Holding in your hits gets you higher thread
- Thread starter SmartPothead
- Start date
As I understand it after 5 - 7 seconds the lungs have gotten all they can out of holding a hit in and any benefit from holding your breath beyond that is either imagined or due to lack of oxygen.
If however the goal is to stretch one's dwindling stash does it really matter if the increased high is imagined or real as long as the net result is that the stash is indeed stretched?
If however the goal is to stretch one's dwindling stash does it really matter if the increased high is imagined or real as long as the net result is that the stash is indeed stretched?
G
gibonelu'
high 
like 7-8 seconds i think it's ok any more it's just a waste of brain cells lol 
like 7-8 seconds i think it's ok any more it's just a waste of brain cells lol
H
h^2 O
when i cough i always seem to get higher. I hold in resin hits when im really hurting and seem to get pretty long lasting zootedness with a 20 second hold from a steamroller. STEAMROLL WHEN UR LOW PEOPLE
I have been out here at the Collective, by myself for almost a week straight now, so I welcome the convo!!
What you are saying seems logical...but if that were the case, don't you think that when doing something like running, that the lungs would slow down, to get all usable O2?? Instead we breath faster, up to multiple breaths per second--
Good thought. I hadn't thought of that in this context.I have thought sometimes that just holding air in is too static. The lungs like the air to move over them as they are expanding and such. I have tried inhaling quickly during exhale. Almost like la manse
but more rapid and consistent maybe and shorter time. It draws the smoke over and over the lungs.. Exhaling more than re-inhaling.. Or maybe try it in a bag..I really want to find a way to test this. I agree the vast majority is probably all gone within five seconds. But I am curious to really see the kinematics of this process.
This is complete bullshit. You are claiming that the THC transfer from the smoke into our bloodstream is instantaneous, this is obviously false.
There is obviously a point of diminishing returns where holding the smoke in no longer increases our absorption of THC, but to say that there is no benefit gained in holding a hit in longer is simply untrue.
Not only no benefit, but detrimental to boot--
The tars and resins in smoke solidify very quickly as it cools-- That is why smoke gets "Stale"...and hurts your lungs when you hit it stale--
KMK is absolutely correct
G
guest8905
seems not a longer hold of the hit but a deeper inhalation without holding it in would do the trick
vapor thc hits are making me think they dont get absorbed as fast as smoked thc, which ive heard thc is 100% absorbed within 1 second of inhalation
vapor thc hits are making me think they dont get absorbed as fast as smoked thc, which ive heard thc is 100% absorbed within 1 second of inhalation
Well this won't do it for you, but I've been told that trying to hold that big hit of smoke down in your lungs when your body is telling you to exhale, is a way to rupture alveoli.
I think the relevant comparison here would be between holding in one big hit for as long as you can, or taking as many hits as you can in that same amount of time. I think the multitude of quick inhalations would get you toasted more, just like many fast breaths oxygenates the blood better. Remember here that in breathing, venting the waste carbon dioxide from your blood is pretty important too.
What you are saying seems logical...but if that were the case, don't you think that when doing something like running, that the lungs would slow down, to get all usable O2?? Instead we breath faster, up to multiple breaths per second--
I think the relevant comparison here would be between holding in one big hit for as long as you can, or taking as many hits as you can in that same amount of time. I think the multitude of quick inhalations would get you toasted more, just like many fast breaths oxygenates the blood better. Remember here that in breathing, venting the waste carbon dioxide from your blood is pretty important too.
Bhodi_22
Member
VERY AMUSING THREAD
VERY AMUSING THREAD
never has a thread amused me more that this one - great example of everyone being an expert on the net without backing up anything they say...
I'll quote the directions on the table at the vaporizer station when I first tried one in 1996, yes this was in a store (god bless British Columbia!).
It said to hold your breath for 25-30 seconds (without straining) at which time all thc would be absorbed.
Now some of the above posts claimed absorbing vapor was different than smoke and until I see some study proving this I call bullshit.
Isn't the THC "vaporised" when the plant matter is "burned" making smoke? How the heck else do you think it gets into the air? Please correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure a "vaporizor" just does it at a low enough temp. as to not burn the whole plant...the TCH is still "vaporized" by your lighter in a pipe or the cherry on a joint.
And we too used bags to maximize our stash when we didn't have much back in the day. I liked a bread bag to re cycle each pipe hoot. Awesome way to stretch a bowl if you only have one.
VERY AMUSING THREAD
never has a thread amused me more that this one - great example of everyone being an expert on the net without backing up anything they say...
I'll quote the directions on the table at the vaporizer station when I first tried one in 1996, yes this was in a store (god bless British Columbia!).
It said to hold your breath for 25-30 seconds (without straining) at which time all thc would be absorbed.
Now some of the above posts claimed absorbing vapor was different than smoke and until I see some study proving this I call bullshit.
Isn't the THC "vaporised" when the plant matter is "burned" making smoke? How the heck else do you think it gets into the air? Please correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure a "vaporizor" just does it at a low enough temp. as to not burn the whole plant...the TCH is still "vaporized" by your lighter in a pipe or the cherry on a joint.
And we too used bags to maximize our stash when we didn't have much back in the day. I liked a bread bag to re cycle each pipe hoot. Awesome way to stretch a bowl if you only have one.
Bhodi...you do realize you stated ppl stating things without backing them up, "Amused" you...then you proceeded to state your things, without backing anything up, except for a 15 year old paraphrase from memory--
Amusing--
It is late and I am buzzed tonight, but I will bring ya some link heavy posts tomorrow--
Amusing--
It is late and I am buzzed tonight, but I will bring ya some link heavy posts tomorrow--
Did some searching last night and came up with this article. The authors found a lack of evidence for the idea I mentioned above, that smoking pot ruptures alveoli.
Bullous disease of the lung and cannabis smoking: insufficient evidence for a causative link
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1360494/
Bullous disease of the lung and cannabis smoking: insufficient evidence for a causative link
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1360494/
Ok...so much for a "Link heavy post"...there is surprisingly little in the way of facts about this out there--
I got my info/opinions from a friend who is a DO (Dr of Osteopathic Medicine)--
About the only thing I could find concerning it, is...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/12725243/Cannabis-Harm-Reduction
So, I apologize to Bhodi, for insinuating I could do better as far as "Backing up my claims"...tho I still find the progression of his post funny--
I got my info/opinions from a friend who is a DO (Dr of Osteopathic Medicine)--
About the only thing I could find concerning it, is...
From: “A Cannabis User’s Harm Reduction Handbook” © Steve Liebke 2001.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/12725243/Cannabis-Harm-Reduction
So, I apologize to Bhodi, for insinuating I could do better as far as "Backing up my claims"...tho I still find the progression of his post funny--
Bhodi_22
Member
yes I intended to amuse silly!!!
yes I intended to amuse silly!!!
If you thought I didn't know what I was saying was kind o hypocritical you missed the point and couldn't fathom the darkness of my sense of humour (i spell Canadian Mr spell checker haha) If you can't laugh at yourself who can you laugh at!! I'm a borderline perfectionist who previews all my post multiple times...forgive me if my poetic license is always on the verge of revocation.
Don't you like being amused?? I'm equally amused by your apparent love of petty arguing, although I suppose you thought I was trying to be cleverly mean or something?? I'm not that shallow sorry dudes, I suppose you were just expressing your amusement as well!
I'd love to see some evidence backing up the idea that vapor absorbs slower than smoke, I was merely stating my opinion (like everyone else here!) and calling you all out to try and change this old school dudes opinion!!
I tend to think too, much -- science geek as a kid and as a teen ager I debated this with friends often...I'm of the school that thinks holding in hoots is worth it based on much experience and reading those vaporizer instruction validated my opinion...why hold it in that long if 95% of the THC is absorbed immediately?? If I wasn't such a Luddite I'd find a relevant link but it just not my thing... Peace!! (no negative vibes intended - I seem to get mis interpreted pretty easy in my "old age" - part of the bi-polar tendencies I'm afraid - so sorry.
oh yeah great link on the bulbous lung study...I especially liked getting to the part where it says that all of their "cannabis" smokers were ALSO tobacco smokers...he he. Relevant perhaps??...I always wish I could have my 20 year chronic weed smokers lungs compared to a tobacco smoker of the same age...theres a study I really like to see!!
yes I intended to amuse silly!!!
If you thought I didn't know what I was saying was kind o hypocritical you missed the point and couldn't fathom the darkness of my sense of humour (i spell Canadian Mr spell checker haha) If you can't laugh at yourself who can you laugh at!! I'm a borderline perfectionist who previews all my post multiple times...forgive me if my poetic license is always on the verge of revocation.
Don't you like being amused?? I'm equally amused by your apparent love of petty arguing, although I suppose you thought I was trying to be cleverly mean or something?? I'm not that shallow sorry dudes, I suppose you were just expressing your amusement as well!
I'd love to see some evidence backing up the idea that vapor absorbs slower than smoke, I was merely stating my opinion (like everyone else here!) and calling you all out to try and change this old school dudes opinion!!
I tend to think too, much -- science geek as a kid and as a teen ager I debated this with friends often...I'm of the school that thinks holding in hoots is worth it based on much experience and reading those vaporizer instruction validated my opinion...why hold it in that long if 95% of the THC is absorbed immediately?? If I wasn't such a Luddite I'd find a relevant link but it just not my thing... Peace!! (no negative vibes intended - I seem to get mis interpreted pretty easy in my "old age" - part of the bi-polar tendencies I'm afraid - so sorry.
oh yeah great link on the bulbous lung study...I especially liked getting to the part where it says that all of their "cannabis" smokers were ALSO tobacco smokers...he he. Relevant perhaps??...I always wish I could have my 20 year chronic weed smokers lungs compared to a tobacco smoker of the same age...theres a study I really like to see!!
Last edited:
