Flower Indica vs Sativa: WTF?!

[PitaPata]

Here I am trying to provide some clarity on the matter of "Indica vs Sativa" and what this might mean for patients. I am going by my own experience: 45 years self-medicating, and almost as long growing plants for my own use. Supporting evidence is from a couple of journal articles, links at the bottom.

Rather than repeat misconceptions on this widely misunderstood subject, I'll keep things brief, and hopefully feel able to respond to comments if more details are needed…

Scientists do not agree whether there is just one species of Cannabis (Sativa) with three locally adapted subspecies, or three separate species (Sativa, Indica and ruderalis). The ancient, tangled and often illicit history of the plant's cultivation means that the subject remains poorly understood.

Nevertheless, growers recognise Indica plants as being short with wide leaves, dense buds and shorter harvest times. Sativas grow taller, have spindly leaves, looser buds and longer harvest times. Hybrid plants are obviously intermediate in the various characteristics. Just about every strain available to us is a Hybrid.

Any supposed distinction in the psychoactive properties of the two types has not been born out by research.

Nor do the vernacular labels of Sativa and Indica convey meaningful information about genetic or chemical variation: testing has shown that two cultivars with the same name can be as genetically and chemically distant from one another as any two random samples!

The only meaningful results from such tests are that:

• Plants labelled Sativa are somewhat more likely to contain the terpenoids Bergamotene (tea-like odour) and farnesene (spicy).
• Plants labelled Indica are somewhat more likely to contain Myrcene (earthy), guaiol and eudesmol.

But these correlations are all modest. The upshot for the patient is this: Sativa vs Indica is effectively useless as a basis for reliably selecting a CBPM.

Prescribers must reorient to a system which distinguishes strains by precise measurements of cannabinoid and terpenoid levels (and other compounds according to evidence). They should be recommending strains based upon such profiles, e.g. Myrcene for its sedative effect. However, we must accept that not enough is currently known about the effects of terpenes, nor their interaction (the entourage effect) for precise prescriptions.

This an area where patients must push prescribers to extend their knowledge, and thereby to drive further research. Prescribers choosing (what they think is) Sativa/Indica on some facile indication must confront the reality that this has no scientific basis!

At the other end of things, as it were, is the endocannabinoid system, its receptors distributed throughout the human body, discovered so recently that its many functions have only begun to be delineated. Just as your neurological and immune systems are unique to you, based upon your genetic make-up, early development and personal life-history, so too your internal cannabinoid system.

Cannabis prescribing will always be highly individualised.

Patients must educate ourselves beyond what the prescribers know. MedBud.wiki is helping us; the Terpene Database is indispensable!

References:
The Genetic Structure of Marijuana and Hemp; Sawler et al
Cannabis Labelling is Associated with Genetic Variation in Terpene Synthase Genes; Watts et al

 

[GreenRed]

I know a lot of people actively choose their strains based on if it's Indica or Sativa, but just like the above reference, I never found any pattern in quality or effects, whatever I had in 20+ years. I had Sativas that put me to sleep on the spot, and I had Indicas that energised me for the day. I had Sativas comfortably numbing my whole body, and I had Indicas give me the head rush. I just don't care any more about this specific label when picking my stuff.

 

[Delta 9]

Here I am trying to provide some clarity on the matter of "Indica vs Sativa" and what this might mean for patients. I am going by my own experience: 45 years self-medicating, and almost as long growing plants for my own use. Supporting evidence is from a couple of journal articles, links at the bottom.

Rather than repeat misconceptions on this widely misunderstood subject, I'll keep things brief, and hopefully feel able to respond to comments if more details are needed…

Scientists do not agree whether there is just one species of Cannabis (Sativa) with three locally adapted subspecies, or three separate species (Sativa, Indica and ruderalis). The ancient, tangled and often illicit history of the plant's cultivation means that the subject remains poorly understood.

Nevertheless, growers recognise Indica plants as being short with wide leaves, dense buds and shorter harvest times. Sativas grow taller, have spindly leaves, looser buds and longer harvest times. Hybrid plants are obviously intermediate in the various characteristics. Just about every strain available to us is a Hybrid.

Any supposed distinction in the psychoactive properties of the two types has not been born out by research.

Nor do the vernacular labels of Sativa and Indica convey meaningful information about genetic or chemical variation: testing has shown that two cultivars with the same name can be as genetically and chemically distant from one another as any two random samples!

The only meaningful results from such tests are that:

• Plants labelled Sativa are somewhat more likely to contain the terpenoids Bergamotene (tea-like odour) and farnesene (spicy).
• Plants labelled Indica are somewhat more likely to contain Myrcene (earthy), guaiol and eudesmol.

But these correlations are all modest. The upshot for the patient is this: Sativa vs Indica is effectively useless as a basis for reliably selecting a CBPM.

Prescribers must reorient to a system which distinguishes strains by precise measurements of cannabinoid and terpenoid levels (and other compounds according to evidence). They should be recommending strains based upon such profiles, e.g. Myrcene for its sedative effect. However, we must accept that not enough is currently known about the effects of terpenes, nor their interaction (the entourage effect) for precise prescriptions.

This an area where patients must push prescribers to extend their knowledge, and thereby to drive further research. Prescribers choosing (what they think is) Sativa/Indica on some facile indication must confront the reality that this has no scientific basis!

At the other end of things, as it were, is the endocannabinoid system, its receptors distributed throughout the human body, discovered so recently that its many functions have only begun to be delineated. Just as your neurological and immune systems are unique to you, based upon your genetic make-up, early development and personal life-history, so too your internal cannabinoid system.

Cannabis prescribing will always be highly individualised.

Patients must educate ourselves beyond what the prescribers know. MedBud.wiki is helping us; the Terpene Database is indispensable!

References:
The Genetic Structure of Marijuana and Hemp; Sawler et al
Cannabis Labelling is Associated with Genetic Variation in Terpene Synthase Genes; Watts et al

Narrow leaf drug cultivar or broad leaf drug cultivar terms have been around for a long time wether people buy into it or not up to them but if they are researching strain genetics and not the Indica Sativa debate being non equatorial or equatorial then you will see them caught out with sedative v stimulating effects.

Terpinolene being the 1 main terpene for ME to determine wether sedative or stimulating but all down to % and if dominant or not as we know Myrcene is euphoric in small amounts and sedative in higher amounts and similar with terpinolene.

But forget the primary terpene sedative or stimulating the flavourants esters thiols if any etc and minor cannabinoids in canna prob play just as important or more important role than primary terp.

NLD and BLD is always been there for Sativa or Indica but canna community adopted it when i am sure they found Myrcene in haze but i may be wrong but thats what i read , It mustv`e made the haze sedative and been in high amounts as Myrcene 1 most abundant terp in canna. If this is the case and we all know terpinolene woulda been there somewhere so i think its relative to that in a way. Saying the opposite can a BLD be terpinolene dominant is a good question , are the outlier selections terpinolene dominant products popping up and catching patients out looking for Indica effects going by genetics wll what leaflet size are they because that could blow the bld nld out the water.

Hard to calssify canna with polyhybrids but i think leaflet size along with the primary terp % is best

If Myrcene was was the primary terpene in a strain but terpinolene 2nd then i would say there more of a chance of that being a stimulating effect than sedative. So yes prescribe based on primary terp but watch that secondary 1 especially terpinolene, We can find true Indica profiles with lack of terpinolene etc and bld phenos Myrcene , Caryophyllene dom

Same with chasing high THC numbers but not even knowing minor cannabinoids and flavourants is not meds its just like bm guessing game.

A pic of leaf maybe a vid if nothing to hide of cultivar and COA to stop the guessing game that patients have to go through !!

 

[GreenRed]

Very good info. By the way, it is possible to request a 3-part terpene profile via the AI, and I love that. Seriously, how awesome is this?

Consider your privacy. I use Luma, the most private AI assistant, developed by Proton.

It gives a much more detailed explanation specific to each individual terpene, but it also gives you a cheat sheet:

 

[PitaPata]

Very good info. By the way, it is possible to request a 3-part terpene profile via the AI, and I love that. Seriously, how awesome is this?

Consider your privacy. I use Luma, the most private AI assistant, developed by Proton.

It gives a much more detailed explanation specific to each individual terpene, but it also gives you a cheat sheet:

Thanks for the feedback.

Yeah I've been a paying Proton user for a few years.

Regarding the use of LLMs, I think this is one of those topics where the quality of the data available for training just isn't very good, so take care with that. Your screenshot example is, as it happens, showing unlikely levels of CBD.

 

[GreenRed]

Yes I work with LLMs a lot and know how inaccurate they can be, so data wise I always take it with a grain of salt and try to doublecheck numbers. But so far, whatever I read about the actual terpenes, seemed accurate to me by checking other sources. In this case I did not even check the THC/CBD ratios, because low THC stuff just does not work for me anyway, but the main terpenes seemed alright!

But to your point, yes, always doublecheck LLM answers.

 

[thegoonies2]

It's a moot point to begin with. We all have broadly the same anatomy including CB1 Medical receptors but that's where the similarities end.

It's like comparing the body structure of two males like Sylvester Stallone and Pee Wee Herman. Broadly the same but vastly different.

Our CB1 receptor's have the same difference. The receptors aren’t “unique signatures,” but they can be “bigger, smaller, more or less responsive” across individuals, much like muscles.

Experience of one strain will have broadly the same effect on a large portion of the population but there are always outliers. Always reckoned it to be probably something like 60% the same and 20% either side at the extremes.

 

[GreenRed]

Attended the "We the patients" event in London this Thu, where once again it has been highlighted by actual presenting doctors that Sativa / Indica do not really mean a thing in this day and age, apart from shape. Terpenes, terpenes, terpenes.