Olive oil extract update

[94xjjohn]

I said it was REDUCED HIGH, not NO HIGH, and dose building for tolerance.

But kick that dead horsey!

 

[SweetSue]

Just working out ideas for consistent terminology John. It wasn't aimed at anyone dear.

 

[SlowToke]

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?

Sue I think your last comment is key to the reduced euphoria. Anyway you look at it, a total daily dose of 1 gram (which is what I'll need to adequately fight my cancer) is a lot of THC, given that you start with a 1/4 oz. of cannabis to extract 1 g. of concentrated oil. That's like smoking an entire 1/4 oz. during one 24 hour period. So it becomes critical to (1) deliver in such a way to avoid the liver during the first pass and (2) tie up the liver metabolizing something else besides THC for subsequent passes, with the expectation that THC levels have been reduced by binding to the ECS receptors during the first and subsequent passes. The way I see it, the goal is to reduce the euphoric effect as much possible to live a normal life while getting a high enough dose of cannabinoids to heal. Of course, I would imagine there will be some euphoric affect as John mentions, but it is controlled well enough to be tolerable by avoiding the metabolism by the liver to the more psychoactive 11-hydroxy-THC, for the most part.

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?

 

[Radogast]

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?

I think you missed something Cajoncelt just said...

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.

"ingesting the oil lymphatically by oromucosal"

If ingesting lymphatically, the body is, for a time, deferring bioavailability (defined as THC and metabolites in the bloodstream.)
If sufficient THC is utilized by the body before reaching the bloodstream, this would be a major reduction in 'the high."

Also, if the lymphatic pathway to the blood works as a slow release (similar to how stomach absorption is slow release compared to smoking) the acute affects are reduced and spread out over a longer time.

It might be confirmation bias, but this seems to match up with a table I recently saw on bioavailability percentages and duration of effects.

- - -


I'm not saying oral mucosal is lymphatically absorbed, but I believe Cajun did. That seems a rather important distinction.

 

[Radogast]

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?

Slowtoke- The opening post links to a previous post with this link. Homepage
It is a research paper funded by the government of Puglia; the largest olive oil producing region in Italy.

 

[94xjjohn]

Just working out ideas for consistent terminology John. It wasn't aimed at anyone dear.

That was for PsyCro, Sweetie, not you.

 

[PsyCro]

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.

 

[SlowToke]

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.

I think there is more to it than that. What also comes into play is the fact that the cannabinoids dosed through the methods you list at the end of you post (and you can add shallow depth anal dosing as well) are directed to the blood stream before going to the liver, giving them a change to bind to the EDS receptors and otherwise work to kill cancerous tumor cells directly. Of course not all of them avoid passing through the liver at some point, and that's were building tolerance and competitive inhibition come into play to further assist in reducing euphoria. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[CajunCelt]

Good grief. Made me reread to believe what I was reading. What do you do for a living? You know how long it took me to learn that?
I'm not sharing anymore secrets. Lol.

Well said.
If I could communicate like that, I'd have a very different life.

 

[SlowToke]

Well, Cajun, I have a pretty good mentor!

 

[Radogast]

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.

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.

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 can understand you might feel ganged up on... there might be less people here who agree with you than disagree,
but still... is this how you want to be?


Exchanging knowledge or arguing - Please state your preference so I can choose whether to follow or ignore this thread.

 

[CajunCelt]

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.

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.

Boom. Your convinced this is the way to go.

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.

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.

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.

Tim & I dealt with this personality many times. Banff head against the wall.

Don't be rude or combative to him. Be worried for him & hope he finds away around those walls.
Don't argue. He feeds on it. He'll fade away soon. They all do.

Forrest through the trees.

 

[PsyCro]

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...

...

 

[SlowToke]

Cajun, you are exactly right. psycro is hanging on to his flawed beliefs no matter what. I'm not wasting any more time here.

But I won't worry for him. God help the poor bastard that comes to him with stage IV prostate cancer. That's who I worry about.

 

[SweetSue]

I'm not hearing the same head-banging you gentleman are. It's very easy to misinterpret intent when as humans we tend to infuse our own feelings and frustrations into what others write. Can we take a breath and maybe find the links to these studies that have been bantered about?

So PsyCro, we've agreed on the controlled euphoria. My perception is you're still stuck on the idea of the sensation of "feeling high" as the determinant for effective therapy, when it's been proven otherwise. As Cajun pointed out, blood serum levels are the preferred method for detecting efficacy of a chosen delivery system.

You're also correct in believing that a carrier oil facilitates absorption, and in discovering that olive oil is one of your better choices. But choosing the pathway through the gut as your only route means you're always fighting upstream when there are any number of more effective portals into the bloodstream.

The information's out there. We're all digging into whatever we can find to gain better understanding. However this discussion pans out, thank you for firing up my neurons like this.

Those study links would be greatly appreciated Cajun.

 

[fookinel]

Okay guys, I'm very new here and hope this doesn't come across the wrong way, but, can we all just take a breath and calm down? The work that you guys (who are arguing) do and the time you spend helping others at the very least should be commended, however, it's more important and appreciated than what I can put in to words.

I think that communication is difficult at the best of times, forums like these and people of different backgrounds using non-native languages just makes things even worse. I don't think anyone is intentionally trying to offend anyone else, however, it may come across that way.

I've read through all the posts, I've read cajuncelt's "A Base Treatment Regimen for Cancer" thread from start to finish more than once; I've read PsyCro's "RSO - Extraction Methods - Bioavailability - Contradiction & BS?" thread start to finish more than once; and I've read this thread from start to finish at least once (sorry for your loss ealier this year, PsyCro). To be honest, some of it can be quite difficult to follow with references to threads and information that is well known to the person posting but not well known to the person reading.

Anyway, the one thing that pops out for me is how can anyone make any claims other than anecdotal without proper testing? First, let's start with the different extraction methods (I'm going to touch on this in my next post in more detail). The olive oil method looks good for terpenes, however, the paper PsyCro linked to only looks at the THC/THCA extraction and says nothing about other cannabinoids extracted by the different methods. This is relevant as my understanding is that CBD can moderate the effects of THC and as such the extraction method may affect how the medication is tolerated. Next, what strains are being used for the extraction? How do their cannibinoid and terpene profiles differ? Finally, you have all the issues which are being discussed here that come under the broad umbrella of bioavailabilty. Without adequate testing you could never be sure how much of the cannabinoids (and possibly terpenes) are in the blood at any given time, and more importantly, their metabolites.

So, rather than continuing the arguing I'm going to share my thoughts as a new post and see what you all think, hopefully it can start a more productive discussion

 

[fookinel]

Okay, so first of all I think that PsyCro's extraction method is a fantastic method to use, however, I'm hoping to improve on it by combining multiple extraction methods as well as what I believe to be cajuncelt's interestingly named "BioBomb" (I say interesting because if you ever search for "BioBomb" on Google you get some "interesting" results!).

My thoughts are to start with the "Improved yield RSO" method here to create a CCO. This would use properly dried material as described in that post or the thread it links to, essentially, the SCET method as described.

Next, you create an olive oil extract similar to what PsyCro did in the second post of this thread using the freshest material possible (i.e. straight from the plant). The main difference being that I would heat it using a water bath so it doesn't exceed 100 degrees celcius. The pdf PsyCro linked to here shows that they performed their olive oil extraction at ~97 degrees celcius resulting in the highest terpene and THCA content. The method PsyCro described would have greater decarboxylation which I would like to avoid in this extraction as we achieve the decarboxylation in the SCET above.

Finally, you combine the two in the right ratio using lecithin, similar to cajuncelt's "BioBomb".

The aim here is to get the benefits of an ethanol based CCO extraction with its decarboxylation process and high cannibinoid content, the benefits of a cold olive oil extraction and it's high terpene and cannabinoids in acid form content, and ideally liposomal encapsulation with an olive oil carrier for the high bioavailability.

What do you guys think of this idea?

There's obviously a lot to work out. What would be the best quantities of CCO, olive oil extract, and lecithin? Would it require tricks to combine them as used by panacea here? Would it require an ultrasonic cleaner (or would it help)? And I'm sure there's plenty more...

 

[panacea]

This Thread is going nowhere in a hurry, So I came to a conclusion " If it is not broke don"t fix it " to an extent. The proof is in the picture , Cajuncelt , johnnyoilseed, and many others on here have treated very aggressive forms of cancer for them and others with very successful protocols.I do not think you will find anyone around with more knowledge then Cajuncelt and his Team of professionals when it comes to "getting your best bang for your buck' when utilizing the oil. So until "someone" wants to go above and beyond "Cajuns Team" and put forth the hard work and effort to show PROOF I will continue to adamantly stay in Cajuns corner on this. So until someone puts together somewhat proof of what they are stating (since his statements are starting to get very mundane) I think I will unsubscribe from this thread and go back to my Oiler Friends. Stay Gold! Many are stubborn in pursuit of the path they have chosen, few in pursuit of the Goal!

 

[Radogast]

...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 infact argue that point.. SweetSue may have said that, I wan't to know the mechanism...

I don't really get the 'build tolerance' argument. Smokers with a tolerance of 1/5 oz a day have reported getting seriously high off an equivalent gram of CCO. Then they 'build tolerance' to it. This might actually happen, I have no experience. If building tolerance happens locally 'tolerance through the lungs' being different than 'tolerance through the gums' then that is essentially admitting that all (non-oral) delivery methods are essentially equal - but that does not seem to be true, because smoking an ounce a week does not seem to kill disease the way equivalent grams of oil do when taken mucosally.

As you can see, I don't have the answer and I am skeptical of 'building tolerance' to tacking - even though it is reported. It would make more sense if the patient was building tolerance to 'sloppy tacking' from oil transported via saliva.

... I'm still looking for the info showing that pure concentrated cannabis oil on its own has good bioavailability, still haven't found it.

I don't think that is the right question. Bioavailability is measured as delivery to the bloodstream. If the liver is the worst place for Delta9 THC, the bloodstream is the second worst place for Delta9 THC. Unless one is trying to get high.

 

[SweetSue]

I hadn't thought of it like that Rad. We want them in the central nervous system and in the lymphatic system, don't we? Thats why we use carrier oils and lecithin.

Good points.