Have you come across any effect of cannabis users and pregnancy? I am not familaiur with this function of the cannabinoid system only the central effects however I have never heard that birth effects ooccur from cannabis exposure. I do know that oleamide is active in humans and animals and thus has activity. Again in vivo where is it acting I do not know? In vitro studies however while not flawless can be very accurate especialy regarding enzyme binding, and inhibition studies. Problems arrise when you try to assocaite G-protein coupled mechanisms because the cell line one is using in vitro may not utilize the same secondary messanger systems as the in vivo sites and thus the results are different however as far as binding assays go these studies are very useful and accurate.

Sometimes you guys crack me up. All this theorizing about this crap. All you need to do is try it! If it works it works, if it doesn’t it doesn’t. It doesn’t matter how or what it does to your body or brain. What matters is that theobromine either works or it doesn’t.

This argument about theobromine being like caffeine is where your arguments fall flat. Everyone knows that coffee doesn’t potentiate a trip! Cocoa and kola nut do. And what alkaloids do they both share? Theobromine!

Also look at the trip report from Jorkest. Jorkest already seems to have provided proof that theobromine does it.

Honestly guys, there are times to theorize and times to just go out and try it. Theobromine is not expensive or illegal. Anyone can get it.

I’d like you guys to go out and get some theobromine and get a friend to test it and then say something about it. Until then it’s all a bunch of pointless talk.

It’s like theorizing whether or not it’s sunny outside today. Just open the windows, look outside and see. My God. Don’t theorize about something that is so simple to test.

I bet it is only the theobromine that does it because kola nut does it and cocoa does it, and both have theobromine. Coffee doesn’t and it lacks theobromine. SWIM will be testing theobromine soon, but is going on vacating soon so he can’t order any for a while. After he gets back, he will do a test with just pure theobromine and pure white DMT (from chacruna). He will also do a test with theobromine + THH + DMT. Either it works or it doesn’t. It’s that simple.

Exactly my point; even though oleamide activity can be demonstrated in vitro what happens in vivo? Possibly downregulation of FAAH activity can result upreglation of FAAH concentration to counteract the effect? How much oleamide one has to take (e.g. in cocoa quantities) for successful FAAH inhibition? This is something that I usually dislike when it comes to in vitro activities of some plant/fungal/animal constituents and their actual activities.

Saccharomyces cerevisiae definitely has some molecules in it that are active in some g-protein or even tyrosine kinase or whatever-may-you receptors. But do they ever get to sufficient concentrations when yeast is consumed? It is very hard to answer just by inferring from in vitro studies.

The case of THC is controversial. Endocannabinoids are found in their highest concentration in the uterus, much more than the brain. They play roles in embryo development and implantation. Too much is pretty bad, too little is also pretty bad. So, some people theorize that if you increase cannabinoid receptor ligand (i.e. THC) it may have detrimental effect on pregnancy.

Actually it is still unclear; people make this pretty silly association THC---> goes to uterus--->pregnancy failure. But nobody 's looking whether THC actually accumulates in the uterus, whether it accumulates in the right place of the uterus (it needs to be the lumen) and weather exogenously administered THC by smoking or eating actually impairs pregnancy outcomes.

Go figure...

69ron, it's not about theorising whether it would work or not. It's about theorising why it works. In your words, it's about asking why it is sunny outside, not arguing if it is sunny.

Thorising about mechanisms is fine. This is how we try to understand psychedelics work, why the MAOI/dmt system is effective etc. etc.

Even though one could still argue the case; Jorkest is but one person doing that. Certainty far from proof that it is working. The more people try it (and report back) the best.

It is very important to theorize why these things work. 69ron, you yourself have theorized about these things. Devloping theories can help us determine which things to test to effectivly explain the how part of the equation. No one is disagreeing that these things do not work we are attempting to find out how they work.
Additionaly a large amount of caffeine is converted into theobromine in vivo, thus some caffeine would be converted into theobromine anyway. Again it may depend on the dose one takes. You are right that the only way to find out is to test these things. These compounds have very similaur pharmacology although this is what is known about them if it turns out that caffine doesn't while theobromine does then this is an important peice of information and it should be looked into. Has SWIY tried pure caffeine before a trip?

Infund ... you are absolutly right about in vitro studies, not only things like upregulation/downregulation but also metabolism, and pharmacokinetics, however I do think you can get some useful data but these things but you are right that they do need to be tested in vivo, the in vitro studies can show us where to look.

These arguments remind me of the argument I had about how bufotenine is actually hallucinogenic. This other guy kept ranting about all the tests he saw published showing how it doesn’t cross the blood brain barrier, and so it’s impossible, and a bunch of other nonsense. I told the guy that SWIM tried it and it definitely is hallucinogenic. The guy called me a liar and said I had no proof. I got sick of that right away.

I like Jorkest’s approach. He doesn’t have a bunch of pointless arguments. He tests things out and reports back. I wish you guys would do that. A lot what you two are arguing about has nothing to do with theobromine.

The proof is in the pudding. It works or it doesn’t. Let’s try to keep focus here and not ruin this thread with a bunch of off topic arguments. This thread is about 1 thing: theobromine and how it alone potentiates or doesn’t potentiate other alkaloids.

We are not arguing. We are developing a theory that will allow future tests to occur.

I’m sorry, I just don’t see the point. You can buy theobromine and test it. Theories are great when you can’t actually test something out. Just test it and see if it works. It’s that simple.

Agreed however there are other things in chocalate that should be tested out as well. Would you agree?
Additionaly while you personaly may only care if something is or isn't active others care why these things are active. This forum is for everyone and is about more than just what can get one the highest.

Maybe it’s just me, but these arguments seem completely pointless.

Neither of you have tried theobromine alone to potentiate DMT or DMT with an MAOI. And yet you’re giving arguments about how it might or might not work. All you need to do is try it. What’s the problem? Can’t you guys get some theobromine to test?

Yes I agree, but this thread is about theobromine, not chocolate or cocoa. There’s another thread about that. These arguments belong there, not here.

69ron, I can agree (however impractical it may be for some) with your idea that more need to test it, and report back.
no amount of theorizing or even scientific testing on rodents replaces human experiences.
i'm not a big fan of rodent studies; some compounds are downright lethal to mice and rats, yet apparently benign to humans.

We are not saying it does not work. That is not the question We are assuming it does work as many have said this, and trying to form a hypothesis about how it does work at the molecular level. Also what other things may be responsibe for these effects and thus what other compounds require bio-assays. Do you think that science is pointless? Is your only concern wether or not theobromine can get one higher? I am personaly interested in how this potenitation/alteration may work. As it has implication for the study of consciusness and hallucinogenic drugs effects on the CNS at large.

You guys should try convincing the shamans who use them why these things work. To me, I learn so much more about myself. Heck, I don't know how crystals work, or how Reiki works, or other untestable things. What goes on, psychologically, cannot be explained by modern science whose tools only measure what is "real". When you force open your 3rd eye, and see through reality, the fluidity of the universe, the chaos, that cannot be measured, compared, or even thoroughly documented.

I might not understand 90% of the theory you guys are presenting. But I'm not uneducated, I've been to graduate school, just not in biology or medicine. This talk does a good job of alienating others from what you are trying to prove or show. The shamans would be even more lost, for they don't care about science, and I have great respect for them and the knowledge they do have. The shamans might not have been book smart, but they get it. I like Jorkest and 69ron's approach. Let us know if it works or doesn't. While I haven't done a lot, everything I have followed from their steps has worked for me, and also a friend of mine.

I'm not trying to attack, but just saying that I'm lost in all these references. These scientific articles to prove something are meaningless to me. Confusion does not prove anything. Experience does.

That is fine however this forum is for everyone. Individuals with scientific backgrounds should not have to dumb down their conversations. Why these things work is importat even if you personaly do not care there are many people who do. Just becase science can not explain something today doesn't mean it won't be able to tommarow. SWIM understands the need for human bio-assays (and this is a form of science) however SWIM also wants to know why these things do what they do and has every right to discus it with fellow members, if you can not understand it or don't see the point that is fine, its your opinion, but that doesn't mean we don't have every right that you do to discus our ideas. It is science or its predicessor (?) who has developed many of these techniques we all hold so dear and it is science who will develop the molecules and techniques of the future to explain and study consciusness and reality.

While I respect the shamans that doesn't mean I am one nor that I think my views are better in many ways shamanism is a science.

Bufoman, what you have said makes sense. Science certainly has its place. I mean I might have died without having modern medicine a few months ago. I was thinking that most people might be lost, but you're right that this forum is for everyone.

And I am glad there are those who care about the details of science and pharmacology and the like. I just felt that by throwing complex words out there were those trying to validate themselves. That judgemental side of me is something I'm needing to work on. Might have felt a little defensive because we have these two views trying to pull back and forth. Maybe it makes me feel dumb because I don't understand and I don't like not knowing.

Could you expect the anadamine-like compounds to affect the effects of cannabis? I don't know about the exact biochemistry of these compounds, but entropymancer explained somewhere that this substance is chemically different from the cannabinoïds many of us are familiar with.
Anyway, if you would expect it to influence the effects of cannabis, then we could test the hypothesis on whether there's enough of it in cocoa to have noticeable effects and how long these effects would last.
For the PEA; this can be tested by taking substances that would inhibit the MAO-breakdown of this compound and see if it affects DMT experiences this way.
The choline is already mentioned. I just don't know in what quantities it occurs in cocoa, but it does occur.
Nevertheless.. jorkest's experience is good ammunition for some quite interesting experiments, i would say.

It was my little brothers brain tumor which got me interested in science. I forget sometimes that everyone doesn't understand these things. I have been in the science game for a while and thus my life revolves around it. I do commonly try to explain things to freinds and family (non-science) and they rarely understand me. I am not trying to validate myself, I don't care at all. One thing SWIM has learned through psychedelics is that life is beutiful and that SWIM is content with who SWIM is. I no longer care at all what others think which I did care alot about in high school. Science is not complex its vocuablary can make it seem otherwise but once these things are learnt it is fairly easy to follow. Look up some of the words and you will get the gist. It is really all about building up from a foundation of some basic knowledge and vocab.
PEACE

It is hard to say wether these compounds would have an effect on cannabis cannabinoids. THC is not degraded by FAAH thus this effect would not be responsible for the effects however the inhibition of FAAH would increase the levels of endo-cannabinoids causing competiiton with THC for the receptor active sites. Then the question is do these compounds have the same efficacy, menaing do they initiate the same second messenger response via CB1 activation? I do not know but LSD and serotonin exert different effects on a variety of receptors. If the efficacy is different between THC and endo-cannabinoids then the elevated endo-cannabinoid level should alter the effect of THC (decrease or alter), if they have the same efficacy they may potentiate the THC response thus having an additive like effect, thus the experienc would be enhanced above the control. So if the effect is different or altered maybe? But we can't forget about the theobroine may alter the effects of THC and likely would as some of THC effects are mediated via cAMP. Thus it gets complex and pure compounds are needed.

it's called "esoterics"

similarly, I got into biochemistry because my sister has HIV.
I often have to "dumb it down" so others can understand it, but it's really not like that at all. those people haven't been educated in the same discipline, so I take it upon myself to explain it in terms so they may understand.
Not everyone likes to immerse themselves in reading manuscripts and rat studies. hell, it's my requirement too, but frankly, it's boring. besides...when's the last time you've ever read a conclusive study? I have yet to stumble upon one.
It's much easier and less alienating to relate theory to real world applications. it also keeps one more grounded; we both know science has enough politics and prick-waving as it is.