I've been seeing similar articles around for a little while now. Without getting too technical I think the idea of the "runners high" is very over simplified. Honesty it almost seems to be an attempt of conflating smoking pot with a natural runners high. There's no question endocanibinoids have an important role in our bodies- but how this information is presented annoys me.
First off, seems these articles also conflate the pharmakokinetics of THC with endogenous cannibinoids. THC does not naturally exist in the body and manifests itself quite differently. The effect of a ligand on a Receptor not only involved the class of molecule- but the selectivity, binding affinity, half life, etc. Location of receptors in different parts of the body and brain also have completely different functions.
The thing the article has against endorphins are that they are not lipid solvable and therefore cannot cross the blood brain barrier. That does not take into account that endorphins are also created within the central nervous system.
Another gripe I have with this theory is that people who exercise a lot tend to have better working memory than people who do not. It is well known activation of the endocanibinoid system impairs memory formation and is even hypothesized to be a factor in memory extinction. We also know that canibinoid stimulation usually mellows people out, that doesn't exactly fit with people continuing to want to run. Endogenous endorphins (both peripherally and centerally) also explain analgesia while under intense exercise better than cannibinoids for the type of pains we're generally talking about.
The current medical consensus is a combination of multiple endogenous euphorsnts, which probably at some level includes endocanibinoids, but also endorphins and phenylethylamine (amphetamine-like substance). I would presume the ultimate effect is caused by a surge in dopamine in the NAc of the hypothalmus creating euphoria and reinforcing the activity of running (many people do feel to some degree "addicted" to running).
Yes Marijuana/THC is fun and exciting but it's not the explanatory basis for everything in medicine. The human body, especially the brain is incredibly complex. The same substance in different places can have opposing effects. Everything is connected in opposing feedback loops. Affecting 1 thing can change 10 others.
Your knowledge about the subject dwarfs my own by big bunches. I can see now (on my layman's level) how you'd think the article (and the many others that echo it) is intellectually irresponsible with its reference to, and equation of, Marijuana's effects to the "runner's high". These type of articles are necessarily written in a simplistic way as an act of consideration for their audience. But, simplistic doesn't have to be equal to trivializing the subject matter. Your input is appreciated.
For analysis purposes, a distinction must be made between phytocannabanoids (PCs) and endocannabanoids (ECs) as to discovering whatever possible role cannabanoids (Cs) may have on producing the "runner's high". ECs, as you point out, are part of a complex whole we don't fully understand.
Regarding memory -- Are ECs THE faulting system for memory loss or are their beneficial effects being hindered by an overabundance of A-beta which is affecting pyramidal cells?
Article.
Paper. Again, the distinction between PCs and ECs is important to note. This isn't an invitation to use in-the-wild PCs as an attempt to ameliorate the effects of Alzheimer's. It's thought that such an attempt would be a failing one because of their non-discriminatory pathways, and because they would likely promote a tolerance response, which could in turn inhibit ECs' beneficial actions. Could be other reasons, as well.
As to your -- "Without getting too technical". Thank goodness you didn't. My head nearly exploded trying to have a bit of understanding of the
not too technical that followed, haha. Just kidding. Thanks. I welcome any additions and corrections you might have.
Happy Thanksgiving, everyone.
