Dr. Matthew Hill

speaker

614 appearances 1 recordings 1 series first heard Jul 2024 last heard Jul 2024

Dr. Matthew Hill’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.

Trend

recordings per month · last 12 months

No recordings in the last 12 months.Older appearances are listed below; set an alert to hear about the next one.

Appearances

newest first · ▶ plays the moment

Huberman Lab · How Cannabis Impacts Health & the Potential Risks | Dr. Matthew Hill · 8 Jul 2024 podcast

Seems to be a bit more potent than THC is in terms of its ability to activate the receptor. So its efficacy, at least, at driving a response through CB1 receptors seems to be higher than what you would get with just the parent molecule of THC itself. And... So, and it seems to accumulate a lot more as well.

So at any given time, you know, you've got THC kind of leaking out of the gut, going through the liver, making 11-hydroxy, and it progressively accumulates in the brain. And that's one of the reasons why it takes, you know, 45 to 90 minutes to kick in. But then the high itself also lasts like six hours, four to six, sometimes eight, depending on the person, what they've eaten.

Versus inhalation is just this like spike. So you get this very rapid because it goes right through the lungs into the blood, goes into the brain, but it also clears out. And so, yeah, people will start feeling intoxicated two to five minutes. The peak high is like 15 to 30 minutes maybe from consumption. And then they'll start to come back down.

And you will still see some indications of intoxication that can go on for three to four hours. But the bulk of the intoxication from inhalation is done by two hours for the most part.

I mean, you could still fail a drug test at 80s. I would say – I feel like – I think the way it was worded more, it was like that – you made it sound like that was the standard. I wouldn't say that was the standard at all. I would say – For the majority of people, 30 days probably after that, they would not pass or they would be able to pass a drug test.

Yeah, after abstaining for 30 days. And it's going to be highly variable depending on how much you consume. I mean, if you're talking about someone who's used it once, I don't imagine it would be in your system that long. That'd be surprising. The thing is, THC is... a lipophilic molecule. It's fat soluble. Yeah, so it's fat soluble. It likes the store. It doesn't like the blood.

The blood is aqueous and watery. It likes fat. So it goes into the brain, it goes into the fat, and it kind of resides there. It can essentially kind of slowly leak back. As THC concentrations in the blood would reduce, THC that's in the fat will start kind of leaking back into the blood still. So detectably, you will still have THC for quite some time.

I mean, some of this, again, it's going to be dependent on how much cannabis someone's used, how much THC they've consumed, how long it's been in their system for. I would have thought this was going to be somewhat reflective of people's body fat content, although talking to colleagues who do this, they say not always.

But we do know certain things like exercise, for example, anything that's going to trigger adrenaline because adrenaline is lipolytic. So adrenaline causes fat to – metabolize and release stuff that's inside it. So there are plenty of cases I've heard from people where they were testing themselves and were negative and then went for a run or went to the gym and then tested positive.

Or lost weight. Yeah, or they've lost weight. And anything that's going to cause the lipolysis to occur so that it releases that THC, you can certainly all of a sudden test positive again when someone had tested negative previously just because of the fact that there still is some in the fat.

And so this is where something like – and this is what I mean by standardization of regulatory issues become very complicated. I remember – Right when legalization happened in Canada, all these kind of chemists were like talking to me about they're going to create like a breathalyzer for cannabis because this way they'll be able to do roadside detection the same way they could do with alcohol.

And I kept trying to say to them, I'm like, the rate limiting step here is not the science of detection thresholds. It's the biology of how the body processes cannabis. And you're never going to get a test that works because you can take someone who has eaten an edible and is profoundly intoxicated, and they will have possibly under five nanograms per ml of THC in their blood.

You get a bit of it from inhalant, but not nearly as much as you get from edibles.

It is, but it's also the timeline because of the fact that with inhalation, it's like a bolus that hits you at once. You get a high blood level. With edibles, it's like the time course. So, I mean, it's going to be like five nanograms per mil, let's say, but it would be like that for a long time. Whereas the 100 nanogram per mil from smoking is like for 20 minutes and then it starts dropping.

So, but the problem is with the way that you detect it is you can take someone who's a chronic cannabis user and is completely sober and hasn't consumed in a day or two. And their basal levels of THC in their blood may be higher than someone who's profoundly intoxicated by an edible.

Just by the sheer nature of the fact that it would reside in their fat tissue or their brain, it would leak back into the blood. And so you have this issue where, let's say your cutoff was five nanograms per mil, which is for some of the stuff detection thresholds would hover around that area. So you could have someone who's dead sober

that tests positive and someone who's profoundly intoxicated who tests negative. So it's like, what's the value in this? It's not telling us anything.

Potentially, yeah. So, I mean, it is complicated.

I would say it's – There's nothing that's super clean cut. I mean, I know in the previous podcast, you talked about a prolactin thing.

Yeah.

Showing 261–280 of 614 · page 14 of 31