It’s it not simply because you tend to eat lots of shite when on the munchies?
I wouldn’t devour a whole bag of haribo and 2l of coke when I’m not stoned.
That’s a lot of sugar
Yeah, it’s absolutely because of the munchies.
Sugar consumption doesn’t directly cause diabetes.
Being overweight is one of several primary causes, and yes consuming too many calories will make you overweight.
Once you have diabetes consuming sugar / carbohydrates contributes to a whole host of issues.
Back when I was vaping I would eat so many Haribo gummies I would throw up. My A1C is not great.
I feel the need to clarify that sugar doesn’t cause diabetes, but being overweight is linked to it. Sugar only helps you get there in high amounts.
E: Someone beat me to it.
sigh Plenty of people here didn’t even read the coverage.
While the authors note that more research is needed to fully explain the association between cannabis and diabetes, it may come down to insulin resistance and unhealthy dietary behaviors.
Yeah probably eating sugar after weed is the real answer.
That seems likely, but right now the science is only correlative, not causative. This was just a big statistical analysis. Hopefully some focused mechanistic studies follow.
Oh shut up no it’s not.
Read the article
Ok. I read the article. My tldr response is that my gut instinct was correct and this is a bullshit article. However, I will walk you through my findings and explain why this is bullshit.
1- The article’s hosting site “Medical Xpress” is not a peer reviewed journal. It is a news aggregate. This means that what you see represented MIGHT have legitimate medical content but it is DEFINITELY profit based. Meaning- someone can pay to have the algorithm enhance engagement in the topic of your choice. This will be important information later.
2- the article itself points out to this being a “retroactive study”. This means that their data was part of an existing database. What this actually means is that a medical intern fresh from university fed a bunch of data to chat gpt and got his attending to put his name on it.
The “marijuana user” sample size was 97k people. The “healthy” sample size was 4.1 million people. After removing people from the study that failed to fit their criteria the marijuana population was reduced to 2k and the healthy population was reduced to 518. After all of their statistical gymnastics they found their marijuana population was 1.6% more likely to develop diabetes than the control group.
So out of 97,000 people they found 32 people who smoked marijuana and also developed diabetes who MIGHT not have otherwise, but again this wasn’t a peer reviewed article. The article itself says:
"The authors acknowledge that the inherent limitations of real-world data often result from inconsistent patient reporting in electronic medical records.
They also note that there is a risk of bias because of imprecise measures of cannabis exposure and the reliance on participants to accurately report any cannabis use, even when they lived in places where the drug is illegal."
So why does this article exist? The source of the article is the European association for the study of diabetes, based on Dusseldorf Germany. It bears mentioning that in February of this year the Christian conservative CDU/CSU party was narrowly elected and maintains a slim hold on power. Last year before the Christians were elected Germany legalized recreational marijuana. No surprise, one of the biggest political goals of the current administration is to repeal this legislation.
So we have medical information produced by Ai, published by a general practitioner (not a specialist) to a German diabetes think-tank that was picked up by a news website that could absolutely be a propaganda mouthpiece of German Christians who are politically motivated to spread disinformation about one of their most important dog whistle issues.
So like I said, it’s bullshit.
The anti-weed forces commissioned these studies to start at it is bad and reverse engineer the study to come to that conclusion. It is a well-developed industry, every company engaged in using and improperly disposing of toxic chemicals does the same thing. Marijuana is not bad for you. If you use toxic pesticides, that would be bad for you. Or contaminated dirt to grow it.
It’s not marijuana itself that’s bad, but how you consume it and what you do when you’re high.
If you’re smoking it you risk lung cancer. If you’re eating low nutrition, high calorie food while you’re high without exercising, you risk other diseases. This article is about that.
The anti-weed forces
The kingpins who stand to lose money on legalisation and the private prison system that makes money on locking up (what are mostly) innocent non-violent “offenders”.
People who abuse substances are more likely to be fat, news at 11.
Are they though?
I genuinely don’t know. I only have anecdotal observations.
Certainly in my own case when I was smoking weed every day I was clinically underweight. Not for any real reason other than just not having much appetite. Daily smokers don’t really get the munchies as such.
It’s certainly not true for other amphetamines et cetera.
Yeah, people gravitate towards drugs to self-medicate various traumas [1]. It is common for trauma to cause bad eating habits. [2]
I’ve been mostly a daily smoker for a couple of years and still get munchies btw.
[1] Trauma: A Gateway to Substance Use Disorder [2] Childhood trauma linked to poor eating habits and obesity in adulthood, Polish study finds
Took about 15 years for the munchies to not be a thing for me
Same here. Seems like the more high I get the less I eat. I’ve lost like 40 lbs in the last two years and my herb consumption has only gone up
False
The risk of diabetes is the fucking food you eat whilst high. The only real issue with weed is the lung cancer it gives you, but cigarettes do the exact same shit. This is like saying “studies have shown that drinking quadruples the risk of getting into a fistfight and injuring yourself” 🤦♂️ Just drink smoke and gamble responsibly and you’ll be fine smh
None of this is certain, none of this was precise, but the study still highlights the need for more research.
I still feel its imperative that scientists primarily focus on our diets - our eating frequency, activity levels, digestion, metabolism, and the food we eat itself over demonizing cannabis unfairly.
There is no mechanism or pathway the authors have proven exists that cannabis or a particular cannabinoid damages the endocrine system/etc. by itself.
And nowadays, with all the synthetic cannabinoids on the market (especially in Europe to avoid laws), these studies will only become more inaccurate unless participants are carefully selected.
Especially in Europe where cannabis is illegal, people have no idea what they are actually consuming - it’s like the US/et. al spice craze. Manufacturers are constantly changing things up to avoid laws and all people care about is getting high. Even here in the states, people are inhaling/consuming chemical soup if they live in an illegal state and don’t know any better.
None of this is certain
This is a statistical study, so it’s not meant to be. Nobody in the field expects it to be because it’s measuring relative risk to guide decisions.
none of this was precise
Yes, it was. Parameters were constrained to realize the statistical comparison of the sample, as it’s standard practice. Also note the huge sample size that only adds to its precision by reducing the margin of error.
scientists primarily focus on our diets - our eating frequency, activity levels, digestion, metabolism
This is what the article is doing, but in the context of a behavior-altering substance like cannabis.
demonizing cannabis unfairly.
No part of the article does that. If you’re only reading clickbait titles, you’re doing it wrong. Quite the contrary, it’s fully transparent and reasonable in its purpose.
There is no mechanism or pathway the authors have proven exists that cannabis or a particular cannabinoid damages the endocrine system/etc. by itself
No part of the article suggests that, and directly states the possible explanation is a change in eating habits.
From the article:
This study has limitations due to a lack of detailed cannabis consumption data and potential misclassification.
First, the dose makes the poison. I’m arguing that no meaningful association can be drawn from this study - it doesn’t factor in total consumption or even what cannabinoids are being taken and even when, the consumption route, the purity or legitimacy of the substance, and at what frequency it is taken. Every single thing I mentioned is extremely, extremely significant - hence my previous certain and precise statements.
It’s also reliant on identifying participants based on cannabis-related diagnoses, which doesn’t sound like an accurate dataset at all. There are plenty of people who go to the doctor that use cannabis that 1) don’t disclose it 2) aren’t classified as having a use disorder either through omission or other potential reasons like downplaying use. I don’t know about other people, but I would be more likely to disclose cannabis use, and the extent of use (which could result in a substance (ab)use diagnosis/other cannabis-related diagnosis); if I was feeling unwell.
This is what the article is doing, but in the context of a behavior-altering substance like cannabis.
From the article:
While the authors note that more research is needed to fully explain the association between cannabis and diabetes, it may come down to insulin resistance and unhealthy dietary behaviors.
That was not the focus of the study. They controlled for several factors, but there are limitations - which they readily admit. I’m arguing that the limitations are more significant than they argue. As for unhealthy dietary behaviors specifically, the authors loosely agree that it merits for further study, but this study did not focus on looking at the nitty-gritty of people’s diets, specifically in the context of cannabis use to support their assertion of associating cannabis use with type 2 diabetes.
No part of the article does that. If you’re only reading clickbait titles, you’re doing it wrong. Quite the contrary, it’s fully transparent and reasonable in its purpose.
No meaningful association can be made from the data. It’s flawed for reasons that I explained above. There are also any number of (potentially undiagnosed) conditions that can co-occur with diagnosed cannabis use that e.g. increase appetite/calorie intake or other relevant behaviors, that may not show up on lab tests/etc. which (at least in part) could explain the results, contributing to the development and diagnosis of type 2 diabetes. This is an extremely limited and loose association - best case scenario. There simply needs to be greater data clarity/study focus and breadth of data.
No part of the article suggests that, and directly states the possible explanation is a change in eating habits.
The authors note that more research is needed on the long-term endocrine effects of cannabis use and whether diabetes risks are limited to inhaled products or other forms of cannabis such as edibles.
I was repeating this. There is no meat, but this all still merits further study - which I readily admitted.
You could’ve just asked why I feel the way I do instead of assuming misunderstanding and dissecting my response to the article/study. It would’ve likely made for better conversational flow. “Demonizing” was admittedly hyperbole, but it’s a strong claim to make an association between cannabis use and type 2 diabetes and I don’t think I am convinced with the supporting evidence presented.
I wonder how many diabetics this accounts for, of the total number of diabetics.
I’m diabetic. 25 year marijuana user, too. I weigh 115 lbs. I’m underweight even for my height. Family is all/mostly skinny, some diabetic some not. I’m the only regular marijuana user. So I don’t get it. Probably because I’m hiiiigh (just kidding).
It’s genetics. Clearly your family has genetics that are predisposed to diabetes. It’s not magic.
Sure. I understand that part. It’s the not becoming overweight part due to marijuana that also isn’t happening.
None it is a dishonest study commissioned for the purpose of a negative headline. To start at it is bad and engineer a study to come to that conclusion.
This is a well fleshed out industry. Just like the makers of toxic pesticides or pfas will do to justify their business.
It is amazing people are not more wise to this by now. But look at our politicians, even our better politicians and I guess I should not be surprised. People still trust Authority. Everyone trusts the wrong people.
There are some true aspects to what you’re saying in the overall field of publishing, but the article doesn’t read that way.
Did you read it? What conflict of interest can you spot? What aspects of it (besides the clickbait title) sound like a commissioned study to you?
The anti cannabis people have zero credibility. They have been lying through their teeth, since before we were born.
. . . what? . . .
Popcorn is the safest munchies. Cheap too.
Lots of commenters here either didn’t read the article or are missing the point of the study entirely. And a couple are going straight for conspiracy theories.
