Initially, THC boosted brain metabolism and synaptic protein levels, indicative of heightened cognitive processes. Subsequently, it shifted towards reducing metabolic activities in the body akin to the effects seen with caloric restriction or intensive exercise, known for their anti-aging benefits.
The publication itself, which seems to be legit, and well done.
Haven’t had a chance to read all of it, but it isn’t badly executed by a quick scan.
Edit: I’ve had a chance to read it in full.
About half of it is over my head. Just don’t have the biochemical background to be able to interpret much of the metabolites they were measuring.
That being said, that stuff isn’t actually important for casual interest.
Here’s the key points I found:
First, the study was mice only. While mice are excellent for this kind of work, you can’t guarantee things will be a 1:1 result in Holland p.
Second, the study was for low dose levels, and only delta-9 thc, with no other cannabinoids being used at all.
Third, the study was relatively short, with 42 days being the longer end.
Fourth, and this is the cool part, changes in the relevant metabolites and brain samples had benefit at the 14 day mark. So, if this does translate to human effects, short term, low dose use of delta-9 may be a valuable option. That’s years away before this could be confirmed as valid for humans, but the effects were significant.
All of that means that just smoking weed, you aren’t going to duplicate the conditions of the study. If you’re taking in enough to get high, you’re at a higher dose than the study, and that may cause an opposite effect long term.
This is a very focused experiment, with well defined limits and goals. The information gained can not be used as an indicator that smoking herb as an adult human will give any benefit, much less what is in the title of the article.
Think of this study as step one in maybe ten steps you get to the point where it would be useful for indicating benefits in humans, assuming everything went right along the way.
I am glad you linked that, because the article and site itself did not inspire confidence
Why wouldn’t you look for the study itself in ANY article like this? It’s literally linked 1/3 of the way down the actual article.
The very opening basically repeating the name of the college twice and the stocks at the top had me immediately back out of the article as it came across as effectively trash. I then looked at the comments here and was surprised there was an actual publication linked
Part of the reason our world is in the shit it is right now is people like you more focused on appearances than content. And the worst part is you don’t even consider it a personal failing.
Reading your comments as I scroll: maybe you added some insight; but your delivery is crass. It makes you seem deliberately elitist… and makes me ignore your “angry” comments. You’ve made the conversation worse by adding to it, without consideration of anything besides your own opinion
And the worst part is you don’t even consider it a personal failing.
Isn’t that ironic.
our delivery is crass. I
I don’t care?
You’ve made the conversation worse by adding to i
The opposite in fact, I pointed out the intellectually dishonest tactic of the thought terminating cliche and then made reference to the actual study, which apparently all of you who ‘read the article’ seemed to miss the link to, and are kind of salty that I did not.
g besides your own opinion
5 decades of experience dealing with average people has proven to me that rarely has my opinion been the less functional one. Yes I am arrogant, and I don’t really care much about the opinions of others because most people never really bother giving any serious thought to anything they repeat or insist and I’m tired of the time and effort I do take to deepen my understanding of these topics is casually dismissed.
Have you ever sat down and thought about how a dollar flows through the economy from printing to disposal? I have and it took hours across several days, and I’m STILL SURE I missed some aspects of counterfeiting and outsider art but I can bet you a box of donuts that almost no one in this thread has even spent more than 120 minutes in their lives considering it unless it is part of their degree or career. Not even hedge fund managers know the whole picture.
Or how about figuring out the square acreage of space farm you would need to feed and oxygenate a single human? Because I have and it’s 17 - 22 acres depending on how many legumes you can stand in your diet for your average human. I don’t even think the Muskrat has broken down the circular crop rotation cycle well enough to keep their soil fertile for 3 harvests and he STILL thinks he’s going to get to Mars in his lifetime.
That’s the other thing that pisses me off, there are a fucktonne of idiots with bad ideas that fail constantly making a hell of a lot more money than the people who predicted those failures and were promptly ignored.
It’s like a Cassandra complex but instead of having meaningful prophecy ignored, it’s a clear eyed vision of our current present reality that gains the most scorn and vitriol. It kind of makes me hate all of humanity until proven otherwise on an individual basis.
If you buy a gift for someone, but they refuse to accept it, who then owns the gift? You do!
Your anger doesn’t upset me, but you’re still the one left holding it and experiencing it
You sound smart enough to figure out how to find some therapy, my friend. You should try and do that for yourself, or work harder at self-control and compassion
Don’t bother typing a long-winded response, I’m moving on. Good luck to you in all of your endeavors!
Dude, a badly written article with stocks at the top connected to the very thing it is talking about is usually going to be trash and highly biased
It would be very rare for a badly written article about say energy drinks being good for you on a site all about energy drinks with stocks for junk food companies showing to link to an article not paid for by Gatorade or something
Maybe I’m misreading the only plot that mentions dosing numbers anywhere. It looks like the largest dosing group is getting 3mg/kg/day. That’s a lot scaled up to a 100kg person (like 10x a normal gummy for example).
It was three different doses, 0.3, 1, and 3 mg/kg per day
It was also delivered via subcutaneous pump, which is usually done with a mind towards a gradual dosing rather than a single push of the total amount all at once.
The kind of pump listed in the article previously linked was an osmotic pump.
Here’s an excerpt from a different paper describing the various methods for substance delivery:
Osmotic pumps are internally implanted devices that use an osmotic displacement system to infuse a preloaded substance into an animal. Use of these pumps permits constant dosing without the need to handle an animal after the initial implant surgery. Extracellular fluid is absorbed at a constant rate by an osmotic salt layer immediately beneath the permeable outer membrane. As the osmotic layer absorbs fluid, it swells and puts pressure on an impermeable reservoir in the center of the pump. The reservoir then expels the loaded substance from the pump at a constant rate through a flow moderator. The outflow can pass directly into the tissue surrounding the pump, or a cannula can be attached to the pump to direct the flow into a blood vessel or specific tissue.
Osmotic pumps are cylindrical in shape and come in sizes small enough for mice. These devices are surgically implanted either subcutaneously or intraperitoneally. The flow rate is fixed, and the duration of action varies from 3 d to 6 wk, depending on the size of the pump and the delivery rate selected. Pumps cannot be refilled but can be implanted sequentially to prolong dosing.
I’m not up on the dosing levels in humans, So I I don’t have the ability to know offhand if 3mg/kg spread over the day is unusually high (pun partially intended) or not. There’s a section I can’t find easily (I’m actually dyslexic so it takes me a while to get through this kind of dense and complicated writing) where they mentioned having a higher dose as a point of comparison.
Thanks this is a lot of great detail on the dosing mechanism that I think is really interesting. I love reading up on the experimental details and the actually components used to make these experiments work.
300mg of orally ingested THC spread out over 24 hours is about equivalent to consuming 1 typical candy/gummy every hour for 24 hours of the day. A reasonable or average or normal person would be uncomfortably high at these dosages. I also imagine the bioavailability of oral ingestion is less than the dosing mechanism you described although I’m not sure (is that getting taken up through the lymphatic system? How does it differ from oral ingestion or injection into the bloodstream?).
Fascinating stuff, thanks for sharing your knowledge.
Osmotic pumps tend to be equivalent to a transdermal patch in how the substance spreads through the body, but bypasses the need to go through skin. So, faster initially, but otherwise the dose over time would be the same, assuming the transdermal patch was able to maintain dosage (they aren’t, there’s a drop-off).
And, just as you said, the entire dose is taken in without any degradation by digestion, or being bound in something.
What I have zero clue about is what difference it would make in terms of numbers. It is equivalent in speed of uptake to subQ or IM injection, which is essentially immediate, just with a slight curve at the very beginning, so tiny it won’t be noticeable to someone that experienced all those deliveries.
Vs IV, the initial release is slower with osmotic pumps, but the sustain of the pumps makes everything after that different.
Basically, the pump goes under the skin and leaks the substance into the intracellular fluids, to be taken up by capillaries into the bloodstream.
I like hearing this so it must be true
Found the basis for CNN and Fox News retaining viewership!
It can also be true independent of one’s liking it.
That little aphorism you just trotted out is a thought terminating cliche, something that contributes nothing and artificially ends discussion.
You chose it deliberately to denigrate the study with zero evidence, and 11 people agreed with you.
Disturbing for lemmy.
It really isn’t any of that, they’re just humorously pointing out confirmation bias which is definitely an issue in discussions like these
You’re both right.
Smart move playing both sides. This ensures you’ll come out on top in the end.
You really don’t see how bad it’s gotten in just a year, do you?
I think you need to log off for your mental health
I think I’d rather trust the opinion of my degreed therapist than some rando on the internet, and even with my neurodivergences, she considers me to be a mentally fit and motivated individual.
There really should be a consequence for amateur psychology copypastas.
Mental health is not a binary state, you can have bad periods in an otherwise stable life. You’ve made a thousand posts in a month. I’m being completely genuine, I think you need to evaluate whether this is healthy for you.
Again, she’s got a degree, you likely don’t. I trust her judgment and it hasn’t been wrong in years. Please go bother someone else before I excise you from my internet experience forever.
You’ve made a thousand posts in a month. I
Bitch I have been posting on the internet since before it had pictures, and if you think a thousand posts in a month is significant, then you don’t want to hear about when I still had a reddit account.
Yes she knows, no she is not concerned and even considers it good therapy for me to practice handling my EDS, which I have to say has been a significant improvement in my quality of life. I mean just look at this post, I BARELY insulted you! 5 years ago that wouldn’t be the case and confronted with your rancid presence I would likely already be banned.
You are concern trolling and on any rational media platform that should be an instaban.
There was an implied /s there.
And now there’s an explicit block here, free for you.
You don’t get to ‘it’s just a prank bro’ someone else’s stupidity.
Idk, I’m high right now and my memory is shit.
Younger brains have fewer memories. This checks out.
I didn’t know you can monkeys paw science
The monkey was equally surprised.
Short term vs long term
That’s what they mean by reversing brain aging
I started getting high later in life (25) and had shit memory beforehand.
It’s a bit less shit now, take that as you will.
Same energy as “wine is good for you!” As it turns out, no. Wine is absolutely poisonous to you.
But taking 30 minutes out of your day to relax and unwind? That’s good for you.
As in everything, moderation is good. Relax a little, but don’t make it your whole thing. Work a little, but don’t make it your whole thing. Dose a little, drink a little, dance a little, fart a little, enjoy cats and dogs a little, but my god man, change it up a little.
deleted by creator
Have you tried modulating your intake? Too much will most definitely make you a moron. Small amounts have a positive effect on me.
I’m a moron when I’m stoned but a little bit makes my brain slow the fuck down enough that I can actually concentrate on things and get them done.
Not me. I’m pretty normal. I call it sober #2.
Like mamba #5?
But with more Monica and Rita
It’s not the THC, guy.
deleted by creator
Same lol
Lmao benzinga the pinnacle of science news
There is a real study it’s referencing at least but these fucks are probably just trying to pump weed stocks
boptswana
It’s amazing to me that they misspelled “reaserch” in the first bullet item.
It’s turning back to the time before they knew how to spell
I’ve been stoned consistently since covid started. The only “sober” time is when I sleep. I don’t think younger, but most things don’t bother me. Want to improve your brain? Find consistent ways to reduce stress and perform them daily(like an hour walk outside). That will make you feel and think like a younger you.
You’re definitely not sober when you sleep or you’d be talking about the wild ass/sometimes horrific dreams you get when you cut your intake.
This guy smokes
No wonder Cheech&Chong, Willie Nelson, Snoop, and Lily Tomlin seem pretty young at heart/mind for their age
I voted for this because I want it to be true. Yay, science!
never really expected so many prohibitionist shitbags on lemmy. Off to the blocklist you and your ilk go!
deleted by creator
Well, I don’t know if we’ll be able to reverse brain aging anytime soon, but we at least know some ways of slowing it down, like by language learning or some other mental tasks.
I personally recommend at least giving a try for learning a new foreign language, it’s fascinating journey and even it might be hard at first it’s very satisfying in the end. And some people might say that it’s not worth it because of AI, but come on, you can still do it for fun, and bigger cultural understanding.
When I was 17 I really turned back the clock. Almost every day we were reversing brain aging and boosting mental capacity.
It would explain the poor memory I get when I smoke. You can’t remember something that hasn’t happened yet, so it naturally increases your ability to remember more. (Taps forehead…)
it’s all the training on remembering where the fuckdamn lighter is…
I wonder if micro dosing can give the same effects? I am a control freak and don’t like to be high but worry about cognitive decline. Especially since I got long covid and fucked up my olfactory system. Brain damage sucks.
Most days I microdose by diluting extract in glycerine, roughly 1/4 of a joint paced out thru the day.
Works wonders for my EDS, and I don’t feel high at all and have a ton more executive control.
Can’t really reply on the cognitive decline but I’m pushing 50 and still in the top .5%
Long Covid did drop me a bit tho, but I guess when you start with a straight eight, losing two cylinders isn’t so bad.
The actual paper published is about smaller doses.
It would be better to microdose lithium if you really don’t want to be high imo. 5-20mg range, can be intermittent (doses for bipolar are in the 100mg range and up). There’s already lithium in some water supplies and in foods like potatoes, so a small amount in a microdose normally doesn’t affect anyone negatively.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10227915/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8324565/
I will say over time your body will adjust to cannabis so if you microdose at night consistently before bed, you’ll just sleep it off anyway and eventually it won’t even get you high anymore.
There’s also this study from 2017, if you want more info on this.
