I said it was REDUCED HIGH, not NO HIGH, and dose building for tolerance.
But kick that dead horsey!
But kick that dead horsey!
How To Use Progressive Web App aka PWA On 420 Magazine Forum
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So we have an explaination now for the "no euphoria" - small doses and increased tolerance. A better description would be "controlled euphoria". (We should consider that.) This is fact PsyCro, not conjecture. So, where do you want this discussion to go from here? These cannabinoids we introduce into the body, the expectation is that they're going to attach themselves to receptors on cells and go to work. So yes, a certain percentage will be converted every time they pass through the liver, although you can decrease those numbers as well with competitive inhibition, but the numbers reaching the liver should have already been depleted by those busy at work.
Or am I missing something here?
So yes, a certain percentage will be converted every time they pass through the liver, although you can decrease those numbers as well with competitive inhibition, but the numbers reaching the liver should have already been depleted by those busy at work.
Or am I missing something here?
Your item #4 above. You are ingesting the oil lymphatically by oromucosal, avoiding a huge part of the 1st pass.
If you take certain supplements, you can further prolong the avoidance of the 1st pass.
By adding a LCFA like olive oil, you're helping bioavailability for sure, but your still just ingesting orally & wasting huge amounts of oil.
To PsyCro, I'm curious. It sounds like you are familiar with concentrated cannabis oil. What led you to the olive oil extraction process as a preferred medicinal treatment? I'm relatively new to all this, and it seems that most people here at the 420 forum are proponents of the food grade alcohol extraction method to make CCO. What benefits do you see with the olive oil method?
Just working out ideas for consistent terminology John. It wasn't aimed at anyone dear.
If you tack a small enough dose, you don't experience euphoria.
By slowly building up the dose, your also building tolerance.
If you tack too much or swallow too much....euphoria.
Your item #4 above. You are ingesting the oil lymphatically by oromucosal, avoiding a huge part of the 1st pass.
If you take certain supplements, you can further prolong the avoidance of the 1st pass.
By adding a LCFA like olive oil, you're helping bioavailability for sure, but your still just ingesting orally & wasting huge amounts of oil.
So we have an explaination now for the "no euphoria" - small doses and increased tolerance. A better description would be "controlled euphoria". (We should consider that.) This is fact PsyCro, not conjecture. So, where do you want this discussion to go from here? These cannabinoids we introduce into the body, the expectation is that they're going to attach themselves to receptors on cells and go to work. So yes, a certain percentage will be converted every time they pass through the liver, although you can decrease those numbers as well with competitive inhibition, but the numbers reaching the liver should have already been depleted by those busy at work.
Or am I missing something here?
Well, that's a new twist, and one that i cannot argue. Although its not anything new. We all know that small doses and building up tolerance is key, that's basic knowledge. Heck the other day i tried 2.5ml of my oil, in small doses, throughout the afternoon and early evening.. guess what, didn't feel it nearly as much as i would have had i taken that amount at once. And normally i wouldn't even take that much at once since its way too much for me.
But once again, nothing new. Roll a big fat joint, smoke it, get high.. roll a big fat joint, take a puff or 2 off it every hour throughout the day, not so high. We all know this.
You have changed the reasoning from 'via tacking it doesn't go to the liver and get converted to OH-11' to 'small doses, build tolerance' .. which we can actually say for any consumption method. If that's ok by you, fine, we'll just leave it at that. But don't then state that tacking is responsible for minimizing the high, when its actually tolerance building and competitive inhibition.. while tacking itself is still just another method, one that nobody here has proven with hard evidence and/or links to show that it is totally superior to other methods. I would though still like to see that hard evidence, especially since info that i have found on the matter shows that oro-mucosal-sublingual-buccal goes either way, sometimes great sometimes not so great, all depending on types of drug used, carriers, etc.
Saying that oro-mucosal-sublingual-buccal has the best absorption is just like saying ingesting is a total waste, when its not.. it depends on drug type and carrier method, as proven above in previous posts.
Well, that's a new twist, and one that i cannot argue. Although its not anything new. We all know that small doses and building up tolerance is key, that's basic knowledge. Heck the other day i tried 2.5ml of my oil, in small doses, throughout the afternoon and early evening.. guess what, didn't feel it nearly as much as i would have had i taken that amount at once. And normally i wouldn't even take that much at once since its way too much for me.
But once again, nothing new. Roll a big fat joint, smoke it, get high.. roll a big fat joint, take a puff or 2 off it every hour throughout the day, not so high. We all know this.
You have changed the reasoning from 'via tacking it doesn't go to the liver and get converted to OH-11' to 'small doses, build tolerance' .. which we can actually say for any consumption method. If that's ok by you, fine, we'll just leave it at that. But don't then state that tacking is responsible for minimizing the high, when its actually tolerance building and competitive inhibition.. while tacking itself is still just another method, one that nobody here has proven with hard evidence and/or links to show that it is totally superior to other methods. I would though still like to see that hard evidence, especially since info that i have found on the matter shows that oro-mucosal-sublingual-buccal goes either way, sometimes great sometimes not so great, all depending on types of drug used, carriers, etc.
Saying that oro-mucosal-sublingual-buccal has the best absorption is just like saying ingesting is a total waste, when its not.. it depends on drug type and carrier method, as proven above in previous posts.
Ingestion to the gastrointestinal tract sends ALL the cannabinoids to the liver first, reducing effectiveness and increasing euphoria through liver metabolism. Not that these downsides to this dosing method can't be overcome to some extent for sure, and I'm sure there are certain cases where it probably makes good sense to dose that way.
A couple of previous posts show bypassing the liver is possible, using certain drug types and carriers to go from the small intestine directly into the lymphatic system.. and also show 47% bioavailability after meals. Not perfect, but pretty darn good. Would explain the amount of high i get and duration of it. Comparing for example raw material in a joint and approx the same amount in oil extract i'd have to say that i do not get more 'high' with the oil, but it is different and longer lasting. And that itself shows that more is being absorbed, in that comparison, and that not a whole lot is going to the liver.
I don't think most of us have changed reasoning. And I don't see it as an either/or situation, as per my comments above. it's just that some dosing methods result in a less immediate pass through the liver, while other methods go straight there. I personally also agree that tacking is not the best dosing methods for all situations. It's just one tool to be used when it makes sense to. I think the issue is that in the past you had said tacking is not a valid dosing method reasoning that if it doesn't get you high it isn't effective (if I remember that correctly from my quick review of this thread), which I believe to not be the case for the reasons above. And there are individuals here who have absolutely brought to complete remission extremely aggressive cancers using that method of dosing. You can't totally discount that experience.
Yes, i did say that it isn't effective if it doesn't get you high, but also, it HAS been said that tacking does not get you high.. at least we've gotten to the point where we're saying that it minimizes it. Although i'm still having trouble with it, mostly because i haven't tried it and don't know HOW much is 'minimized'. And one thing that still troubles me is the fact the through the oral cavity absorption should be happening much quicker than other methods, just like smoking, which means to me that you should feel it just as quickly, after all, according to the video link approx 10% will go straight for the liver.
I certainly wouldn't call ingestion dosing worthless. Based on your reported experience treating people with this dosing method, there clearly is a place for it in the toolkit of healing methods. My biggest concern with it is the increased potential for unacceptably high euphoria and a lower level of bioavailability than the other methods. But that's coming from my personal situation where I will soon be dosing to fight an extremely aggressive form of cancer, while working at job that I absolutely cannot do while high. For other situations ingestion could very well be the best way to go.
Best of luck!
I take it by the insulting tone and straw man arguments you made here that you might not give a damn about learning anything new.
Hm, wasn't meant to be insulting. But don't 'tell' me something new, 'show' me. That's what i've been asking for, and cajun even promised to post up some good links.
Diminishing and demeaning words.
Demanding 'hard evidence' just like a politician who says "give me American studies!" knowing American studies are virtually illegal.
equating "wasting huge amounts of oil" to "total waste"
Was this a one off post, or are you planning on dragging this discussion into pointless arguing?
I'm not 'demanding' anything. We're just having an in depth discussion. But nobody can argue that the dynamic here hasn't changed from 'via tacking it doesn't go to the liver and get converted to OH-11' to 'small doses, build tolerance' .. because i'm pretty darn sure it has. And ok if everyone is happy with that.
...I've been on the site a day or 2 & seen this type a dozen times.
You're just about there, but have some sort of block & can't change your mind.
You came upon olive oil as a great carrier & it is, you find a study-just one out of thousands-it reinforced your theories. You don't have the knowledge to understand exactly how it works, but hey, you got your study.
Its not one study, carriers are discussed everywhere, i've chosen olive oil because its LCFA.
Your stuck on tacking because you were probably chastised by the Tack Pack whose theories didn't make sense intuitively to you... then you found this.
FECO... Fully Extracted Cannabis Oil with olive oil as a carrier. It made more sense than the "just do it cause it works" responses you've probably heard.
And that's because literature and logic points me in that direction.
But frankly if you could go a step further, especially with rates of absorption in ng in plasma that occur in all the different delivery methods... you'd see what everyone is trying to get you to see.
Cajun, you promised some links, have them handy yet? I'd love to see those. It would help make sense of it all, because as i've mentioned, there are caveats in all delivery methods.
Don't wanna tack? Don't.
But, there are SO many better ways to deliver the oil than your method.
Tell ya what.
YOU do an experiment.
Mix your straight CCO with 3g of olive oil. Add 1 tbsp of liquid lecithin, mix & refrigerate for 24 hours.
Do your usual dose & let me know your thoughts when ya return to earth.
The above is not the answer. I'm trying to teach you something using stuff you probably will try.
If you get an epiphany, I'll be back.
I don't make CCO, but i could try that nonetheless, and i've actually thought about it before. Although medicinally, i'm not sure why i would want to. From my understanding it will then be absorbed quicker, and directed more to the liver, causing a more intense and shorter lasting high. Not what we're after anyhow no?
Frankly, you need things laid out for you all nice & neat. If not, you can't or won't look for yourself.
You will never see anything more than what you do right here, right now.
I'm still looking for the info showing that pure concentrated cannabis oil on its own has good bioavailability, still haven't found it. That's one reason the experiment i mentioned would be interesting.. to see the difference with and without carrier. If i had CCO i would try it myself, but i won't be making it anytime soon, so if anyone wants to have a crack at it...
...But nobody can argue that the dynamic here hasn't changed from 'via tacking it doesn't go to the liver and get converted to OH-11' to 'small doses, build tolerance' .. because i'm pretty darn sure it has. And ok if everyone is happy with that....
... I'm still looking for the info showing that pure concentrated cannabis oil on its own has good bioavailability, still haven't found it.