• N&PD Moderators: Skorpio | thegreenhand

  • Neuroscience & Pharmacology Discussion Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Recent Journal Articles Chemistry Mega-Thread
    FREE Chemistry Databases! Self-Education Guide

Is vasoconstriction physically bad for you or have the potential to be?

rickolasnice said:
^ I always assumed your heart was just getting seriously tired.. and that there would actually be a lot more drugs in your body by day 2 or 3.. it takes 4ish days for your system to be almost completely clean from drugs after a single use (depending on the drug).. depending on the half-life of the drug, we'll use meth (half-life is 10ish hours) then 24 hours after taking 100mg you would still have around 20mg in your body when you then take another 100mg.. and that's if you dosed once every 24 hours..
Click to expand...

Yeah I thought about this. I dosed every 12 hours and maintained similar doses and effects into the following days in terms of the high. I dont seem to feel like I am getting more high with stacked doses as things go on and if a high dose due to stacking is the cause them my very high dose tests on day 1 should have caused the symptoms.

I do however think that maybe the SNS and negative stimulation is stacking up and lasts longer then the desired effects similar to how the SNS stimulation goes hyper during comedown even after the drug has theoretically worn off.

In fact during 2nd and third doses, for example redosed at 12 hours, i can feel increased peripheral stimulation from hour 12 onwards as if I am coming down in some way from the first dose even though I have redosed and feel positive overall.

Is this a real thing perhaps?
 
Yeah definitely.. Taking more drugs over extended periods of time generally massively increase negative side affects while the high decreases every time.
 
rickolasnice said:
Yeah definitely.. Taking more drugs over extended periods of time generally massively increase negative side affects while the high decreases every time.
Click to expand...

Yeah but is it possible to confirm the technicalities behind this.?

For example do the SNS chemicals medically last longer then the dopamine effect and therefore cause this issue through additive effects?

Im a facts/details whore lol. Thanks.
 
the physical effects from vasoconstriction such as numbness, tingling, etc take time to develop. that part of the body needs to be deprived of blood flow over time for the effects to happen. its like holding your arm over your head doesn't make it go numb, but hold it there for a while and it eventually will.
 
I'm presently on bupropion, amphetamine, caffeine, and nicotine.

Look at my eyelids and face. My appearance changed permanently from 4 months of adderall alone.

Ignore the oil, that's antibiotic cream.

My eyelids are permanently dark and baggy, my cheeks hollowed out, lines across my face... this pic was just taken, while on all of these vasoconstrictors, and frankly I wonder if inadequate blood flow is the cause. I've eaten and slept a lot. I really want to figure this out, to save my face from further change...


NSFW:




Dopamine increase, big NE increase, nAChR agonism, adenosine antagonism... Aka a bunch of stims, and a really concerning problem.

Edit: will see if bupropion with just nicotine or just caffeine causes this as well.
 
Last edited:
One grainy, out of focus picture with no earlier comparison, doesn't really provide a convincing argument. Looks to be fairly normal to me.
 
TCMVegas, your sleep pattern and fluid intake aren't made of fail, by any chance? I just ask because these are the two most important factors for skin health that are under your control, are often suboptimal in people on the drugs you mentioned (each alone, never mind all together!), and frequently produce exactly the types of skin problems you've talked about and shown. Vasoconstriction plays no central causative role in this effect.

As for your original question, inappropriate chronic vasoconstriction throughout your body sets you up for two big problems. First of all, as Epsilon Alpha mentioned, is arterial remodeling. The walls of your arteries will grow thicker in order to tolerate the higher pressures, with the cost that they'll be less compliant. Which leads me to the second issue: reduced blood supply to a lot of tissues, especially those that are out at the periphery (your limbs, ears, genitals (!) and nose), and ones that were never very vascular to begin with. This is like narrowing all the streets in an entire city -- many tissues and organs may not be able to import or export what they need to to function properly, meaning whole parts of you wear out a lot sooner.

Once arterial remodeling has taken place after years of ignored hypertension, controlling blood pressure becomes a lot harder, because vasodilators just don't work, and with diuretics and cardiac output reducers you now have a very narrow therapeutic window before hypoperfusion capable of producing tissue / organ failure (especially of the kidneys) is a real risk. This is because with a pipe of fixed diameter, you can't drop the pressure without reducing flow.

Vasoconstriction and elevated blood pressure (as long as it's never near 200/120) are not in and of themselves harmful in otherwise healthy people, as long as they're appropriate and transient responses to transient stressors. The same can be said of all out-of-range vital signs.

Most people on chronic guideline doses of amphetamines for neuropsychiatric or inflammatory problems develop tolerance to the hypertensive effect, and indeed to most of the peripheral sympathetic / catecholamine effects, over time. A net rise of 5-10 mmHg in the blood pressure is typical, which is nothing that can't be offset by other lifestyle choices that favor lower blood pressure. By the same token, combining long term amphetamine use (even at therapeutic rather than recreational doses) with lifestyle choices that favor hypertension (including polypharmacy with other vasoconstrictors or substances taken to potentiate amphetamines), is probably a very bad idea in the long run.
 
Last edited:
Nope, this was after 8 hours sleep, breakfast and a big lunch, and well hydrated.
 
Vasoconstriction isn't bad in the short term per se (it's a completely normal process that occurs during, say, exercise). It's only a problem when it is prolonged and damages organs due to decreased blood flow.
 
Last edited:
it's a completely normal process that occurs during, say, exercise
Click to expand...

It's my understanding that the sum effect of exercise is vasodilation, at least peripherally (as localized processes in the muscles overall the sum effect of epinephrine release). Also, with aerobic exercise, this increase symapthetic nervous activity is accompanied by increased intake of oxygen, while with stimulant use, it is not.

ebola
 
ebola? said:
It's my understanding that the sum effect of exercise is vasodilation, at least peripherally (as localized processes in the muscles overall the sum effect of epinephrine release). Also, with aerobic exercise, this increase symapthetic nervous activity is accompanied by increased intake of oxygen, while with stimulant use, it is not.

ebola
Click to expand...

My point was that vasoconstriction isn't some abnormal biological function that is always bad. You're right, both vasodilation and constriction occur during exercise depending on what muscles/tissues need more blood and oxygen.
 
You're both right. Exercise vasodilates, especially at the periphery (skeletal muscle and skin). It raises blood pressure too, which is something that vasoconstriction also does, hence the reason many people mistakenly associate exercise with vasoconstriction. The heart generates such a larger pressure head during exercise that BP goes up despite a wider pipe diameter.

Vasoconstriction is a response to a threat, generally speaking. The damage wrought by chronic vasoconstriction is a large part the toll of living with relentless threats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top