Holding in your hits

[MinnBobber]

I love this subject and have spent too much time searching 'holding breath thc absorbption' and other terms. It's amazing how much of the material is just based on a person's personal experiences.

Apparently there was a study of this topic (at least for smoking cannabis):
Azorlosa JL, Greenwald MK, Stitzer ML. (1995). Marijuana smoking: effects of varying puff volume and breathhold duration. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, 272(2), 560-569.

I found a summary of this paper.

Thanks, interesting summary.
I cared less about the subjective "stoned reporting" feeling that seemed to be the focus. Holding vapor in longer gives a slightly dizzy/stoned feeling. I cared more about hard facts, like blood THC levels which were just casually mentioned in the summary. Anybody read the actual study and what did it say about THC blood levels in hold for moderate time vs hold for long time?

 

[thisperson]

I checked out the link someone posted a page back. It was this one.

The two studies it cites are:

[1] Block RI, Farinpour R, Braverman K. (1992). Acute effects of marijuana on cognition: relationships to chronic effects and smoking techniques. Pharmacology, Biochemistry, and Behaviour, 43(3), 907-917.

[2] Azorlosa JL, Greenwald MK, Stitzer ML. (1995). Marijuana smoking: effects of varying puff volume and breathhold duration. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, 272(2), 560-569.

I'll post interesting snippets from the article in case you didn't click it. I didn't see any talk on it and it was very short. You should just click and read it.

[1] looked at the cognitive effects of cannabis smoking in participants who held the smoke for a short vs. a long period of time. This study measured a battery of cognitive effects of pot smoking between the two groups, including tests of learning, associative processes, abstraction, vocabulary, and psychomotor performance. The majority of the tests showed no difference between the short-time and long-time smoke holders. A few of the tests showed minor differences, but the researchers concluded that this was simply a result of the participants holding their breath for a long time (maybe due to lack of oxygen). They concluded this because when the participants held their breath for a long time, they did worse on these tests whether they were smoking pot or whether they were smoking a placebo...

[2] looked at differences not only among groups who held the smoke different lengths of time, but also among groups who took in different amounts of smoke...The more smoke they took in, the more THC was found in the blood, as well as the more the participants reported feeling high...the length of time the participants held the smoke had no effect on carbon monoxide boost, nor did it have any effect on their self-reported high. The length of time the participants held the smoke also had no effect on an assortment of cognitive and motor tasks, similar to the first study. There was a difference in blood THC levels between the groups who held it in for 10 or 20 seconds vs. the group who held it in for 0 seconds, but that’s kind of a no-brainer really.

I wish it had gone on to make the distinction of thc blood levels for a 0 second group, a 5 second group, a 10 second group, etc.

That would have been very interesting and would have settled this matter. I'm going to search for that second study and see if I can't find that information in it. It's only nine pages.

Found it

Edit: What I didn't like about the first one was that it assumed you would be stupid the higher you were. The same can be said of the second one but they at least did blood THC levels.

I've found from my experience that an indica will make me drowsy, ergo stupid, whereas a sativa stimulates my imagination and the only limiting factor is how much knowledge I've taken in and been exposed to.

 

[basement farmer]

Fascinating subject.

Would the fact that holding your hit in doesn't increase absorption make it a good argument that more numerous small hits are better (i.e. more effective) than massive, lung busting cloud makers?

 

[syrupy]

Do you think there's any problem with the 2nd study defining low-potency cannabis as 1.75% and high-potency as 3.55%?

So if I'm reading correctly, breathholds of 10 to 20 seconds produce higher plasma THC levels than no holding of breath, with 20 second holds producing no added absorption over 10 second holds?

 

[thisperson]

So the study has an interesting note on its first page. It mentions a study which found that holding it in actually increased THC levels.

One etudy ehowed enhanced exposure with longer breathholds on meaaures of CO, IIR and THC levele (Tashkin ef aI., 1991a) whereas two other studiee found no reliable effect on CO or I{R indices ofbiological expoeure (Zacny and Chait, 1989, 1991),

It messes up text insertion. It must be protected in some way. But I found this very interesting. It also goes on to cite two more studies which did not find holding it in longer to increase THC levels. So someone made an error or used different methods.

The lead says Tashkin et al 1991a. but I couldn't find the 1991 text. Any help would be appreciated. It sounds like they had THC blood testing as well and they found holding it in was worthwhile. I just want to know what they did differently and how they got those results. Maybe they are reproducible.

Do you think there's any problem with the 2nd study defining low-potency cannabis as 1.75% and high-potency as 3.55%?

So if I'm reading correctly, breathholds of 10 to 20 seconds produce higher plasma THC levels than no holding of breath, with 20 second holds producing no added absorption over 10 second holds?

Just saw this. Sorry for the double post.

Haven't you ever been fiending because you aren't able to afford your meds near the end of the month and so you grab your grinder and scrape out the little crumbs of weed left in there?

I have. I found that the tiniest amount of weed was enough to get me baked. Sometimes it's a very strong full blown out of my mind effect. Sometimes it's mild. Rarely is it nothing. I want to estimate that it is not more than .1 g in weight. I doubt it reaches .05.

Yes I hold it in.

The percentage does seem low to me. But it says the joints were 85mm x 25mm (circumference). That seems like a fat joint to me. Almost an inch wide!

I'd imagine it got them plenty medicated if they smoked it all. They took 10 puffs total though. What I want to know is why they stored the joints in an NaCl humidifier and it says they cooled them prior to use.

Anyone know what purpose this served?

The really cool thing (I think) is where they start describing their Apple II setup for measuring how much smoke was taken in. So that they could accurately dose based on how much vapor traveled down a path. Cool stuff.

Edit: You should look at this image. It'll explain it best, I think.

From what I understood the ten second mark is what I should aim for. I wonder why the 20 second holders had lower THC levels. I'm assuming that graph holds for vaping though and as someone pointed out the make up is very different, so I shouldn't. Carcinogens/No Carcinogens. :/

 

[RUDE BOY]

Reading all this conversation and had a thought.
these studies are all done with smoke not vapor so the results won't necessarily be the same since the density/makeup of the two are so different. Smoke rising and Vapor falling at least on exhale, seems it may make a difference. But I ain't no scientist or nothing so this is just layman speculation.

 

[Vinman]

It should be noted that the study referenced in the first message (Evaluation of a Vaporizing Device (Volcano) for the Pulmonary Administration of Tetrahydrocannabinol) used a very exact method to determine the amount of THC inhaled and exhaled, it did not depend on any subjective opinion by the subjects.

Ideally, we would like to see the same experiments repeated with varying time duration of held breath. (In this study, the participants were told "The balloon (8 L) had to be inhaled through the mouth within 3 min and breath was held for 10 s after each inhalation.")

 

[Wizsteve]

one could just test what is in the balloon, inhale (with nose pinched) hold in than exhale back into the balloon. the amount tested would let one know how long it takes to absorb the thc.

 

[Hajken]

Yup. Exhaled Vapor is wasted Vapor. Kinda weird the first time you get high without seeing Vapor exhaled, right?

A grand-daddy of the business gave me this sage advice and I've never forgotten it If you see vapor, you're wasting vapor!

 

[fogbank]

A grand-daddy of the business gave me this sage advice and I've never forgotten it If you see vapor, you're wasting vapor!

Not if your lungs can't absorb it anyway...

 

[herbivore21]

I thought this thread was about holding in your tits. I was really hoping I could shed these extra pounds through the knowledge here. Disappointing.

 

[grokit]

A grand-daddy of the business gave me this sage advice and I've never forgotten it If you see vapor, you're wasting vapor!

Just exhale toward the cutie in your avatar, you know (s)he wants your leftovers!

 

[Snappo]

I don't hold in vapor for more than a few seconds, and I exhale plenty of it. Get as vaked as I'd ever want to nonetheless. Efficiency is still king! I'm not out to win any breath-holding contests, or trying to vape my brains out to kingdom come. And I sure as hell am not trying to coat my lungs with vape oil. Works good as shit for me! Anyone with real vape experience will know what I'm talkng about. Posers need not apply. So what if science says more THC is absorbed the longer you hold. Hell, the more alcohol you drink the more poison you have in your system, until it knocks you out or kills you. Is that a good thing? More is not necessarily better. Don't care what the science says - a few seconds of vapor held in is more than enough for me. Just find what works for you. Excess is excess ...period.

 

[Snappo]

I don't hold in vapor for more than a few seconds, and I exhale plenty of it. Get as vaked as I'd ever want to nonetheless. Efficiency is still king! I'm not out to win any breath-holding contests, or trying to vape my brains out to kingdom come. And I sure as hell am not trying to coat my lungs with vape oil. Works good as shit for me! Anyone with real vape experience will know what I'm talkng about. Posers need not apply. So what if science says more THC is absorbed the longer you hold. Hell, the more alcohol you drink the more poison you have in your system, until it knocks you out or kills you. Is that a good thing? More is not necessarily better. Don't care what the science says - a few seconds of vapor held in is more than enough for me. Just find what works for you. Excess is excess ...period.

I highly recommend the following post:
http://fuckcombustion.com/threads/50-weed-less-cbd-200-high.14656/#post-620705

 

[Caligula]

You know, I was going to give you shit for quoting yourself but in light of the link...


lol.

 

[1337Dude]

Holding smoke/vapor in for a second or two is a given. The helpfulness of holding it in any longer than that has always been debatable, but most seem to agree that inhaling and instantly exhaling slightly wastes the vapor/smoke. Rebreathing is how people get the most out of their vapor (inhale, exhale slightly, inhale more). It's a technique that circulates the vapor through the lungs to ensure maximum absorption of THC. I'm surprised people haven't been talking about that, as that's considered a more legit way of getting higher than simply holding the THC in for 5+ seconds.

 

[rayski]

Holding smoke/vapor in for a second or two is a given. The helpfulness of holding it in any longer than that has always been debatable, but most seem to agree that inhaling and instantly exhaling slightly wastes the vapor/smoke. Rebreathing is how people get the most out of their vapor (inhale, exhale slightly, inhale more). It's a technique that circulates the vapor through the lungs to ensure maximum absorption of THC. I'm surprised people haven't been talking about that, as that's considered a more legit way of getting higher than simply holding the THC in for 5+ seconds.

That's what I do to avoid exhaling a cloud in a crowd.

 

[Soflo]

@1337Dude I couldn't agree more, the whole time reading this thread I was wondering when someone would chime in with the rebreathing method. I'm a firm believer In it. Allows cO2 to be exhaled and new O2 into the lungs. You can feel the hit re-expand after breathing in New O2.

 

[New_World]

smaller hits = more efficient

 

[ou812?]

I'll just add this as far as absorption is concerned. Was a firefighter for 2 and a half decades and you also have to be paramedic in this state for any municipality. On several geriatric calls there are times when you can't establish a line (IV SET UP) and will have to give our meds via endo-tracheal tube.(read: these are serious patients whose vascularity deteriorates when attempting to establish a line, vessel walls are very weak and blow,they cannot withstand the IV) Now here we see total absorption of the meds on board,so Im figuring any substance introduced will absorb and a longer duration exposed to your lung tissue would add to the amount being absorbed .I'm thinking if the lungs can only absorb so much and everything else is wasted, we would be dumping the whole med box into them,absorption is almost 100% in this scenario so Im not too sure that holding them in longer isnt causing more meds being absorbed , just food for thought. Do we have any MD's on the thread? One could chine in and most likely advise what the skinny is, but as far as I can tell from my experience in the field with administering drugs via the lungs is that you can overdose your pt by administering too much meds via this method.

 

[Hoover]

Holding smoke/vapor in for a second or two is a given. The helpfulness of holding it in any longer than that has always been debatable, but most seem to agree that inhaling and instantly exhaling slightly wastes the vapor/smoke. Rebreathing is how people get the most out of their vapor (inhale, exhale slightly, inhale more). It's a technique that circulates the vapor through the lungs to ensure maximum absorption of THC. I'm surprised people haven't been talking about that, as that's considered a more legit way of getting higher than simply holding the THC in for 5+ seconds.

Rebreathing is what I was referring to in my previous post (1st page post #616021)! I should have mentioned the term; rebreathing is important to maintain the correct CO² level in the blood, which in turn is the main factor in controlling the proper pH level of the blood.

 

[Radio]

I don't hold in vapor for more than a few seconds, and I exhale plenty of it. Get as vaked as I'd ever want to nonetheless. Efficiency is still king! I'm not out to win any breath-holding contests, or trying to vape my brains out to kingdom come. And I sure as hell am not trying to coat my lungs with vape oil. Works good as shit for me! Anyone with real vape experience will know what I'm talkng about. Posers need not apply. So what if science says more THC is absorbed the longer you hold. Hell, the more alcohol you drink the more poison you have in your system, until it knocks you out or kills you. Is that a good thing? More is not necessarily better. Don't care what the science says - a few seconds of vapor held in is more than enough for me. Just find what works for you. Excess is excess ...period.

I always think I'm going to hold it in for more than 5-6 seconds, but as soon as I get medicated in 2 seconds flat I know that it's already worked it's magic. I then close my eyes and take slow, deep breaths and i'm satisfied. If I wanted to get the MOST out of it then i'd go back to when I would have 10 consecutive bongs, but that doesn't satisfy anyone..

 

[Caligula]

Indeed. Quite honestly if I'm looking to get "everything I can out of a hit" it's because I'm looking to get pilted. With that in mind, it's faster and more effective to just do multiple loads in succession.

Remember, just because there are actives being absorbed 5+ seconds in, doesn't mean the majority of them weren't absorbed in the first few.

2 hits @ 75% absorption > 1 hit at 99%

BTW is it just me or are the AT-ATs from Star Wars one of the worst thought out weapons ever?

 

[Radio]

Indeed. Quite honestly if I'm looking to get "everything I can out of a hit" it's because I'm looking to get pilted. With that in mind, it's faster and more effective to just do multiple loads in succession.

Remember, just because there are actives being absorbed 5+ seconds in, doesn't mean the majority of them weren't absorbed in the first few.

2 hits @ 75% absorption > 1 hit at 99%

BTW is it just me or are the AT-ATs from Star Wars one of the worst thought out weapons ever?

Good point, easier to just load another hit if the intention is to get toasted. And they are a poorly planned weapon.

 

[Delta3DStudios]

Tisk Tisk!
(Jump to 1:39 for the lolz)

Started to read this thread genuinely curious, have vaped WAYY too much this beautiful friday night to read this thread. The Regular Show came to mind, had to share lol