marijuana and heart health

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/smoking-cannabis-associated-increased-risk-heart-attack-stroke

If I stop consuming THC in all forms at a young age will my risk go back down if I otherwise take care of myself?

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      im sorry I will say cannabis from now on

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That feel when my mom talks about the "indian reservation selling marijuana" and I pretend she's using those words correctly. Like "why would indians have a reservation?" and "I don't smoke tobacco," and she doesn't get what I'm saying and the conversation gets weird.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >uhm ACKSHUALLY
        You sound like an absolute homosexual. Dot Black folk, casino and tomahawk Black folk, they’re all the same Black folk.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Smoking anything is going to increase your risk of those things. The active ingredient (THC) and its derivatives are not responsible for these increases so taking stuff like edibles wont increase your risk of health conditions.

    However, being high all the time will usually cause you to overeat and be solidified which is bad for your health. It's ok to do it once in a while but don't make it a lifestyle or habit.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >taking stuff like edibles wont increase your risk of health conditions
      There seems to be some evidence to contrary, but you are correct that using it once in a while does seem to lower the risk.
      https://www.acc.org/About-ACC/Press-Releases/2023/02/23/18/53/Frequent-Marijuana-Use-Linked-to-Heart-Disease

      I would say, as the other anon implied, that the increase in health issues is more likely related to the average lifestyle of the average recreational weed user (eating junk when having the munchies, etc) rather than the weed itself.

      Just don't get blitzed every day for mental health purposes. If you have a good healthy lifestyle otherwise, THC isn't going to frick you over in terms of physical health.

      Is there any real evidence that recreational marijuana users eat that much worse than the average non-user to explain that discrepancy? It's not like most Americans eat well to begin with and there is evidence that marijuana users are not anymore sedentary than non-users either.
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8086340/

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        the baseline health characteristics in OP study are different. unless smoking weed somehow causes diabetes in your mind weed smokers probably eat more crap

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Is there any real evidence that recreational marijuana users eat that much worse than the average non-user to explain that discrepancy?

        Not sure, but imo this falls into the realm of "use your eyes and common sense". I personally am more likely to eat like shit if I'm stoned. Most people are.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I smoked a joint this morning and have been hitting the cart all day on a fast. Not even the first time I've done this. I'm just built differently I guess.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You couldn’t pay me to smoke weed.. I mean you could but it would realistically have to be like $1000. It’s weird because I used to LOVE weed; you’ll grow up eventually as well.

        I might grow some for the frick of it now that it’s legal in ohio

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You don't have to smoke if you don't want to. I have forced 0 people to consume cannabis in my life m8. To each their own.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That wasn’t the point I was driving at, I was more pontificating about the fact that I still crave cocaine after being abstinent for a while and if I cave it scratches the itch, but after smoking weed for a long time then stopping little by little as life progressed for no reason in particular I now find it to be wholly unenjoyable.

            That’s the same case with most of my boys who I smoked a ton of weed with as kids; they just dislike it

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Yeah its not uncommon that some people who smoke don't really like it anymore. That might happen to me. If that day comes then so be it. Today is not that day, and I can't see it in the foreseeable future. I did just start last year though to be fair. Then again there are just as many examples of people who still smoke weed in their adult life.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >you’ll grow up eventually as well.
          This really is the most homosexual-tier posting that an anon can do.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Strike a nerve there, buddy?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >"Heh, one day you'll understand kiddo... Wait until you grow up, like me...."
              I know it, and you know it - this is extremely cringe and gay

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        this doesn't invalidate what the study says, sorry mr hubris filled young white male

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >morons confusing association and correlation for the nth time today
    nothing you posted gives any information about "risk" of anything. there is simply no good evidence

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >no good evidence
      Your weezing as you shuffle up the stairs is all i need fatass.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        you should not eat red meat because of colon cancer if you believe this is "evidence". same lack of rigor

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          how out of breath are you typing that garbage?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You are right that this isn't direct evidence but getting that evidence to find that person A's heart attack or stroke was caused by weed and not something else is almost impossible to do because doctors aren't monitoring people's habits their entire lives and their family histories.

          >Is there any real evidence that recreational marijuana users eat that much worse than the average non-user to explain that discrepancy?

          Not sure, but imo this falls into the realm of "use your eyes and common sense". I personally am more likely to eat like shit if I'm stoned. Most people are.

          From my own experience you would be right but there might some evidence to the contrary and there are people who lose weight after habitual use because their diet becomes entirely tied to when they smoke.
          https://medschool.uci.edu/news/new-research-may-explain-why-despite-munchies-frequent-cannabis-users-are-leaner-non-users

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I would say, as the other anon implied, that the increase in health issues is more likely related to the average lifestyle of the average recreational weed user (eating junk when having the munchies, etc) rather than the weed itself.

    Just don't get blitzed every day for mental health purposes. If you have a good healthy lifestyle otherwise, THC isn't going to frick you over in terms of physical health.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >>"They adjusted for the participants' use of tobacco and other characteristics, including their age, sex, race, body mass index or BMI, obesity, diabetes, physical activity levels, and socioeconomic status."
      Nice excuse

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >"adjusted"
        >fabricated outcomes
        fixed

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The question is: did the study find any actual evidence other than "correlation = causation"? You can't adjust a study for an individual that has been unhealthy for over a decade, even if they fall into the "healthy" BMI range and don't have diabetes. You can be healthy by their limited criteria and still actually be woefully fricking unhealthy.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          this type of "study" can never show causation. the causal inference between lung cancer and cigarette smoking is a relatively powerful inference because of the strength of the association. for lung cancer and cigarettes it would be an increase of 15,000%-30,000%. smoking anything cannabis included probably contributes to CVD but this study gives no useful information due to the tiny magnitude of association and confounding

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          What evidence would you want exactly? Assuming those numbers are correct then the effect size is huge which means there is something linking the two, so if you can rule out the most likely co-occuring risk factors then the weed itself should be considered the most likely cause, especially when the study looks at smoking specifically and not other methods of ingestion and we already know that there are harms to smoking other substances.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >the effect size is huge
            no its not see

            this type of "study" can never show causation. the causal inference between lung cancer and cigarette smoking is a relatively powerful inference because of the strength of the association. for lung cancer and cigarettes it would be an increase of 15,000%-30,000%. smoking anything cannabis included probably contributes to CVD but this study gives no useful information due to the tiny magnitude of association and confounding

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              A 42% increase in stroke and 25% increase in heart attack is a huge effect. Too large to simply be noise

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                its so small it might not even be a real association. those are also adjusted but thats a whole other issue
                >The increased relative risk of lung cancer from smoking cigarettes is 1000–3000%. The increased relative risk of liver cancer from eating moldy grains contaminated with aflatoxin is about 600%. In fields outside nutrition, the usual threshold for confidence about relative risk is in the range of 200–400%. At the higher end of that range, one can be guardedly confident but “we can hardly ever be confident about estimates of less than 2.0, and when estimates are much below 2.0, we are simply out of business” (Shapiro, 2004); relative risk of 2.0 translates to an increase of 100%. So, an 18% increase equals a relative risk of 1.18, and this score falls substantially below the threshold that epidemiologists in other fields generally accept as worthy of further investigation.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You're confusing likelihood with relative risk.

                Notice also the large correlation between usage frequency and adverse events. 25% is for daily smokers and it drops to 3% is you smoke only weekly.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >we can hardly ever be confident about estimates of less than 2.0, and when estimates are much below 2.0, we are simply out of business”
                25% is 1.25 which is meaningless

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You're confusing likelihood with relative risk.

                Read the OP link again

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                the relative risk increase isnt above 2

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You're confusing likelihood with relative risk.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for the association of daily cannabis use and coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, stroke, and the composite outcome (coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, and stroke) was 1.16 (95% CI, 0.98–1.38), 1.25 (95% CI, 1.07–1.46), 1.42 (95% CI, 1.20–1.68), and 1.28 (95% CI, 1.13–1.44), respectively, with proportionally lower log odds for days of use between 0 and 30days per month. Among never‐tobacco smokers, daily cannabis use was also associated with myocardial infarction (aOR, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.03–2.15]), stroke (aOR, 2.16 [95% CI, 1.43–3.25]), and the composite of coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, and stroke (aOR, 1.77 [95% CI, 1.31–2.40]).
                all below 2

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Now you're confusing adjusted odds ratio with relative risk

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                whats the increase in relative risk? who knows the raw outcome stats arent even reported.

                its so small it might not even be a real association. those are also adjusted but thats a whole other issue
                >The increased relative risk of lung cancer from smoking cigarettes is 1000–3000%. The increased relative risk of liver cancer from eating moldy grains contaminated with aflatoxin is about 600%. In fields outside nutrition, the usual threshold for confidence about relative risk is in the range of 200–400%. At the higher end of that range, one can be guardedly confident but “we can hardly ever be confident about estimates of less than 2.0, and when estimates are much below 2.0, we are simply out of business” (Shapiro, 2004); relative risk of 2.0 translates to an increase of 100%. So, an 18% increase equals a relative risk of 1.18, and this score falls substantially below the threshold that epidemiologists in other fields generally accept as worthy of further investigation.

                still applies

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You'd have to actually read the study and do the math. What you are doing is like trying to compare the prices of two products, but they are in entirely different currencies.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                when i do the math and the relative risk increase is below 2 as i said will you suck my balls?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Spoiler: It's not below 2.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                proofs?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                What do you want? A 101 lesson on how to read a study? Go find on that on Khan academy or something.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                like i said no the RR is below 2. you can just look at table 1

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Nope

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                the relative risk for stroke is actually negative lmao. so i guess smoking prevents stroke. youre a moron and this study is meaningless

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                normally if you have the grounds to claim a study is useless then you'd have something other than your ass to refute it with lil homie

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                tiny increase in "risk" and confounds acknowledged by the authors themselves

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                That's not what it says anon but there isn't a way to explain it to you without giving a tedious a lecture in statistics which I don't have the patience for, and I doubt you have the attention span anyway.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                the proportion on never users that had strokes was higher than the proportion of non daily users with stroke. clear as day 1 on table.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                No anon, nevermind..

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                i cant tell if youre trolling or a moron

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Hint: You're reading that table completely wrong

                I'm going to bed

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Percentage in each subgroup per column
                are you still trolling

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                nondaily cannabis use reduces stroke relative to no use. do you think cannabis reduces stroke? they whole paper is baloney. there are no findings

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >CIA militarizes cannabis and hands it out to the hippies
    >morons still think they're owning the system by smoking weed and paying taxes

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      wasnt it an excuse to arrest vietnam war protestors

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        that and weed tends to make people more docile.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You must be fun at parties.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    > smoking cannabis associated increase risk of heart attack

    I believe it. I had a massive tachycardia episode when I smoked alone, my Apple Watch was reading 190BPM whilst waiting outside in 13° C for the ambulance to check on me.

    Not fun thinking you’re having a heart attack while high.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's for muppets.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    weed is the only thing stopping me from wanting to kill myself all the time, antidepressants made me feel like a eunuch zombie and alcohol physically hurts too much, joints are all that i have left

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Try bupropion if you haven't yet.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    vax status?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Daily covid vaxxing for heart hypertrophy

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I quit two weeks ago and feel like I could have a heart attack at any second, the tightness never fades. Anywho good luck young stonerbro

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >article: this study says smoking weed = more heart attacks
    >study: Relationships between cannabis use and cardiovascular outcomes were similar for men <55years old and women <65years old.
    >MEN <55 YEARS OLD AND WOMEN <65 YEARS OLD
    READ
    homie
    REEEEEEEAAAAAAAADDDDD

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Weed is the biggest waste of money ever. You can have fun sober, stop falling for the I need to be high to enjoy music/movies/games meme

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >you can have fun itemizing your grocery store list, stop falling for the i need to have sex to enjoy life meme
      There, have the false equivalency meme answer you wanted.
      Now, if you're still paying attention, consider the following: obessiong with pleasure takes on many forms. For some, it is having status, or how prestigious your job is, or how much money you make, or how many assets you own, or how many employees you have, or how big a dildo you shove up your ass. For some, it is simply how strong/frequent/overall quantity/consistent quantity of serotonins you can release. For the latter category, absolutely nothing in this world can even come close to what drugs can provide, in any category.
      You have to be beyond moronic to think drugs provide absolutely no manner of enjoyment that everything else in life does.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You’re obviously high right now because you sound like a fricking moron. Drugs are a hollow hedonistic endeavor, and a pleasure that involves instant gratification. Delayed gratification from achieving longterm goals or pursuing hobbies, and cultivating relationships with people or even animals is infinitely more rewarding than getting high. Learning is worthwhile in and of itself, same with creating anything.

        Worst of all, getting high all the time makes you content with being a fricking loser.
        >im good man *hits bong*
        >everythings the same as it was yesterday
        >and the day before

        I don’t think possessions and money are worthwhile pursuits either because once you have them THEN what? Same with after you come down from being high.

        The neurotransmitter you were thinking of is dopamine btw, same transmitter that’s involved with reinforcing any rewarding behavior (drugs, gambling, getting paid, power, things)

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Worst of all, getting high all the time makes you content with being a fricking loser
          I quit smoking because of this. Now that I'm sober I'm disciplined enough to lift 4x a week and actually make progress

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            bump

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Now check what the odds are for roiding, eating 12 eggs a day or any other stupid IST bullshit you do, then come back and tell me weed is bad.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I suck 12 dudes a day, that's the only IST thing I do besides not lifting

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Is it healthier to eat edibles?

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I used to smoke heavily, started to get heart palpitations before quitting. The sooner you quit the sooner you'll recover, learning breathing exercises was also a big plus to regain my lung capacity and counter act all the terrible shit smoking weed did to my system.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    My biggest issue with stoners is for some reason it makes a sizable percentage think they’re so fricking smart and have amazing unique insights. And it’s impossible to have a rational conversation about it. If someone wants to be a lazy drug addicted moron that’s their business. But when they want to start acting like they know more than everyone else due to some esoteric shit they thought up while high it definitely wears on your patience

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    weed use is also correlated with being an obese Black person, enjoy your schizophrenia and memory loss

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *