle like every fda evaluated drug.

Being in the woods and being on psychadelics isnt mutually exclusive

> Like I get motivated to do things I’m procrastinating on, except now I’m in the middle of a trail and cant

This is a really common phenomenon. We also experience it in the shower or laying in bed at night.

I think the common understanding is that it's a dumb little trick our anxiety is playing on us. One of the main reasons we procrastinate is fear: that we will fail at the task, that it will be too hard, that it will impinge on our picture of ourselves in some way. So we know we're supposed to do it, but we also don't want to.

When we're in a situation where we could work on it, those procrastinating rationalizations rise up to let us escape the risk of those negative experiences. But if we're in a situation where we can't do the task we're afraid of, there's no reason to put the unconscious mental effort into summoning those mental blocks. So we experience that as "I feel really motivated right now but I can't."

What's really going on is that you're equally motivated all the time, you just have other negative stuff layered on top at points when you could be doing the thing. Work through that negative stuff, and you'll feel just as motivated even when you are able to do the task.

Doesn't happen on psychedelics though

Its all replaced with a deconstructive process. Deconstructive of the mental model and fabric of reality.

Might result in insight into something you’re procrastinating on

Might just make your stomach hurt and question if this is a good or bad drug

Very different than just removing anxiety distractions

Marcel Proust wrote a piece on the subject.

> since within twenty-four hours, in the empty frame of that long morrow in which everything was so well arranged because I myself had not yet entered it, my good intentions would be realised without difficulty ... Unfortunately the morrow was not that vast, external day to which I in my fever had looked forward. When it drew to a close, my laziness and my painful struggle to overcome certain internal obstacles had simply lasted twenty-four hours longer.

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/63532/63532-h/63532-h.htm

They are nowhere near the local galactic cluster of similar experiences.

I have gone on long runs but have never been able to hit the runner's high (that I have read about). I used to have some music on during runs (wasn't really listening to the songs actually) but I have stopped that as well recently. Maybe expecting the "high" is the wrong thing to do and that's preventing me from achieving it :). Hopefully I will achieve it one of these days...

I've been running for years, without expecting runner's high, and also without ever getting it. I assume runners who get it just have a different kind of brain-body.

I used to feel the runners high regularly when I first started out.

Back then I was pushing my body beyond the limits my brain thought was possible, and each time I broke through those limits it was exhilarating.

Nowadays when I run it is more a calm and meditative experience, however I'm also running within those limits, some quite extensive, that I had set myself in past runs.

Except that one time recently when, on a whim, I set myself a new goal to run all of the large hills in my area in one session. During the attempt my brain was screaming at me to stop, but I kept going and made it. From the moment I knew I could make it I felt the high again, a rush that radiated from my brain through the body and crashed against my extremities. My legs felt like they were flying over the pavement, the world around me became crystal clear, I had a beaming smile plastered on my face and I found myself wondering if I had attained godhood.

I've since come back to earth, but the experience made me realize that I'll need to set some tough challenges to feel that high again.

I've done plenty of drugs and also have hobbies like backcountry skiing and mountaineering, having climbed some of the highest peaks in North America. They really aren't the same thing, but what I can say is that the high I had after a 3 week Alaskan expedition has never been matched by substances or anything else.

Unfortunately I can't go on a 3 week expedition every weekend.

I'm also lacking psychedelic experience, but one of the ways I made it through the pandemic was going for 4+ hour bike rides on Sundays. Total reset for my brain.

I've done a reasonable amount of both psychedelics and long distance running (finished full and half marathons + the training required to do that) and they're completely different things.

Both are great, both can be great tools for self discovery, and both can yield annoyingly ardent fans. I personally think everyone who is interested in experiencing life should aim to do a 10+ mile run and take a reasonably strong dose of a psychedelic. But by no means is your life impoverished by having neither experience.

> I felt like I was at peace and all my problems almost went away.

Right away this is a key difference, the peace you feel running is closer to a mild opioid than any psychedelic. Long distance running is fantastic for this sort of deep meditation, and for many people will be much easier than performing long sitting mediation. However I would say the end result of this running is that you travel deep within yourself.

Psychedelics on the other hands will temporarily take your mind apart. It is very common to experience looking in the mirror and seeing 'you' as just another body that is no different than the other bodies on the street. Psychedelics are both more exhilarating and more terrifying. Baggage you are carrying around can easily spiral in to a "bad" trip (which may be terrifying, but many would agree is not really a "bad" thing). At the same time and during the same experience you can see and feel the details in a blade of grass that let you feel a sense of beauty in the mundane that is a very different intensity than the peaceful bliss that can come from running.

I highly recommend you try something like shrooms in the safe environment. Not dissimilar to running a marathon, once can be enough of an experience for a lifetime (where for some people they want it to be a major part of their life, which is fine too in both cases).

well said !

> highly recommend you try something like shrooms in the safe environment

Just listened to Seth Rogen's audible book (hilarious, and decent anecdata on shrooms particularly) and he would say shrooms are a lot more intense than LSD. Shrooms take control while on LSD you're "the pilot."

I've heard this many times and there is definitely some truth there, but for small doses (i.e. 100ug LSD and 1-1.5g mushrooms), I don't think you need to overly-concern yourself with minutiae of the differences.

There is no reason to take more than this as introductory doses, and then you can make up your own mind.

May be because with mushrooms, you don't necessarily know your exact dose of the drug, as I'm sure it can vary batch to batch, and shroom to shroom. LSD, you usually know how much you're getting on each tab. Of course, you could could process the mushrooms and figure out how much psilocybin you're getting, then do a comparison... But usually, I think people just eat the mushrooms or make them into tea.

> Shrooms take control while on LSD you're "the pilot."

A counterargument that a friend told me once: a psilocybin trip is like a wagon ride that takes you to what you need to see. LSD is like a jet plane that takes you instantly to where your brain wants to go.

I think it probably depends on the person. My first psilocybin trip was the most intense experience I've had, but then I had a lot that I needed to confront at the time.

I've had probably a hundred lsd trips and dozens of mushroom trips.

In all there were three trips I would call "bad", I went to what I perceived as hell. The mushroom bad trip was nearly indistinguishable from the acid bad trips.

In all three cases I felt immense gratitude for the trips being over yet thankful for the experiences.

I heard he smokes 5 joints a day. His wife rolls them, so he doesn't smoke too much.

He has good genes, or a high tolerance.

I tried smoking around December, and realized I hated it. I liked it in high school. I couldn't wait until the effect went away. It's weird I kept trying it, and finally gave up. Was about to toss it, but hide it instead--too cheap to toss?

Then again real life has been scaring me for years. I wish there was a calming drug that was easy on the body.

> Then again real life has been scaring me for years.

Especially with the extremely high THC content of modern strains people often fail to recognize that weed is still a psychedelic in its own right.

Alcohol, for most people, will simply make you feel good (up to a point), but strong weed can often magnify strong emotions you have. During a particularly challenging time in my life I completely gave up weed because smoking only served to make me feel worse.

Like all psychedelics the negative experience can be useful, for example if you get very anxious when you smoke it's likely you have some other unaddressed problems, but for those that are just looking for an escape (and most people, myself included, are looking for this from weed) it can certainly make smoking during stressful times a bad idea.

You meditated you just didn’t know it. Try sitting zazen now and again, a quick search can help you out with it :)

While it's possible to enter altered states of consciousness via endurance sport, (or meditation, yoga, breathing exercises, etc). the experience is fundamentally different than ingesting psychoactive substances.

With one, you have to actively work to achieve an altered state. With the other, once you ingest the thing, it's happening whether you want it to or not.

One is an act of willful exertion, the other is an act of surrender.

How is this different from an intense gym workout or playing racquetball or yoga? Comparing these to running and not psychedelics. I don't want to be doing any strenuous physical activity on psychedelics, a hike through nature would be nice. Each of those activities gives me a high, but different ones at that. But nevertheless I feel ebullient and in a state of flow.

I also do long run (80k, 100k distances so far) and maybe the first 30k-40k can be pleasant and feel transcendental, but after that everything is pain. Also at some point the pain disappears and then there is nothing.

Yes, I’ve experienced the same. Always between 10-18miles and through nature in a part of town different from my day-to-day.

I know runners high. But running isn't(wasn't) my main thing, that would be bicycling. Anyway, long ago I had a very broken upper arm which made running unenjoyable. At the time I had a prescription for time released/retarded Tramadolhydrochloride which is a mild Opioid, not something like Fentanyl, or such.

One day I felt the urge to run and popped a pill in preparation, which kicks in after about half an hour. Where kicks in means pain is gone like a switch is thrown, and not much else, maybe a feeling of relaxation, but that may have been just because the pain was gone?

So I've been ready, and then a thunderstorm started. That was unexpected, because the weather was fine, and then suddenly it wasn't anymore. Whatever, didn't want to have taken the pill for nothing, and went out to run in spite of the rain.

Along one side of the mountains forming a valley, on a path through a pine forest above the train tracks curving along the mountain above the little valley.

Soaked, but so what? It was warm summer rain. I could see down to the train tracks, between 50 to 150meters away(that varied)

And then the lightnings really started. It came to mind that it wouldn't be a good idea to be out there, so exposed, during that much lightning, maybe even suicidal. I coldly calculated that all the trees there made much better lightning rods than me, and ran on.

While doing that I saw dozens of lightnings hitting the tracks and their electrification/overhead wire and masts, again and again.

Like in some crazy movie-fx/CGI. Because I perceived it in slow motion, white-blue-violet-purple colored, branching apart, similar to the roots of a tree, but not. And the thundering, even the echoes giving you light full body slaps.

While on the usual runners high, feeling light, flying.

This went on for maybe 10km over half an hour, then I had to turn back because end of way. Well, not exactly, but no more forest, and I don't like to run in urban areas between housing and traffic.

So, for me the kind of drugs I took just intensified that and I'd agree with you regarding the similarity of experience.

But there are other drugs working differently, there are other people reacting different to some(or all?) drugs than others, and there are (supposedly?) different 'neuro-architectures' ('wiring of the brain') resulting in different sensibilities on a spectrum/scale from something vague to something vague :-)

fascinating experience and insight

Why not combining both?

When having stuff to do in downtown, I usually choose routes which are rich green with large old trees and/or houses whith really nice front lawns bursting with colors by the planted flowers and bushes. Even if it is a slight detour, and thus taking longer to get where I need to be. Though I prefer to be absolutely sober then.

OTOH, walking, or bicyling out of town into the surrounding country, having only the slightest 'buzz' from some weak weed/grass intensifies my perception of the colors, smells, sounds, air currents and temperatures. I'd guess 'microdosing' would be similar?

Oh, and don't forget polarized sunglasses with blue/green tint. That is upping the visuals a notch. Even without direct sunhine, when it's overcast.

Example: the leaves of trees, from afar, or high up in the crown. With bare eyes I see them, but diffuse. With polarized sunglasses I can see every single one of them, their movement in the wind, and even their structure. Similar boost for seeing waves on the river.

> With bare eyes I see them, but diffuse. With polarized sunglasses I can see every single one of them, their movement in the wind, and even their structure. Similar boost for seeing waves on the river.

This is eerily similar to what I have experienced. I seem to notice the color of flowers, movement of the leaves whilst wearing polarized sunglasses and some infusion of THC.

I think there is nothing eerie about it. Pilots often wear them. Captains, other navigators on ships also. What could be the reason? :-) Which reminds me of something I've forgotten to mention. Clouds in the sky change from diffuse to 3D :-)

Yes, skiing/snowboarding too! Ski goggles are sold with various color tints and (light transmission) for different conditions. Makes a big difference in visibility

https://www.rei.com/blog/snowsports/understanding-goggle-len...

Every time I've encountered discussions of pilots and polarized glasses, it's to avoid them. https://www.faa.gov/pilots/safety/pilotsafetybrochures/media...

". Polarized lenses are not recommended for use in the aviation environment. While useful for blocking reflected light from horizontal surfaces such as water or snow, polarization can reduce or eliminate the visibility of instruments that incorporate antiglare filters. Polarized lenses may also interfere with visibility through an aircraft windscreen by enhancing striations in laminated materials and mask the sparkle of light that reflects off shiny surfaces such as another aircraft’s wing or windscreen, which can reduce the time a pilot has to react in a “see-and-avoid” traffic situation."

Yeah, that may be the case, but those points don't apply in a situation where you just want to have better visibility, and are not in a situation where the polarized glasses could interfere with anything else. Like LCDs, looking through other glasses, and so on. For the use-case I described they are even relaxing, causing less eye-strain.

good point, considering it

> Why is microdosing popular and walks in the park are not?

Is there anywhere where this is true? Where I live (London), probably 80% of people go for walks in the park. And I don't think I know anyone who microdoses.

I'd say because parks/nature is scarce in concrete cities

London has lots of nice parks. There was much more greenery around me in London than there is in the ‘leafy’ suburb, elsewhere in the country, that I currently live in.

London is a bit of an outlier. It's high on the list of major cities with the most green space, at about 34%. It has more green space than any city in the UK, and it is the world's largest urban forest at over 8 million trees.

By comparison, Los Angeles is the only major US city with as much green space (the next is NYC at 27%), even though the US is 40 times bigger than the UK.

> and it is the world's largest urban forest at over 8 million trees.

According to this, Toronto has 10 million, and honestly I'm sort of surprised it's that low... do you have a source for the "largest" claim?

https://www.td.com/document/PDF/economics/special/UrbanFores...

> It has more green space than any city in the UK

That's probably technically true, but a bit misleading. It's also pretty much the only city in the UK where it's difficult to get out into actual countryside. I used to live in Bristol and it certainly felt greener and more rural than London, even if it technically isn't.

Agreed. The closest parks to me do not offer serene nature. They offer a diverse mix of people (and dogs) engaged in all kinds of different activities. It's entertaining and stimulating but I doubt it provides the benefits the author is talking about.

Especially since they keep mentioning forests and there is nothing remotely like a "forest" in walking distance from my home in NY. Nor was there was I lived in SF, and not even in the suburbs where I grew up.

I live in Boise Idaho. While there are forests, none of them are within walking distance.

Having a forest in walking distance is a rarity.

True, but if you live near Presidio in SF or Prospect Park in Brooklyn (as examples) you can totally walk to a forest! And in many places where people own cars you and just drive 5 or 10 minutes. But clearly these circumstances are far from universal. Most people are lucky to have a half-decent park within a 10 minute walk.

I didn't even know what microdosing was until I clicked. Do THAT many people know what Microdosing is that they can just omit LSD from the title?

You can microdose with mushrooms, or anything really. Microdosing has become increasingly popular over the last few years, but I doubt it's ubiquitous where everyone is knowledgeable on the subject.

Microdosing shrooms is not really a thing

It is as far as I know

Microdosing shrooms is 100% a thing - I would even go so far as to say on par with microdosing LSD.

Another little known form of microdosing is the microdosing of cannabis.

It would be great if it got as much attention and study as the microdosing of other psychedelics.

How much counts for a microdose?

Tell that to Justin Zhu. But it's not just LSD and mushrooms. It's nootropics and stimulants too just to keep up in the Red Queen's Race of Silicon Valley at places like AWS. And I know people firsthand who are to up these shenanigans.

But ask yourself perhaps why a job should implicitly require this and I think you'll come up short. Tech shouldn't be a choose your dystopia misadventure IMO.

What?

Not only is microdosing a thing, shrooms can be used recreationally with none of the cliche shroom effects.

I have a very adverse effect to alcohol, so if I'm seeking a mild buzz or want to enjoy social events more -- or just want a mental vacation -- a <2g dose (dried cubensis -- this is way beyond microdosing, but just on the topic of "not all shroom experiences are space walks") yields just a nice feeling and experience that lasts for many hours. I'm more in the moment, relaxed, and seem to enjoy experiences more, without hallucinations or altered judgment.

Obviously I need to disclaim that this is my experience. Other people might become murderous psychotics or something. I don't encourage anyone else to do anything based on this. However there is a pretty common advocacy of microdosing.

Though this submission is utterly absurd if it's seriously positing that the public at large is microdosing rather than taking walks.

Man, MDing shrooms just makes me super lethargic and sleepy

I don't think it's a matter of popularity - clearly more people are going on walks than regularly talking small amounts of LSD. It's a matter of visibility and novelty. Microdosing is new and buzzworthy, it's been hyped low and high and a walk in the woods is as old (read boring) as time.

exactly

What kind of bubble do you have to live in where microdosing is more popular than parks lol?

San francisco

I know people in the kinds of circles where micro-dosing is popular, in San Francisco. I can say with absolute certainty, walks in the park are still more popular.

Although, if the homeless problem gets any worse, who knows.

Yes, it's a pretty narrow group where microdosing is even on really on the radar, let alone a common occurrence. It makes good copy though, so the amount of media attention it has had is way out of proportion to it's actual impact.

I know 0 people who have mentioned microdosing, or even know what that is. Hacker News has a way of distorting reality, citing specific studies, reinforcing and arguing against them with anecdata. Creating a bubble within the Hacker News reality. Many of the studies that these people reference, in psychology, and in health, the only way to get information out of them is through meta-analysis of many studies. These fields are so contradictory within themselves, it's not even worth looking at most "individual" studies. Sometimes even the meta-analysis can be wrong as well.

the homeless aren't an impediment to walking around unless you live in the tenderloin or someplace downtown that has an especially big problem. In most of the city they are around, but not bothering anybody. Also much of the "walking in nature" that people do is hiking outside the city where the homeless problem can't have an effect.

Errr, I live in San Francisco. We do almost everything in parks. The massive Golden Gate Park is brimming with people every weekend.

Funny you mention it, you can buy mushrooms, LSD, DMT, whatever on hippie hill in Golden Gate Park at all hours of the day. Although you're right, most people there are just walking around oblivious to all the hippies tripping.

As an aside, microdosing is a placebo for people too scared to take a real trip.

Well it's not a placebo in a strict sense.

I lived in Berkeley, there was no circle in which microdosing is more popular than going to a park. Sure, people know of microdosing, but nowhere even close to a majority do it regularly.

People walking in parks are too busy walking in parks to blog about the therapeutic benefit they're experiencing from being in a park though :)

I didn’t even know what “microdosing” before stumbling on this post, still am not 100% sure what it is, I guess it’s something related to taking psychedelics in small doses?

Using "microdoses" (i.e. doses that are too little to be intoxicating) of drugs such as LSD, shrooms, ecstasy or weed. There is some evidence that microdosing LSD and shrooms is beneficial to mental health (depression, anxiety etc).

I think to be be a true and sublime "forest bath", you need to be some ways from the din of human civ. Closest to Central London might be Richmond Park? But even then there are plenty of day drinkers idling about ;)

Hampstead Heath is quite central as well.

You would be very lucky to spend more than a minute in Hampstead Heath without another human being in view, at least at most times and in most parts of the park.

So many people use parks even without paths that a common technique for park designers is to simply build parks with no pathways then go pave where people go over time -- so called "Desire Paths." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desire_path

People have been walking through things like Temple Gardens for most if not all of recorded history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_gardening

While psychedelics have a long history - and surely some wild animals unintentionally microdose including homo sapiens in the early days just by trying a mushroom they see - it seems certain that it's many orders of magnitude more hours of the human experience spent on walks in nature than on psychedelics.

It's popular to extol the virtues of on the web, anyway.

The author explains their reasoning in the article:

>On the other hand microdosing is not common. However it has several characteristics that make it appear more valuable. Namely its difficulty, exclusivity and risk. It activates our bias of thinking that scarcity indicates value.

I've lived in the US and Canada. Nobody goes on walks in California. In fact where I live under 1% of the city is green space. I hate walking in this city. My dog hates it as well. Can you believe that?

When we lived in a major city in Canada there was so much green space.

nobody goes on walks in california? i live in SF and going on walks, or hikes just outside of the city, is easily one of the most common activities people I know participate in. There is no chance going on walks is less popular than microdosing here.

Are you talking about LA? SF is the only city in the US where every resident is technically within a ~10min walk to a public park. And among my group of friends here I can definitely say that hiking and getting into nature is the most common hobby outside of work. And just in reference to this article, I know zero people here in SF who microdose (unless they just never talk about it).

I experienced the opposite moving from Toronto to SF. In Toronto, indoor life was the norm (due to cold winters, plenty of rain, and much nicer indoor spaces). In SF, we seem to do everything in parks. And hiking seems more popular than bars. Hiking seems to be the presumed common activity across all people (especially as it requires almost no money at all, which is a concern for many given how high rent is).

Curious which city you live in? Plenty of walking down here in Oceanside (north San Diego county). 2 large parks within a 5 min walk from my house, walking trails across the street from my office in SD.

I guess I don't actually live in California, weird that I pay state taxes here.

Between Muni and BART there are a lot of people walking around SF and the Bay Area to get to public transit. In the city with friends we would often walk because the city is walkable and there's stuff to do. Even out in the exurbs I enjoy frequent walks with my dogs on nature trails and enjoy the occasional hike on Mt. Diablo.

When family visits we go to Muir Woods and walk amongst the trees.

So everyday whether for work, exercise, or relaxation, I walk around the Bay Area and enjoy it a heck of a lot more than the car-centric midwest I grew up in.

> Nobody goes on walks in [the very specific part of California I happen to live in]

There, that reads better.

California is the home of backpacking (US meaning) in a very real sense.

(To whom it may concern: please don't respond to this saying that wearing a backpack in the wilderness is older than John Muir. I know about Otzi as well.)

This is one of those little echo chambers. If you go looking for people who microdose then you’re going to find people who microdose and extol the virtues of it. When everyone around you is doing it because you went looking then you think it’s the norm.

Having attended a bazillion completely random things on Meetup in the last few years in London of all kinds, which is a hobby of mine, yep walks in park it is. And not one microdoser.

On the original topic, walking anywhere is the best therapy for me as well. Especially when it ends in a pub with good company.

It's unclear from the article, but the author may mean "Why do people talk about microdosing for these benefits and not about walking in the park?" The author even mentions that microdosing is not common.

Alternatively they may mean, "Why is microdosing so trendy but walking in the park is not?"

Yes, I believe you are completely correct.

The author flatly states, a few sentences later, "On the other hand microdosing is not common."

While the author's wording misses the mark, from context there's absolutely doubt he's referring to microdosing being a more popular discussion topic in some circles, not more popular in terms of the absolute number of people actually doing it.

yes

exactly, thank you

I did when shrooms (fresh) were legal in the 2000s. Used to buy them in Mayfair.

Shrooms on a bendy bus... wow

I don’t think a park in London counts as nature. It’s so artificially created with so much traffic around.

it's about using it for improved focus and creativity, rather than the prevalence of the behaviour. people go for walks in parks for many reasons, without acknowledging the beneficial effects

As someone who recently moved from SF to Breckenridge, CO, I can say nature definitely has a pretty big effect on my mental state. I wouldn't compare it to psychedelics. I think that's a dumb take that is targeted for clicks. Being in nature has little to do with the intense introspection from psychedelics.

There are other metal changes I get from living in nature. I've actually become less ambitious and content with my life. Living in SF was a grind and I think part of the ambition that is in cities come from wanting to improve you living situation. When I'm living in a small town with beautiful nature I have less of a desire to work hard to improve my life because my life already is pretty good. I think more clearly because I'm more physically active and don't drink as much. I don't think I'm any more creative maybe I should microdose more...

> I've actually become less ambitious and content with my life.

This is really interesting, and something I myself experienced (in reverse) of going from small-town living to a world city with a thriving tech ecosystem.

Now I'm contemplating moving back out into small-town life (I'm sure many city dwellers are thinking along the same lines after being locked inside for a year). I'm concerned that I'll lose my drive and ambition and settle for less in life.

Health and wellness matter more than any achievement or accolade at the end of the day.

> Being in nature has little to do with the intense introspection from psychedelics.

Intense introspection has little to do with microdosing

Or just take a full dose and take a walk in nature. Much better.

Take a full dose. Go outside to take a walk. Get arrested. Now you have bigger problems to think about than improving your mood and focus.

Take a full dose. Go outside to take a walk. Get arrested. Realize in lockdown that all societal control is just an illusion and an ego trip by those who think they need to pretend to exert power, and that nothing can hold down your divine, free essence as a living god.

And wake up in a hospital weeks later realizing you got a bad batch because these drugs aren't legal so there's no quality control and now you're on the fast track to early dementia.

Pass.

The worst I've heard of someone on acid is a terrifying 8 hours, but nothing beyond temporary distress, and nothing life threatening. AFAIA its so cheap to make that there's no profit incentive to cut it with anything else

Very possible for it to be contaminated without intent. I have friends who unintentionally consumed PCP-laced acid, ended up running through razor wire, woke up in the hospital.

That's why you buy one of those drug testing kits. Don't test street drugs from untrusted sources in your body.

This was literally the first DDG search result. https://testkitplus.com/product-category/test-kits

This is simultaneously everything right and everything wrong with America: an entrepreneurial solution to a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place.

If you go through the trouble of making your own like Albert Hofmann did, sure. You're not going to though, are you? So you're putting your biggest asset in the hands of criminals of unknown intent. Good luck with that...

But I support your right to smoke, snort, or inject whatever you want. I'm getting older now and my brain is starting to slow down so I really appreciate your opting in to annihilating the advantage of youth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Hofmann

> I really appreciate your opting in to annihilating the advantage of youth.

Why do you presume I'm young?

My bad: I thought wisdom came with age.

Why do you presume me to be unwise? I think a better rhetorical strategy is not to be snarky, it telling of an underlying resentment, but doesn't change anyone's mind. samatman's response though a little heated, answered with knowledge and real world experience and has somewhat changed my perspective. I can't say my anecdotal experiences match theirs

I've done OK avoiding the brainfarts of thought leaders and other fools so far. But I grew up surprisingly deep inside drug culture with 2 drug-dealing siblings and their drug-dealing shenanigans.

Yet I believe there's nothing wrong with recreational drug use. But I know people firsthand that were messed up by bad batches, one permanently. Also, I find people who espouse fast paths to enlightenment are frequently closet psychotics. I avoid them too.

YMMV but my lightcone, my choices, no?

"If you meet Buddha on the road, kill him." - Lin Chi

Nah be very careful with that.

There are highly potent synthetics which are passed off as LSD, where unlike LSD, taking a small multiple of a single dose can be physically dangerous.

I've also heard of (hell experienced once) worse from pure LSD than a terrifying 8 hours. It's worthy of great respect and caution, and I don't recommend it to anyone on that basis.

Which isn't to say no one should take it, just that it won't be because I urged them to.

I'm not speaking from naivete here. The main point is that it's temporary. And 'hell experience' can be a useful one, especially with guidance. The sensible thing to do, for a first-timer, is to have a trip-sitter.

A more qualified person on this topic is James Fadiman, who recently sat down with Sam Harris to talk specifically about his clinical studies of dosing with psychedelics.

https://samharris.org/podcasts/242-psychedelics-self/

> There are highly potent synthetics which are passed off as LSD, where unlike LSD, taking a small multiple of a single dose can be physically dangerous.

The only cheaper thing I've seen floating around the darkweb is NBOMe. Can you be explicit about what you're alluding to here?

> I'm not speaking from naivete here. The main point is that it's temporary.

Perhaps not, but you're not speaking from all the experience in the world either, and you're understating the dangers.

I personally know someone who jumped off a parking structure on LSD, and I know another person who had ongoing mental problems triggered by LSD psychosis, where "temporary" included a bout of hospitalization and moving home to live in his Mom's basement for awhile, while he got his shit together.

And please don't say that suicide and psychosis happen to people when they aren't on LSD as well, or handwave about "don't take it if you might have latent psychosis". I know more people who use ecstasy than take LSD, and I've never heard of someone killing themselves on it; and how, exactly, is someone supposed to know they have latent psychotic tendencies before a heavy acid trip triggers them?

LSD is an incredibly powerful substance, which should be treated with respect, caution, and even a bit of fear. Obviously it can be worth it, the median LSD experience is life-changing in a positive direction, but in my humble opinion 2CB and psilocybin have a lot to offer while being less dangerous. 2CB doesn't appear to be psychotogenic at all, and psiloc(yb)in lasts 1/3rd as long, is less stimulating, and an hour of psychic trauma (which lasts a subjective lifetime) is less risky than six hours of psychic trauma (each of which lasts a subjective lifetime).

Of course, among my friends, the second worst outcome was nine years in prison. LSD shouldn't be illegal, and it has a lot to offer the world. But just like people should know that downhill skiing risks breaking your neck, no one should go into a relationship with LSD thinking that a 'temporary' bad time is the worst thing that can happen. It isn't.

Yes, I was referring to 2CBFly-NBOMe and 25I-NBOMe. There may be others by now, but if so I'm not aware of them. Point being that "LSD is not physically dangerous" needs to include the warning that not everything someone puts on a blotter is LSD, and some of those things can kill you in a very unpleasant way.

I've been to a bunch of MAPS conferences and met Jim, so since I don't like Sam Harris I'll pass on that particular podcast.

Thanks for detailing your specific criticisms, seems like you've some valid points. I can't say that I've been privy to any of the stories about psychosis, but if your anecdotes are personally verified (and you clearly know your shit) then I must be somewhat swayed by your experience. As an aside, I also think people should be cautious about psychosis from cannabis, based on my own witness of it ruining lives. Do you have any knowledge specifically about NBOMe?

As for Sam Harris, he says a bunch of unseemly things so I also understand your distaste for him. He does take a strong interest in psychedelics and meditation however, which are both interests of mine.

it's cheap to make but pretty difficult. Counterfeits exist because they're easier to make.

"Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration. That we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather."

Thanks, Bill.

As long as you consumed all the psychs what would they arrest you for? Being too enthralled with the beauty of nature?

That said, getting arrested will be the least of your problems if you take a "full" dose and haven't had enough prior experience with psychs.

This is an absurd fantasy.

If you take psychedelics and go outside, no one is going to arrest you. Consumption of drugs, in most western nations, isn't a crime. Stop spreading this sort of asinine fear.

it kinda depends. simply being high/tripping is not illegal in most places, but you can still be arrested for public intoxication if you make a scene or just appear very fucked up in the presence of a police officer. they are obligated to detain you if they judge you to be a danger to yourself (often happens with drunks). better hope you don't have any contraband on you if that happens.

a lot of people are overconfident in their ability to handle psychedelics. some people really are capable of maintaining a totally serene presence when they're tripping, but many don't realize just how weird they look to sober observers.

Only, that's not the case. Granted, I tend to stay at home when taking hallucinogens, but not always - and have been both in cities and closer to nature.

The thing you have to remember is: No one pays attention to you. If you have a beer in your hand - or smell like you've been drinking - people do assume that is the case. It isn't like can't act normal, especially if you make sure to walk around after you peak.

It isn't like hallucinogens necessarily make you act weird - especially since people will just assume you are weird. Again, people don't really pay attention to you. Just don't do this if it is your first time.

I'd love to try LSD, or some other, similar psychedelic compound, but I don't even know where to begin sourcing it. I was that kid in high school who never even took a hit off a joint, because "drugs are bad, mmmkay," so I'm a little clueless. :P

reddit.com

Seriously, not that you can source directly from there, but give it 20min and you'll figure it out. Hint: BTC & DMs

Oh, hmm. Well, hypothetically, if I were going to, that sounds like a good idea. Hypothetically, of course.

Uncle Ben's subreddit is the best place for info

Tor.

Sounds familiar.

"OK, some of you experienced druggies are going to get a chuckle from this. This is a description of my first trip. I grew up in a real conservative environment. I always wanted to hallucinate but I was real scared of LSD. After all, it causes chromosome damage and a lot of the people that trip on it either jump out of windows or end up in a permanent psychosis. Some of the lucky ones that make it through the trip ok suffer from uncontrollable flash backs for the rest of their life. Pretty scary stuff.

I never was around people that used psychedelics much. The few times I had the opportunity, I was unable to find out enough about the source and quality to put my ignorant self at ease. It seemed like I was never going to get to have a psychedelic experience.

Well, I was surfing the net one day and decided to test the reach of information contained on it. I was trying one exotic topic after another in Yahoo. I was amazed at the knowledge contained on the net.

I decided to push it to the limit. I asked about psilocybin. To my amazement, a few indexes to documents came back. I quickly down loaded them and started studying them. I was astonished to find out that the spores for Psilocybe mushrooms could be mail ordered because the spores did not contain any controlled substances. And best of all, there was no overdose for psilocybin."

From the Magic Mushroom Growers' Guide: https://catbull.com/alamut/Bibliothek/Growguide.english/Mmgg...

Better yet you take the whole of dose and then walk in Nature.

Closely related Psilocybin is the only sacrament that is clinically proven to work better than a placebo:

https://www.wired.com/2013/10/timothy-leary-archives/

and it is widely believe to enhance the outdoor experience as well.

What a bizarre artifact of a very specific subculture.

I would wager that, not only is walking in nature more popular than microdosing (lol, c'mon, that's a gimme) but that regular ol' dosing and walking in nature is also more popular than microdosing.

As compromises go, "minidosing" and taking a hike is pretty nice! I found (back when I made a habit of such things) that the smallest amount of your psychedelic-of-choice that you would definitely feel was a good match for wandering around and enjoying the splendor of the world.

I truly wonder what prompted someone to contrast two of the most complementary activities I can think of in this way. Takes all types I guess.

I wonder if this is more a subtle criticism of psychology research. Perhaps a walk in the park should be more of a baseline

So much of "mental" health is really just physical health. As a young person with mood issues I could never really understand why I felt the way I felt at times, and would always just chalk it up to some vague self diagnosed mental disorder. But the older I get I realize it all comes down to my physical state. Am I tired? Have I slept right? Have I eaten? Too much caffeine? Too much alcohol? Have I exercised? Practically every bad mood can be traced back to these. Yet people will ignore all that and convince themselves they need to take a pill to make themselves feel better.

Exactly. The overcomplicated way people think about things like this reminds me of the counterpoint Michael Pollan quote about what you should eat: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." If people made sure they slept properly, didn't drink too much (caffeine or alcohol) and got regular exercise, they'd feel transformed. It took me until my 40s to realise that!

I think at this point everybody's aware of what it takes to be healthy. People live their lives pumped up by stimulants and numbed down by alcohol and terrible food because their life is already terrible, it's a symptom and an escape from deeper problems caused by the inhuman environment a lot of us are stuck in.

Reminds me of that Irvine Welsh quote: "If 'it' wasn't so shit, people wouldn't be trying to get 'out of it'." Not sure I agree that's anything like the sole cause though. I think there's a lot of people who've drunk the kool-aid of miracle fixes when being kind to yourself is the much simpler (and cheaper) option.

Agreed. This has been my experience as well. Whenever I get to a dark place, I eventually pick up the weights again and w/in a few weeks I'm feeling much better. Fixing mental health issues with working out is a meme in the fitness world too.

Probably not a popular opinion among the HN crowd, but I think there are way too many anxiety/depression cases caused by lifestyle. It's like, you sit in front of a computer screen for 12 hours a day chugging sugary lattes, no shit you have anxiety. Go do some hill sprints until you're exhausted.

An awful lot of "night owls" or "insomniacs" who just "can't" go to bed early are a result of lifestyle, too. Specifically, hyper-stimulative home environments and very bright nighttime household lighting—not just screens, though that's part of it. Limit lighting to low-double-digit candle power per room, at most, and take away the on-demand 24/7 carnival that is modern multimedia entertainment past ~8PM (or dusk, whichever's later, it's seasonal), and watch most of the "night owls" who just "are" that way shift to normal sleep patterns.

... of course, this means abandoning evening/night-time computer-based work, and cutting back a ton on pop-culture experiences—if you've got kids and a job and you try to spend at least some time active outdoors during the day, when are you going to binge that HBO show everyone's talking about, if not at night? When are you going to play non-kid-friendly video games? Doom-scroll your social media? Work on your "side hustle"? Do anything at all with people that involves screens or bright lighting? Well, you're not. Or at least, not very much. You're practically giving those things up, as significant parts of your life. People are too attached to one or more of those things to take the plunge—me, too, aside from some highly and immediately effective, strictly-followed trials of at most a few weeks at a time.

(yes, of course some people actually have problems sleeping beyond lifestyle issues, nowhere am I denying that—but as many people as apparently do? No, the epidemic of sleeplessness is largely a lifestyle thing.)

definitely. I was a 'night owl'. spent most of university awake at night. after implementing a strict 10 pm bedtime, I go to sleep in 5 minutes and sleep like a baby. then I wake up before 7 am with no alarm. 'night owl' indeed...

On the other hand, you may get all of these things right, and still experience no improvement.

Personally, I'm starting to feel that most "diet and exercise" advice is just a subtle way of showing a middle finger. Sending someone on a wild goose chase, thus making them go away. In my circles, I've never heard of a single case where a medical problem - whether physical or mental - was solved by changing diet or a more active lifestyle. The closest I've seen was shuffling meals around because of a bad interaction with a drug.

Keeping sleep, diet and exercise truly optimal, against challenges of the modern world and already compromised physical or mental state is a full-time job on its own. Even if it could help - which I doubt - few people have enough time and energy to go this route. Hell, finding the optimal balance in the first place is essentially a full-time N=1 research work.

Pills are good thing. The right ones, administered in correct doses, under supervision of medical professionals - they work wonders. Modern medicine in many ways a miracle. Being able to function again, to feel good, to spend quality time with people you love, can be as simple as popping a lozenge at appropriate time. It's infinitely better than structuring your entire life around managing your condition with "natural" remedies.

To be clear: I'm not saying we should be medicating ourselves for everything. Not all drugs are good, and all drugs have side effects. They're still very crude tools. I'm trying to offer a counterpoint to the (what I feel is) growing trend of rejecting modern medicine just because it smells too much of industry (as if that was a bad thing). In my view, the problem with medication is just that it's not good enough. But it's getting better, year after year.

Perhaps interventions in diet, exercise and sleep and 'talking cures' such as therapy are both required for a real improvement in mental health.

So there are lots of people who claim that effort spent on general health did not solve any of their mental health issues, and others who claim that therapy was useless because they still had the same bad sleep and diet patterns and generally felt physically crappy.

They are both right.

What you're doing here is exhibiting the shadow side of people who reject medicine and insist that diet and health are the only valid treatment for mental and physical malaise.

Lifting heavy weights is the only thing which keeps me sane. It might not work for you, but unless you've tried it, you don't know that.

None of my business if you do or don't, and a six week commitment to something like Stronglifts 5x5 is pretty serious so I'm not surprised most people don't try it.

But don't conflate it with hopping on a treadmill or exercise bike, or just pushing some dumbbells around once or twice. Heavy, repeated, and compound lifts are uniquely effective for me, and for a remarkable number of other people.

It's not a fuck you, man. That's insulting.

Many years ago, when I was much younger, I had anger issues. I started to play sports (football, wrestling, track) and they vanished. I told myself I was always too worn out to be angry. Now, whenever I don't feel right, I can just go for a walk. I'm so out of shape today, a 30 minute walk can wear me out enough to get my head right.

We don't know if this is the case yet but I suspect that the grand majority of ailments currently treated with Psychologists and Psychiatrists will turn out to be things in the future that we know the cause of and can treat properly at a biological level.

There was a paper maybe a month ago about Penile dysfunction in a Covid long hauler who died. Post Mortem DNA analysis of the dysfunctional area showed Covid19 was causing the dysfunction, it was persisting in those cells nearly a year after the initial infection. This person did not show positive on covid19 tests and none of the long haulers do, this person did not shed viral load and infect others, but clearly that virus was still present causing a raft of problems in their body.

I would bet big on other viruses doing this in our body and causing all sorts of local problems and if we knew what we were looking for and had ways to kill the infected cells we would cure a whole raft of chronic conditions. What you suffer from is likely a combination of the virus that is doing it and where it is persisting. It is becoming an increasingly accepted position with a variety of papers showing viruses stick around, control cells and maintain presence and cause all sorts of weird effects in the body and I suspect we are going to find them the cause of a lot of problems we call mental currently.

I am all but certain that right now what we call mental health is really just physical that we just don't recognise properly because we haven't done the DNA analysis of sufferers post mortem to understand the real root cause. I also think the current practice of Psychology is hurting the chance of the biological research from occurring at the sort of pace and funding it should while it does research that doesn't look deeply into the biology of common conditions.

I don't think any rational therapist wouldn't at least try to get you to self-treat your neurosis with some simple exercises, fresh air, and socializing before they prescribe something. Things like chronic depression are absolutely going to require something more aggressive than a walk in the park though. And I don't think anyone prescribes microdosing.

My second-hand experience is that many psychiatrists will indeed reach straight for meds when they are looking for a solution.

People are naturally incentivized to use the tools they've spent decades acquiring. Just like every programmer when presented with a problem tends to solve it with code. A psychiatrist's career is based on prescribing medicine, so that's what they're gonna do.

(Psychologists and therapists, however, will likely tell you to take a walk in nature and think about your mother.)

Here's the biggest issue: none of this is is scientific. None of it is quantifiable, none of it is repeatable, none of it is falsifiable.

Oh, I'm sure you can take a lab rat, vivisect him, introduce certain chemicals, and observe a change in behavior. But you can't do that with people.

Furthermore, behavior is one thing. But the mind -- human consciousness -- is more than the physical organ of the brain.

When the doctors prescribe medication to rectify a "chemical imbalance" in your brain, they aren't actually preforming a measurement. And what's more, after the medication is administered, there's no objective test to determine if the treatment is effective.

How do you measure depression? What are the units? You've got nothing but a subjective assessment. "This feels better." Or "This does not." At the end, microdosing is no more scientific than healing crystals, religion, or taking a walk in the park.

And yet, I absolutely believe a walk in nature is better than a chemically induced lobotomy.

the article has link to research measuring objective indicators

Wow, seriously weird. These "microdosing reports" feel a bit like BitCoin propaganda. I mean, like if someone was trying to establish a market that wouldn't exist by simple demand. So demand is being created by telling people in a sneaky way that they are kind of missing out on something. Besides, I would choose a nice walk in the woods everytime over microdosing a psychedelic. For one, inhaling nature directly and having your senses recalibrated to natural events is just wonderful, and microdosing is simply too shallow to make up for that. If you draw a comparison, I guess you need to compare to a full trip. And even that is best done out in the nature :-)

From what I understand, low doses LSD or mushrooms sometimes (I think like 20% of the time) creates a long term (six months to permanent) change in mood for severely depressed people. I am also under the impression that there is no extra benefit from repeating doses more than once a year.

I think that walks in nature work significantly more often, but the effect is short term lasting days instead of months or years. Also, walking once or more a week is helpful long term.

I have only seen evidence and anecdotes about long term changes from large doses. And repeating every few months or a few times a year.

I have never tried microdosing, but how would I manage to get a walk in nature? :p

Alas, when I was a child we used to live at an edge of a forest, so getting a walk in nature was easy to do. But where I am living now, there is some residential housing and some fields. Not sure how far I would have to drive until I get to some point which would qualify as "nature". Perhaps 30 minutes to an hour.

Check your local city map on Google Maps, you may be surprised to find some "nature" [0] trails within your residential area. They're not always marked well.

[0] In quotes because you're going to be 100-300' from houses on a large portion of these kinds of trails. But they can still offer something nice and scenic compared to walking the suburban sidewalks.

Thanks, but around here where I live, the area is completely taken with either housing or fields which are farmed. And this is directly around Munich. In a sense, you will find more "nature" in the parks inside the city. Likewise, there are no "trails" because there is basically no unused land, if you don't count the access roads to the fields.

Microdosing in nature is better than a walk in nature

The issue with microdosing is the lack of ritual. Taking a precut strip before getting started on a task. Compare this to the ritual of going to nature, it's an aberration from your usual ways. You get more benefit, or maybe just meaning from psychedelics by creating ritual. Compare taking an MAOI consuming DMT, vs traveling to a new place and consuming ayahuasca.

I have never microdosed, but I disagree on the pleasantries of walking in nature. Unless specific conditions apply like not being hot or too cold, walkability of the trail, etc. I find myself really stressed after a hike or an unwanted stroll. Insects, sweat, looking where you put tour steps or else…I get really annoyed.

YMMV but it’s probably just me I guess.

Edit: grammar

Yes, looks like these people are living in a temperate zone.

Try to walk through the jungle where I live and lets see after how many minutes you will want to breathe normal air again.

This is the most your-mileage-may-vary thread I've read on HN in a long time!

Taking some hongos with my buddies in the Yucatan was an experience I will always treasure. But at that point in my life it had been at least two months since I'd set foot in air conditioning, we were mostly living on the beaches (I was the token gringo).

If I go without any extended exercise for a while, this is how I feel.

If you force yourself to go for a hike/walk/jog etc, after a few times, that initial discomfort dissipates and it becomes a psychologically and physically rewarding experience. You go from feeling like shit the first few times to feeling refreshed afterwards.

I can see how the author wants us to learn about this awesome life hack of going for walks. However, one can microdose and take walks at the same time. So the question becomes: How do they stack? Unfortunately, this was not explored.

I'd be willing to test out both to compare

I used up my quota before I was 18.

I start each day with a 2-mile walk. Seems to work for me.

Or after work, I'm currently doing 2-mile daily runs (trying to get into my old 5km running habit) and it's incredibly restorative after a day of thinking about other people's problems.

Sometimes someone's gotta say the obvious thing so we can remember.

They seem to be rather orthogonal. Microdosing is certainly more controllable in terms of how much and what dose so you can optimize the level whereas walks in nature is more akin to drinking herbal tea for an upset stomach. You hope it helps but you don’t know how much of the active ingredient you’re getting for the effects you want and in that sense it’s more of a crapshoot in terms of repeatability but they’re also just enjoyable in their own right regardless of follow on benefits.

I began trail running about a month ago, nothing excessive but enough to break into a decent sweat and send my heart rate up. One thing I've taken away from this is the extasy and clarity of mind experienced post-run is truly fascinating. What's better and I say this to you Anecdotally, was the almost recursive Impetus of ideas that began to flow to me in the latter hours of the day.

what's even better is to take DMT then run into the forest to talk to dead people then post your story on erowid.org in the year 2000.

Doubly so if you took the DMT in 2021.

and the award for the most California post ever goes to...

100% agree. However, finding nature in a big city is a challenge. Finding a quiet place in that nature in a big city is a bigger challenge. It's certainly not as simple as "take a 5 min. walk". It might involve driving 30-60 min just to get there.

I typically go for long walks around my city and try to hit as much green space as possible about once a month. usually will take 2-8 hours and see where I end up. Usually 10-20km. It does wonders for my mind.

I'll go as far as to say that the benefits you can get from psychedelics, you can also get from meditation. The former can be a valuable shortcut, but the latter is sustainable and good for well-being.

I found a walk in Nature on the day after a changa(DMT+Harmala) was greatly enhanced. Somehow i would notise the leaves more like having better vision. Perhaps being more in the moment have to do with it.

What about small rivers and ponds ? I had strange experiences sitting near water. The flow, the sound, the reflections.. maybe someone knows about rituals or recent studies about it.

Clearly both have benefits. If you have access to nature (many people don't) then walking in it is beneficial. Whether or not you have access to nature, microdosing might help.

Walking in a city is also beneficial.

This reads like one of those cookie cutter mass produced "Article about a Thing" you find when searching for almost anything these days

Also: native scrolling is better than smooth-scroll.js

So ... if we combine the two would we get even more benefit? Could it be compounding like alcohol and central nervous system depressants?

Por que no los dos?

Why do these things need to be mutually exclusive?

This. Who does psychedelics and sits at home, or even worse at their job.

Never microdosed (or macro for that matter), but nothing comes close to the elation I feel when I play with my kids at the park.

But is a walk more effective than microdosing snake oil? Surely if it works for LSD...

Microdosing is important for people in Kansas and Mars.

But that means actually “doing” something.

This is what you call a false dichotomy.

Clearly this author has missed the point of well - many things... the idea here is to microdose while taking a walk in nature ;)

Can vouch for this, cheaper as well.

Why not both?

But is it faster? That is the important question.

If all you are after are the ends, the best means are ones that require the least effort.

I found my favorite walks in nature have also been the most inconvenient ones.

Apples are better than oranges

But worse than macrodosing.

Psychedelics are the new AI and willl probably end up just as disappointing.

A good night's sleep is better than antibiotics.

It doesn't just apply to walks in nature:

you, without drugs > you, with drugs

each person discovers this in their own time & experience, and each current user justifies his choice vehemently until after they decide to quit.

There are millions of people for whom psychiatric medication makes a huge difference in their day to day life.

Psychiatric medication that has run a gauntlet of clinical tests/trials and is prescribed by a physician > street drugs

Lots of people take psychedelic drugs, or other drugs such as cannabis and MDMA, and would claim that they are much much more successful at improving mental health than psychiatric medication.

This includes people who have to get hold of them illegally.

If you have full faith in the medical and legal system then yes, this absolutely true. The fact that we have an epidemic of legally prescribed opioids while effective treatments of PTSD (in clinical settings) such as MDMA remain broadly illegal is all the evidence you need to know that you shouldn't put your full faith in our system.

While promising I still don't trust people to self medicate with these things.

You end up in BS anecdote land where people with issues self diagnose themselves, take uncontrolled drugs with dubious quality, and self report effects. It's all in all unreliable when not monitored by a neutral medical professional.

A lot of street drugs have never even had a chance to "run the gauntlet" so it's really not necessarily fair to rule them out. Which isn't to say that they _are_ effective, but we can't really rule them out just for being "street drugs".

Given the post-war history of banning psychiatric medications the moment they appear to be effective (because they happen to feel good), the opposite heuristic is if anything more useful.

Shouldn't be like that, but it is.

At least sanity is starting to return to the world: MDMA for PTSD and ketamine for depression are starting to become valid treatments, to the great benefit of those fortunate enough to be able to find and afford to take them inside the system.

But it's the same ketamine. A clinic gives you an IV infusion in a dark room with some nice music; the difference between that and taking a line on your own, in a dark room with some nice music, is less decisive than people who haven't tried it seem to think.

Anything is better than microdosing. In general not microdosing or taking any drugs at all is better than microdosing.

Microdosing is a lie perpetrated by drug dealers to sell drugs to sectors of the population that would be otherwise too cautious to take them. The entire concept is based on a logical fallacy. The fallacy is that if you do not get the positive effect (i.e., getting high), you won't get the negative effect (i.e., addiction, tolerance, and the slew of other health damaging effects for each particular drug).

But there is no data to support this and it is unlikely to be true. In fact from what is known about the nervous system, taking small dozes of an addictive drug often and at regular intervals is a great way to increase tolerance. This will cause any positive effects of the drug to quickly diminish, which will cause the user to take larger doses, which will cause more tolerance and larger doses until the health effects associated with the drug start showing up.

So yes do take those walks in the park. One can actually be addicted to exercise too, but that is an addiction that almost always has nothing but positive side effects. It is in very rare cases that people exercise so much that it causes negative effects.

The drugs used for microdosing are not considered to form physical dependence. Nor have I ever heard of anyone become addicted to psychedelics. Is there a reason your response hinges on addiction?

I'm not sure how you can believe what is written here. Do you honestly think people adverse to taking LSD are being convinced because 'its just a little bit'? LSD isn't known to be addictive at all, are there any LSD addicts who started out small but are now taking whole sheets a day?

This post seems like the example of inventing something to get angry at?

LSD doesn't work the way you're describing, at all. I can think of other substances that do, but your treatment of "drugs" as a monolith suggests you don't really understand the particular topic at hand.

>In general not microdosing or taking any drugs at all is better than microdosing.

I would agree with this part of your post, but the rest is just stuff you seem to have made up or read from someone who made it up, at least in regards to psychedelics. Sounds like you are describing an opioid or nicotine or something. Not all illegal drugs have the same properties. This reads like old reefer madness propaganda.

> The fallacy is that if you do not get the positive effect (i.e., getting high), you won't get the negative effect (i.e., addiction, tolerance, and the slew of other health damaging effects for each particular drug).

Addiction is hardly a problem for psychedelics, as most users don't use them regularly. In fact, they can be used as treatment for other addictive substances[1].

High doses and long term usage does carry some risk of health issues, mostly psychological, but these are much less severe than effects from similar uses of alcohol or tobacco. Besides, this risk is pretty much nonexistent in the context of microdosing.

Psychedelics have been used in cultures around the world for millennia, yet have been severely understudied in modern medicine. The least we can do is to stop categorizing them alongside much more harmful drugs like heroin and meth, and to fund further research that can determine and mitigate any harmful effects, so that we can establish a legal framework for people to consume them safely.

[1]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25563446/

"Addiction is hardly a problem for psychedelics, as most users don't use them regularly."

Yeah, but if you agree with the concept of microdosing you will be using them regularly. That is exactly what microdosing is about.

As others have mentioned, psychedelics are not physically addictive like nicotine or heroin. They are habit forming like anything else and should be used in moderation, but microdosing if done correctly shouldn't cause any harm.

That is just my layman understanding, and more research is surely needed.

According to this study[1]:

> One common schedule is to microdose every three days. The idea behind this regimen is that there may be a residual effect from each microdose that lasts one to two days afterwards. Most popular press stories on microdosing have mentioned this three day cycle.

So every three days with these small doses seems hardly more harmful than taking a multivitamin, yet the effects are so anecdotally positive.

Another relevant quote:

> There has been no specific research into the safety of microdosing, however research with higher doses of psychedelics suggests that these substances are relatively safe. Individuals do sometimes have disturbing experiences on psychedelics, including negative emotions, perceptual disturbances, and even psychotic symptoms, and these effects can have a persisting negative impact for some people. In general, however, psychedelics are not addictive, and large scale population studies have not found any association between use of psychedelics and negative mental health outcomes.

[1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6364961/

This is misinformed about the reality of what people typically do when microdosing. Virtually every resource I've ever read on the topic specifically suggests taking off days to ensure you do not build a tolerance. Often regimes recommend only microdosing 2 or 3 times a week. At such low doses and with so many off days, tolerance really does not increase much or any.

Most people I know who microdose grow their own. Blaming drug dealers is ridiculous.

Go ask about taking bigger doses due to tolerance on any discussion board about microdosing. 99% of the time they will tell you to take time off to reduce tolerance.

Psilocybin is not addictive in any physical way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com