There's that familiar feeling again. When the present state of research can't satisfactorily answer the most base of questions, and every scrap of literature you read contradicts another. Then you get the reviews that read like opinion pieces.
I just read a whole review, complete with a few hundred citations, that was essentially trying to say the only pharmacologically relevant components of cacao seeds were flavan-3-ols, methylxanthines (mainly theobromine), magnesium, and some other antioxidants. The rest of it was a snotty half minded display of trying to "debunk the myths". Clearly this fuckhead has never been high on chocolate, subjectively it is absolutely nothing like other caffeine, theophylline, and theobromine containing sources. Nor does it behave the same with longterm administration. I would know, the majority of the good parts of it disappear and it leaves a bit dull.
No. I want to know how it actually works. I want to know what it actually is relative to the human machine. This is ridiculous that it seems it still isn't known to what extent isoquinolines can be absorbed through the intestines. And through all their bitching about "lul anandamide myths, weed heads too xd" they neglect to mention the presence of endocannabinoid reuptake inhibitors. The nature of which, isn't known either.
This is one of many things that is beginning to really piss me off. I can't stand disjointed garbage that doesn't fit together, and I hate even worse stupid shit making its way into the available body of literature. It's one thing to try to substantially dispel myths and try to make it clear a good direction for further endeavor it's another thing to say idiotic shit that doesn't agree with experiment or empirical observation. Maybe this moron should have spent some time eating enough chocolate to get high on (not as much as you might think), rather than writing his bullshit.
I'm going to have to fix this myself. I'll spend years at it. I'm just so fucking tired of this, and it's one area I'd like to set the baseline for how the goddamn thing really works. A series of papers that really defines a solid foundation and framework to reference later as knowledge expands and shifts. There have been rulers that supposedly subsisted on this. We've eaten it for thousands of years, and still barely know how it works on even a high level. This is a pathetic mess.
Go get either some high quality dark(er) chocolate. Make sure it contains both the butter (fats), and the solids. Sometimes this will be listed as "chocolate liquor", which just means a roughly 50/50 proportion of cocoa butter and solids. Make sure it's not processed with anything (dutch process, roasting, alkali, etc. This is done to reduce pH and control bitterness).
You can either do this in the form of cacao nibs, chocolate chips, or chocolate bars. Chocolate chips is probably the most viable, but also involves a spike in blood sugar which makes results less clear. Nibs don't have this problem.
Eat a lot of it. Take it slowly, and you'll know what it is, as it begins to be. Some aspects are very, very similar to ethanol. Almost identical. Which makes me pretty apt to assume that salsolinol is in fact absorbed in some capacity. You're definitely not pulling in a lot of acetaldehyde.
Man, this is chocolate we're talking about, for fuck's sake. It's not hard to do this experiment yourself.
Also, this here was written before the review was even published. I'd already read it a long time ago. He references some study that mentions isoquinolines almost in passing (no increase is seen in blood plasma. No mention of detection methods) from 1980 or so. Not saying older research is necessarily unreliable or not worth reading, but things have changed. Modern research has shown this result to be false.
Why do people write things with such a bias? Could it truly be incompetence instead? What does this cocksucker have to gain, personally or otherwise?
Just another bit of evidence that for the vast majority of peer reviewed journals, even those that are quite prestigious, it's apt to be garbage.
Haven't had a chance to post this in a long time
No, anon. I don't think you understand. I've eaten decent amounts of cocoa beans for years at a time, it does change you in ways theobromine cannot. It can spur hypomania. It causes my vision to take on an extreme sense of contrast, every takes on an orange tint and light sources almost appear to glow and shine. Too much of it will also trash your working memory, but greatly improve long term storage and recollection. It's a good anxiolytic as well, the action of theobromine on cAMP throughout the prefrontal cortex doesn't fully describe that.
No. There's too much. I've a good deal of experience with this, and it just doesn't work. It's absurd. I'm going to figure it out.
>Believing disjointed garbage on the basis of faith when you have indication there's more to it
You are insane.
Many studies show (R)salsolinol easily crossing the BBB, many do not. Obviously something else is underlying the variability in these results.
>The action and ultimate fate of a compound when introduced to a greater system
As far as I'm concerned, whether you're eating glucose or aluminum, it's the realm of pharmacology. There's no meaningful delineation to be made between food non-food, and drugs.
What's the rest of your diet like? For some people, eating a bunch of high-quality fats can cause that effect. Or, if you are on a low-calorie or low-carb diet, eating a large amount of fat can cause a fair degree of stimulation.
Mainly turkey and garbanzo beans. Green beans, rice, some other legumes. Cane sugar, strawberries, raspberries. Various spices. Very occasionally potatoes and some squash. And apples, in moderation. That's about it.
I don't consume much for oils or fats, but I don't think that's what's happening here. It has the same general effect regardless of what I've eaten, and continues to do so over a long span of time. Interestingly as well, consuming too much produces the same effects as ethanol intoxication, complete with postural horizontal nystagmus on one occasion. The two are far too similar.
I can't really explain how it changes things with satisfactory accuracy. I suspect there's some sort of involvement of the cannabinoid system, and serotonin. I have quite a history with this, and I need to know why it is what it is, and how it works. It absolutely is not theobromine alone. Not to sound dramatic, but this thing kept me alive and kept me going. I'm just biased enough to not settl on what is obviously the wrong answer.