[quote]BarDown72 wrote:
personally i dont buy into it but a few of my training partners have claimed smoking weed helped them to bulk because of the munchies they always had. i saw a decline in their workouts and motivation, so i wouldnt say its worth it[/quote]
Your training partners are lazy.
I know a couple of stoners who lift an assload. I’ve squatted 705, one guy squatted 800, and the third, 1003.
Pretty sure the 1003 guy was actually high when he did it.
And yeah, there’s nothing like smoking after the gym then eating a burrito and a few tacos… then taking a nap.
I even smoke before the gym on occasion, now. Awesome workouts.[/quote]
It definitely affects people differently. The guy I lift with smokes all the time before he works out and is one of the strongest dudes I know. If I smoke before I lift, even if its hours before, my workout is shitty. I feel like I can feel my muscles better but Im gassed after like 2 exercises.
Hard to believe it is more potent than a generation ago. Back then, folks that were selling it often would “cut” it with different additives. Also, could be more gov propaganda…reefer madness, the gateway drug phenomenon, and so on, B.S.[/quote]
How far back are you talking and what in the world would they cut it with? If you’re talking about 90’s, nobody cut it with anything. It’s not coke, it’s weed. Worst case you might get a few extra stick’s or seeds but in the NYC area I never seen anything cut with anything. The only thing close was some people would add orange peels or lettuce leaves to keep it from drying out but that would be removed before it was bagged and sold.
Funny story. The one hit shit, well my girlfriend had a shit ton… she failed to realize I couldn’t look at shit and tell the quality… she was a pot head, I had smoked some cheap shit a few times…
Well, 13 hits later, of the shit that fucks you up with 1 hit, I was holding counter freaking out because I was too high.
6 hours later, after eating 2 boxes of instant mashed potatoes, a half gallon of milk, 2 frozen pizzas, and a can of pringles I was at a comfortable high…
I would like to add I am very sensitive to any drug.
The next time I smoked, I took one hit, not even a big one, and I was fucked up. so you can imagine 13…
I noticed no effect on performance from smoking, and kept making gains fast.
[quote]BigSkwatta wrote:
Funny story. The one hit shit, well my girlfriend had a shit ton… she failed to realize I couldn’t look at shit and tell the quality… she was a pot head, I had smoked some cheap shit a few times…
Well, 13 hits later, of the shit that fucks you up with 1 hit, I was holding counter freaking out because I was too high.
6 hours later, after eating 2 boxes of instant mashed potatoes, a half gallon of milk, 2 frozen pizzas, and a can of pringles I was at a comfortable high…
I would like to add I am very sensitive to any drug.
The next time I smoked, I took one hit, not even a big one, and I was fucked up. so you can imagine 13…
I noticed no effect on performance from smoking, and kept making gains fast. [/quote]
[quote]BigSkwatta wrote:
Funny story. The one hit shit, well my girlfriend had a shit ton… she failed to realize I couldn’t look at shit and tell the quality… she was a pot head, I had smoked some cheap shit a few times…
Well, 13 hits later, of the shit that fucks you up with 1 hit, I was holding counter freaking out because I was too high.
6 hours later, after eating 2 boxes of instant mashed potatoes, a half gallon of milk, 2 frozen pizzas, and a can of pringles I was at a comfortable high…
I would like to add I am very sensitive to any drug.
The next time I smoked, I took one hit, not even a big one, and I was fucked up. so you can imagine 13…
I noticed no effect on performance from smoking, and kept making gains fast. [/quote]
[/quote]
Lmao salvia is quite easily the funnest drug I’ve ever tried.
[quote]tmay11 wrote:
Just to add my 2cents - Weed is without a doubt more potent than it was in the past. Does this mean that it is more dangerous? - NO. In fact, I would argue the opposite. Lots of dope today is " one hit shit " meaning that often ONE good bong hit is all you need (maybe not to get totally blitzed but at least a 7or8 /10). This means that you can smoke a lot less to achieve the same effect. This makes the weed much safer as you’re now inhaling a lot less carcinogenic smoke.
Like the above poster has said - If you understand how weed is grown you would readily admit it would have to have gotten stronger. Growers take the best strains and continuously interbreed ONLY THE BEST PLANTS making the plants stronger and stronger. Think about domesticated fruit and how it has changed over the last 200 years. [/quote]
But how much has domesticated fruit changed in the last 30 years. I’d assume not that much. People have been smoking weed for thousands of years, and since then people have been trying to smoke better and better weed. After a couple of generations weed wouldn’t get too much more potent. I think that the only way weed could be any stronger would be because of better growing techniques, not because of selective breeding.[/quote]
“A couple of generations”. LOL, the lifecycle of hydro weed is about 14 weeks give or take. There have been SHITLOADS of ‘generations’ of weed development.
BBB[/quote]
Which is why I’m saying that the potency would have only increased a small amount in the past 30-40 years. After the first few years of selective breeding the potency would be fairly close to its genetic maximum
[quote]tmay11 wrote:
Just to add my 2cents - Weed is without a doubt more potent than it was in the past. Does this mean that it is more dangerous? - NO. In fact, I would argue the opposite. Lots of dope today is " one hit shit " meaning that often ONE good bong hit is all you need (maybe not to get totally blitzed but at least a 7or8 /10). This means that you can smoke a lot less to achieve the same effect. This makes the weed much safer as you’re now inhaling a lot less carcinogenic smoke.
Like the above poster has said - If you understand how weed is grown you would readily admit it would have to have gotten stronger. Growers take the best strains and continuously interbreed ONLY THE BEST PLANTS making the plants stronger and stronger. Think about domesticated fruit and how it has changed over the last 200 years. [/quote]
But how much has domesticated fruit changed in the last 30 years. I’d assume not that much. People have been smoking weed for thousands of years, and since then people have been trying to smoke better and better weed. After a couple of generations weed wouldn’t get too much more potent. I think that the only way weed could be any stronger would be because of better growing techniques, not because of selective breeding.[/quote]
“A couple of generations”. LOL, the lifecycle of hydro weed is about 14 weeks give or take. There have been SHITLOADS of ‘generations’ of weed development.
BBB[/quote]
Which is why I’m saying that the potency would have only increased a small amount in the past 30-40 years. After the first few years of selective breeding the potency would be fairly close to its genetic maximum[/quote]
Unless a new mutation arises that would cause these plants to produce more THC, the genetic pool for making plants that produce a lot of THC will stay the same. It’s like the horses bred to run in the kentucky derby. When horse breeding got more organized the times got really fast really quick, but after about 50 years the average time hasn’t been much faster. http://www.horsehats.com/KentuckyDerbyWinners.html
I know that a lurking variable is possible, but I don’t know shit about horses/ horse races.
[quote]lemonman456 wrote:
Unless a new mutation arises that would cause these plants to produce more THC, the genetic pool for making plants that produce a lot of THC will stay the same. It’s like the horses bred to run in the kentucky derby. When horse breeding got more organized the times got really fast really quick, but after about 50 years the average time hasn’t been much faster. http://www.horsehats.com/KentuckyDerbyWinners.html
I know that a lurking variable is possible, but I don’t know shit about horses/ horse races. [/quote]
I said that in jest but that was actually very logical… Damn hahaha. Still from looking at what weed strains they newly produce every year, you can infer that it is not at the genetic maximum as they keep getting noticeably stronger. Using your idea of genetic maximum as we are approaching it(the maximum), our progress will slow - and our progress is still taking leaps and bounds. Therefor 40 years ago the weed was MUCH weaker. If anything your idea of genetic maximum(I’ll admit, a foreign concept to myself) enforces the idea that weed today is much stronger.
[quote]lemonman456 wrote:
Unless a new mutation arises that would cause these plants to produce more THC, the genetic pool for making plants that produce a lot of THC will stay the same. It’s like the horses bred to run in the kentucky derby. When horse breeding got more organized the times got really fast really quick, but after about 50 years the average time hasn’t been much faster. http://www.horsehats.com/KentuckyDerbyWinners.html
I know that a lurking variable is possible, but I don’t know shit about horses/ horse races. [/quote]
I said that in jest but that was actually very logical… Damn hahaha. Still from looking at what weed strains they newly produce every year, you can infer that it is not at the genetic maximum as they keep getting noticeably stronger. Using your idea of genetic maximum as we are approaching it(the maximum), our progress will slow - and our progress is still taking leaps and bounds. Therefor 40 years ago the weed was MUCH weaker. If anything your idea of genetic maximum(I’ll admit, a foreign concept to myself) enforces the idea that weed today is much stronger.[/quote]
A New strain doesn’t usually mean more potent. The different strains usually just give you a different type of high. There has to be a video of Willie Nelson where someone has asked him this. But the more I think about it the more I agree with you pov
“More potent” could also be interpreted as more potent on average. The strongest weed today isnt better than the strongest weed 50 years ago, but more people have access to the seeds/fertilizers/hydroponics/whatever other shit they use now to grow better weed.
I’ve smoked since I was 15 and I’ve only had to smoke that dirty mexican schwag once or twice ever. Back 50 years ago that was the most common type.
[quote]lemonman456 wrote:
Unless a new mutation arises that would cause these plants to produce more THC, the genetic pool for making plants that produce a lot of THC will stay the same. It’s like the horses bred to run in the kentucky derby. When horse breeding got more organized the times got really fast really quick, but after about 50 years the average time hasn’t been much faster. http://www.horsehats.com/KentuckyDerbyWinners.html
I know that a lurking variable is possible, but I don’t know shit about horses/ horse races. [/quote]
I said that in jest but that was actually very logical… Damn hahaha. Still from looking at what weed strains they newly produce every year, you can infer that it is not at the genetic maximum as they keep getting noticeably stronger. Using your idea of genetic maximum as we are approaching it(the maximum), our progress will slow - and our progress is still taking leaps and bounds. Therefor 40 years ago the weed was MUCH weaker. If anything your idea of genetic maximum(I’ll admit, a foreign concept to myself) enforces the idea that weed today is much stronger.[/quote]
A New strain doesn’t usually mean more potent. The different strains usually just give you a different type of high. There has to be a video of Willie Nelson where someone has asked him this. But the more I think about it the more I agree with you pov[/quote]
“looking at what weed strains they newly produce every year, you can infer that it is not at the genetic maximum as they keep getting noticeably stronger.”
“as they keep getting noticeably stronger”
“noticeably stronger”
“stronger”
=/
Also this isn’t a question of different highs, they can test for cannabinoid content in labs - and they do so for all the winning weeds in the cannabis cup if I am not mistaken.
[quote]tmay11 wrote:
Just to add my 2cents - Weed is without a doubt more potent than it was in the past. Does this mean that it is more dangerous? - NO. In fact, I would argue the opposite. Lots of dope today is " one hit shit " meaning that often ONE good bong hit is all you need (maybe not to get totally blitzed but at least a 7or8 /10). This means that you can smoke a lot less to achieve the same effect. This makes the weed much safer as you’re now inhaling a lot less carcinogenic smoke.
Like the above poster has said - If you understand how weed is grown you would readily admit it would have to have gotten stronger. Growers take the best strains and continuously interbreed ONLY THE BEST PLANTS making the plants stronger and stronger. Think about domesticated fruit and how it has changed over the last 200 years. [/quote]
But how much has domesticated fruit changed in the last 30 years. I’d assume not that much. People have been smoking weed for thousands of years, and since then people have been trying to smoke better and better weed. After a couple of generations weed wouldn’t get too much more potent. I think that the only way weed could be any stronger would be because of better growing techniques, not because of selective breeding.[/quote]
“A couple of generations”. LOL, the lifecycle of hydro weed is about 14 weeks give or take. There have been SHITLOADS of ‘generations’ of weed development.
BBB[/quote]
9 to 11 weeks, depending on the strain, but cultivating a stable strain is much more complicated and takes much longer.
