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

  • N&PD Moderators: Skorpio

the truth behind ingesting essential oils

(zonk)

(zonk)

Temporary Ban
Joined
May 24, 2008
Messages
687
Location
Usa
I posted this in another forum but I figured I'd repost this here as it may get some more helpfull attention...

...OK so I know there's been old speculation by Shulgin that allylbenzenes such as safrole and nutmeg oil constituents may go thru some process in the body to form thier amphetamine counterparts by transamination? Has this theory been disproven yet? It seems like someone could have gotten to the bottom of this by now and determined once and for all whether or not this takes place. I read somewhere that rats can do it.
I mean it seems rather simple... ingest some sassafras/nutmeg oil, then get a piss test or reagent kit (I know that pharmacies sell the piss tests for $20-30 otc) and see if it tests positive for exstacy/amphetamines. The reagent kit might be better for testing non-metabolites as I'm not sure if the allybenzenes can be metabolized into the same metabolites (phenylacetates?) as thier amphetamines.
Or... I've always wondered if ingesting these essential oils along with an MAO-B inhibitor like selegiline would potentiate the small amount of amphetamines that might be produced to yeild some REAL interesting fx, without having to worry so much about toxicity.
Or even a simple blood test, I know some people here have access to greater testing devices ( chromatographs and such...). Can anyone definatively say for a fact what's the deal with this so I can stop wondering... I'd hate to have to ingest nutmeg and pargyline for no reason as it does not sound like a pleasant task.
 
I would imagine that in 30 years someone has examined this possibility; no doubt if it was actually happening the paper would be out there. I don't think it is.

If you were to actually ingest nutmeg you'd not be inclined to have faith in this theory. There's something else going on.

Don't combine psychoactive essential oils with a MAOI. Without proof that it's safe, you're risking your life.

Don't even try to get high off essential oils alone, they're notably toxic; hepatotoxicity, neurotoxicity, etc. I've known people who were hospitalised due to nutmeg abuse.

No amphetamines:

http://dmd.aspetjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/2/6/489

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14422

Once again, very much NO amphetamines:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16885726l
 
it seems to me that an oil in nutmeg may be acting as a cannabinoid considering how similar they feel.
 
Ham-milton said:
it seems to me that an oil in nutmeg may be acting as a cannabinoid considering how similar they feel.
Click to expand...

Does it molecule big enough to act as a cannabinoid ligand?
Seems like it only has one aromatic ring with an unbranced chain attached to it (tho it might have pi-interaction at the double bond)

Personally I have not seen a CB-Type ligand with this small structure.
 
Myristicin was shown to be converted to MMDA in invitro liver cells some 20 years ago. Paper is a bit hard to find, but I've posted this on many other forums before [and couldn't be bothered looking it up again].

I've also posted many times about consuming certain types of nutmeg oil and getting MMDA like effects from it BUT ONLY after strenuous muscle activity. This has led me to a practice of rubbing allylbenzene-containing oils on major muscle groups before excercise, sex or dancing with great effect. Over the last 15 years this practice has now spread far and wide in australia, with many doof dancefloors being permeated by sassafras or nutmeg aromas.

As for the safety of this, that is a whole different thread, but if you look at the science closely you will find that most of the toxicity data does not apply to humans and is for the MOST part hype.

The cannabis like effect from nutmeg oil is not due to the allylbenzene. It is due to one of the lower boiling point fractions. if you distill just the high BP fraction then you won't get this. Simply boiling off the stuff below 225degC will do the trick too.
 
*bangs head against table* When will people stop talking about this!?

If this were true, then people who drank anisettes (which have lots of Anise oil) would have all died from PMA overdose, since that is what Anethol would be turns into.
 
LOL- agreed, rubbing oil on the skin will do absolutely nothing, but sounds like a great way to get skin cancer.
 
Jamshyd said:
*bangs head against table* When will people stop talking about this!?

If this were true, then people who drank anisettes (which have lots of Anise oil) would have all died from PMA overdose, since that is what Anethol would be turns into.
Click to expand...


Your ignorance won't make this go away. I've been researching this for nearly 20 years and I get just as tired with the ignorant fools as you get tired of people who have the knowledge and experience.

And your stupidity becomes obvious with the above statement. Anise contains Anethol which is a propenylbenzene, NOT an allylbenzene. I never stated that the body can convert propenylbenzenes, because in my experience it can't [and there is also no in vitro experiment to suggest so].

There is a wealth of information out there on Acorus gramineus consumption for example [again, pioneered in australia], which contains allylbenzenes and is quite active [while Acorus calamus mostly isn't].

reading BL is so frustatring. You folks seem to think you know everything and yet you know so little and just foster your own ignorance by shouting everything else down.
 
For those who can read:
Braun, U., Kalbhen, D.A. 1973, Pharmacology. 9(5):312-6 'Evidence for the biogenic formation of amphetamine derivatives from components of nutmeg.


And before folks rant on more about the carcinogenic effects of myristicin you might want to check what's in cola syrup.
 
That is a logical non sequitur, wether or not coke is carcinogenic has no bearing on the carcinogenicity or lack thereof of the oils in question, so what if coke syrup is carcinogenic, what does it have to do with allylbenzenes?

To the point of the question, I seem to recall reading that a part at least of said allylbenzenes were converted to an epoxide in vivo, through hepatic metabolism, epoxides are very reactive, toxic, I don't specifically know about carcinogenicity of epoxides, but they aren't a family of structures I wish to have in my body.

Tabaluga, I realise you can't send/recieve PMs, but would you be able to send a copy of that paper to me please? I would be interested to read that.

If you can, my email is bitterentropicdemise at hotmail dot co dot uk

:)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Have a looksie at this, and this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11246123?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=5&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed

The second link proves that allylbenzenes undergo an epoxidation metabolic path, which is then (mostly) glutathione conjugated etc, but, in the grand scheme of things, I personally would much rather have my amination done on said oils outside my body.
 
Last edited:
That is a logical non sequitur

Yes, I know. Was just getting frazzled by the ignorance.


wether or not coke is carcinogenic has no bearing on the carcinogenicity or lack thereof of the oils in question


Ummm. You turned this around. Myristicin is a component in cola syrup and cola syrup has been cleared of carcinogenic effect. So, at least in small doses, myristicin also has to be in the clear [unless cola syrup contains somethign that blocks carcinogenics ;)]. Anyway, not terribly relevant.



To the point of the question, I seem to recall reading that a part at least of said allylbenzenes were converted to an epoxide in vivo

The initial claim and the bulk of further claims are based on this research:

Toxicology 1977 Feb;7(1):69-83
Absorption, metabolism and excretion of safrole in the rat and man.
Benedetti MS, Malnoe A, Broillet AL.
"The main urinary metabolite in both species was 1,2-dihydroxy-4-allylbenzene which was excreted in a conjugated form. Small amounts of eugenol or its isomer 1-methoxy-2-hydroxy-4-allylbenzene were also detected in rat and man. 1'-Hydroxysafrole, a proximate carcinogen of safrole, and 3'-hydroxyisosafrole were detected as conjugates in the urine of the rat. However, in these investigations we were unable to demonstrate the presence of the latter metabolites in man."

For some reason everyone ignored the last sentence in that abstract and simply applied the 1'-Hydroxysafrole indiscriminately for safrole's danger to humans. Furthermore, unsubstantiated claims were made about myristicin on the basis of similarly flawed research. It was only in 2001 that some clarity was brought to this and drew a clear line between rat and human experiments. Human enzymes did not activate for the all important hydroxylation at the levels that were tested:

Anticancer Res 2001 Jan-Feb;21(1A):461-9
Micronucleus formation in human lymphocytes and in the metabolically competent human hepatoma cell line Hep-G2: results with 15 naturally occurring substances.
Kevekordes S, Spielberger J, Burghaus CM, Birkenkamp P, Zietz B, Paufler P, Diez M, Bolten C, Dunkelberg H.
"Benzyl acetate, emodine, isatidine dihydrate, reserpine, safrole, sanguinarine chloride and thiourea did not reveal any micronucleus inducing activity in either human lymphocytes or in Hep-G2."


The is a set of conditions that showed hydroxylated metabolites in humans, however was at massive doses of methyleugenol. The dosage would be equivalent to 1.5g per day for 25 consecutive days. Again, while this shows that autoinduced hydroxylation is possible in humans, the scenario is not very realistic.

Gardner, I., Wakazono H., Bergin P., de Waziers I., Beaune P., Kenna J. G. and Caldwell J. Cytochrome P450 Mediated Bioactivation of Methyleugenol to 1'-Hydroxymethyleugenol in Fischer Rat and Human Liver Microsomes. Carcinogenesis, (1997) 18, 1775-1783


According to your cited paper methyleugenol was hydroxylated more than safrole and myristicin, so the ingestion amounts for these would be even higher than those cited above. The critical thing in these experiments appears to be a saturation level that we would not reach with occasional experimentation.


Tabaluga, I realise you can't send/recieve PMs, but would you be able to send a copy of that paper to me please?

How annoying. I lost my previous profile years ago and now I feel like a noob ;)
Anyway, I don't think I have this paper. I had a hard copy and lent it to a friend who lost it. I'll have a look if I can find it again as this issue seems to raise it's head regularly.



The second link proves that allylbenzenes undergo an epoxidation metabolic path, which is then (mostly) glutathione conjugated etc

yes, and like almost any other paper I have read on this issue it exonerates myristicin in the human context:

In this regard, we have also observed that the general rate of epoxide hydrolysis is much greater in human liver than in rat liver. We therefore suggest that while the epoxidation pathway poses a potential genotoxic threat to humans, no actual genotoxicity occurs as a result of this metabolic pathway.


in the grand scheme of things, I personally would much rather have my amination done on said oils outside my body.

I definitely agree. But that's not the point. I too do not do these experiments anymore and even when i did them I only did them infrequently and cautiously.

I am also not attached to the idea whether safrole/etc are harmless or not!!! I just hate how science gets corrupted by politics and how easily this indoctrinates people who claim to be open minded. I find it disgusting how the "safrole is carcinogenic in humans" myth is quoted as fact in scientific papers for the last 30 years even though there was not a shred of evidence. And even now that there is some evidence of possible damage, it is only at levels that are so unreasonable that they are ridiculous. And yes, I understand that to prove damage from small amounts you first have to prove it in big amounts, but the amounts we are dealign with ehre are just completely unrealistic and should never be used to make laws as to what we can consume or not.

So, I am happy to keep arguing until someone actually shows me some scientific proof.
 
here is the abstract to that german paper on myristicin conversion. will probably buy the full version in a moment.

Myristicin and elemicin are phenylallyl derivatives present in nutmeg. The similarity of their chemical structure to that of mescaline or certain amphetamine derivatives has led to the assumption that the psychotropic effect of nutmeg in man is due to amphetamine derivatives endogenously produced from these phenylallyl precursors by bio-transformation. In our present study we investigated the metabolism of myristicin by rat liver, using the isolated perfused liver or incubation of liver homogenate. We have experimentally proved for the first time that rat liver is capable of converting myristicin into 3-methoxy-4,5-methylenedioxyamphetamine (MMDA). Identification of MMDA was achieved by two-dimensional thin-layer chromatography of the dansylated amine and further by mass spectroscopy.
 
Pardon my ignorance there, I never knew there was myristicin in coke, then again I am uber-sensitive to stimulants, so I only drink it as a mixer with vodka.

Cage fight to the death? count me in, give it a few days until I can try to get my nunchaku back from the filth though=D

*stashes bottle of HF within trenchcoat*
 
Paper has been sent to you. maybe you can host and post it somehow?

Interestingly, the authors note that increasing the oxygen availability in the tissue also increases the MMDA production substantially and they rightly deduce that this means the allylbenzene aminations proceeds via an oxidation step. This is significant for me because in my experiments one of the first things I noticed is that inactivity will produce failures every time. ie, allylbenzenes need to be in tissue while the rate of metabolism is high.

I also found that applying to just any part of the body [eg as a foreplay massage on back or front of torso] is not as effective as applying it targeted at areas of major muscles [that are likely to be used soon after application]. I personally do not believe that the liver is the only organ that can perform this amination.
 
a bunch of studies on animals, and no evidence that the same happens in humans.

brilliant.
 
Tabaluga said:
reading BL is so frustatring. You folks seem to think you know everything and yet you know so little and just foster your own ignorance by shouting everything else down.
Click to expand...
Then please leave. We don't really care much about people who talk down to us and insult us for no good reason, much less for their precious knowledge.
 
I realise you are much more comfortable with not actually having any knowledge on the issue but being opinionated nonetheless. How about you contribute to the topic with somethign worthwhile?

As for 'talking down' isn't that exactly what you did in your response to my initial post? So, you can dish it out, but you can't take it? Not much backbone for a moderator it seems.
 
I did not even see your initial post. I was responding to the thread as a whole. And the banging head thing was a joke, I guess posts just need smilies in order to transmit a message.

And you know what? No, I can live without your Knowledge (TM) if I can do away with your pathetically arrogant attitude.

But you know what, I forgive you - you're obviously on coke or steroids or something, because you seem to think that the world revolves around you :).

ps. I would have taken the time to look through what you had to offer had it not been for your laughable attitude.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top