I am personally skeptical of the role of omega-3 and omega-6 in dementia, at least, one should never take these as supplements. It is a medical fact that they are highly unstable and basically worthless after only a day or so on the shelf, if not harmful.
One should only look to studies of genetically identical populations (you should be able to find one about nigerians in america) that acquire dementia at a high rate to observe that something about our capitalistically engineered environments is principally to blame.
I would counter that by pointing out that if your aim is to achieve a certain degree of bioavailability of TCH, you'd have to smoke a larger quantity of a lower-potency product, thus exposing yourself to more of the combustion by-products than necessary.
I agree with you, but I think the bigger thing is that people do not understand that edibles affect people far differently than smoking does. Not just the effects, but the way the body metabolizes the substance. That information should really be more available, especially as cannabis legalization increases. Too many heavy smokers end up taking edibles and having a horrible time because they thought they needed a high amount of edibles to match their smoking habits.
With high-potency strains you can't titrate effectively. "One puff" is a highly variable amount and you can't take 1.3 puffs. Not to mention that there's a minimum amount you have to put in a bowl, and if you don't smoke it, it gets stale and unpleasant. It's like having 85% ABV wine and pouring it into a wine glass and then what? Just take 1.3 sips and pour it back into the bottle?
Pack a smaller bowl. This really isn't difficult. You can VERY easily modulate how much plant matter you put into the bowl and even with very high test strains, you can easily take a smaller puff and wait longer between lighting up. This isn't hard.
At the amounts I'm talking about, with the heavier strains, you can't pack a smaller bowl. What am I supposed to do, pick out a little crumb and put it in there? It won't even be a deterministic amount. That's exactly the problem I'm referring to.
> 2. Glucose is transported in intestines via a glucose-sodium antiporter protein. Maybe we can find a drug that blocks this and you can eat as much sugar as you want! (Turns out you’ll have uncontrolled diarrhea if you do).
It's very cool! It's the SGLT protein. It's actually a sodium-glucose co-transporter and is why gatorade is so effective! It's the perfect mix of salt, sugar, and water to take advantage of that very protein (where salt goes, water follows).
And yes there is a drug that targets these - it's the SGLT inhibitors and they're very in vogue right now. Ozempic and Mounjaro are the two big ones in the news right now. They act on the SGLT I (found only in the kidney) so that you urinate more sugar. They don't act on the SGLT 2 (only found in the gut) but other medications in that class act on both.
But congratulations and alas! You nearly invented gatorade and a multi-billion dollar diabetes and weight-loss drug. Hardly bone-headed ideas.
You got the meds wrong - semaglutide and trizapeptide are glp-1 based meds, sglt inhibitors are a separate class and don’t include those two - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SGLT2_inhibitor
Importantly, the issue why my ideas were boneheaded was that typically there’s a lot of unknown side functions and ramifications in biology which are easily overlooked. Glp-1 based drugs weren’t discovered by deliberate hypothesis testing. Sglt2 inhibitors might be but given the number of trials it took in attacking metabolic syndrome using “logic” (avoid fat, avoid sugar, inhibit fat uptake, eat sugar substitutes, etc). This just eeems like a fluke more than merit of following simple logic into complex hormonal systems.
This is true in all medicines. Except antibiotics almost no effective medicine was “invented” by applying first principles the way you would in physics, even if initially it looked like that’s how it worked. Take chemotherapy for example. If the drug works effectively by killing all dividing cells completely, it clearly should kill you, but it doesn’t. It just kills cancers. But that’s because turns out our immune system plays a pivotal role in chemotherapy effectiveness.
>But teams behave in an infinite combination of size, members, companies, and time
Slightly off topic, but I realize this is a subject I'd be interested in reading more about. Would be interested in suggestions in the same vein as Creativity, Inc. by Edwin Catmull?
