from the world's big
What is CBD really good for?
There is a lot of hope in the healing powers of CBD. Unfortunately there's way more hype.
- Cannabidiol (CBD) is the most well-known of the 113 cannabinoids found in the cannabis plant.
- There is strong evidence that CBD might help in an array of problems, including anxiety and pain management.
- But numerous companies are marketing low doses of CBD with no proven efficacy and charging a premium.
I began noticing a new beverage in Los Angeles. The first thing you notice is the cheap wrapping, as if directly printed at home and pasted onto the bottle. The sparse print leaves room for plenty of white space. The first six ingredients of one particular flavor are all juice or sugar: blackberry, ginger, blueberry, and lemon juices, along with erythritol (sugar alcohol) and agave. Stevia is featured later on. The final ingredient is the selling point: Hemp CBD.
Each bottle retails for $8.99. Effectively, glorified vitamin water.
Or CBD water, which makes it this year's additive du jour. I've seen this drink sold in the same case as a sugar-rich CBD-infused coffee drink that sells for a dollar less and six fewer ounces. CBD is as trendy as its forebears, antioxidants, keto supplements, and açaí rolled into one, the superfood of superfoods. And you will pay a premium for it.
I've been a marijuana smoker for 25 years, well before I knew about the endocannabinoid system. I was clueless that our central and peripheral nervous systems—and by "our," I mean mammals—were tailor-made to accept cannabinoids (including the most famous, cannabidiol, aka CBD), and that these systems play an essential role in immune system functioning, pain management, and regulation of appetite. I didn't know it for a long time, but I've certainly felt it.
Point being, I'm a fan. Cannabis helped me deal with cancer and chemotherapy, pain management through multiple surgeries, and chronic anxiety disorder. Marijuana helped keep me off Xanax and opioids. Despite that fact that I was among those who nodded and winked when getting my California medical license, I'm skeptical of the hype. The collapsing dominoes that led to legalization have brought with them a gold rush of CBD-infused products and all the ridiculous claims that come along with it.
When Coca Cola is jumping aboard, you know it's going to get weird.
I'm not the only one who's suspicious. As Dan Nosowitz writes at Vox, this trend is the result of two collisions: widespread marijuana legalization and the growing anxiety economy. By 2020, CBD products could reach a billion dollars in sales, making it a potential goldmine for speculators.
There are benefits to CBD, at least according to some reports. As I wrote last month:
Recent research shows a wide range of therapeutic applications, including helping opioid addicts manage pain, helping everyone deal with chronic pain, deal with stress (at low doses), ease pain associated with multiple sclerosis, and may even, somewhat counterintuitively, help combat the obesity epidemic.
Yet CBD is enforced as a supplement, as unregulated by the FDA as most homeopathic products and "natural remedies" that make up a lion's share of the $49 billion herbal supplement industry. According to Nosowitz, the FDA actually regulates CBD as an active ingredient, meaning you shouldn't be able to just throw it into a cup of coffee and double the price, but what sort of regulations are any federal agency even enforcing these days? Nosowitz continues:
CBD is about as poorly regulated and understood as a product this popular can possibly be. It's not accurate to say that CBD, as a whole, is bullshit. From a medical perspective, it's promising; recreationally, it's interesting. But that doesn't mean the stuff you're buying works.
Photo: Alexandre Chambon / Unsplash
The burgeoning CBD oil industry, for example, faces a serious problem: science. Not that that stops any holistic company. Topical application or ingestion of CBD are much less effective means than inhaling. Sipping it from your hyped-up vitamin water means most of the CBD will just bind to other fat in your body and never reach your brain. Smoking, as Nosowitz writes, "bypasses the digestive system."
Even then, he was only able to discover one study detailing the bioavailability of inhaled CBD and none on topical lotions. Even more problematic is dosage. One study discovered that the only amount of CBD that made a noticeable difference in anxiety levels was 300 mg. The standard dose in most products is 20 mg. One coffee shop Nosowitz highlights adds 5 mg to their $9 coffee. So really, you just paid $9 for… coffee.
More studies are being conducted on CBD and, hopefully, the 112 other cannabinoids found in the marijuana plant. Legalization and destigmatization will hasten that process. We should welcome this progress so that we can separate the wheat from the chaff—the flower from the stem—and make smart decisions about how to apply this plant medicine. Then we can stand on firmer ground when denouncing market manipulators bucking a trend and put our money into products that work as intended.
In my refrigerator sits a $42 bottle of CBD oil we bought for our cats when we were integrating our newest member with our overly territorial Maine Coon. At 300 mg per bottle, it would have taken the lion's share to quell any anxiety—cats being smaller than humans would likely not require the same dose. Still, the recommended dose did nothing to stop their anxiety.
Something else did: Prozac. It's not a long-term strategy (as such anti-anxiety medications were never designed to be). Over a three-month period it's worked wonders; we're now tapering them off. That's the thing about clinical studies: sometimes they're effective. It's a message I hope CBD hucksters take the time to learn.
Join us at 2 pm ET tomorrow!
Construction of the $500 billion dollar tech city-state of the future is moving ahead.
- The futuristic megacity Neom is being built in Saudi Arabia.
- The city will be fully automated, leading in health, education and quality of life.
- It will feature an artificial moon, cloud seeding, robotic gladiators and flying taxis.
The Red Sea area where Neom will be built:
Saudi Arabia Plans Futuristic City, "Neom" (Full Promotional Video)<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="c646d528d230c1bf66c75422bc4ccf6f"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/N53DzL3_BHA?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
Coronavirus layoffs are a glimpse into our automated future. We need to build better education opportunities now so Americans can find work in the economy of tomorrow.
- Outplacement is an underperforming $5 billion dollar industry. A new non-profit coalition by SkillUp intends to disrupt it.
- More and more Americans will be laid off in years to come due to automation. Those people need to reorient their career paths and reskill in a way that protects their long-term livelihood.
- SkillUp brings together technology and service providers, education and training providers, hiring employers, worker outreach, and philanthropies to help people land in-demand jobs in high-growth industries.
Source: McKinsey Global Institute analysis [PDF]<p>Work in understanding the skills at the heart of the new digital economy is leading to novel assessments that allow individuals to prove mastery to faithfully represent their abilities—but also to give weight and stackability to the emerging ecosystem of micro-credentials that make education more seamless across time and education providers. And we are seeing the beginnings of a renewal in the liberal arts, focused on building human skills in affordable ways that are accessible to many more individuals and far more effective.</p><p>Amidst these dark times, there is much opportunity to refresh the nation's education and training solutions to support the success of individuals and society writ large.</p>
Do we really know what we want in a romantic partner? If so, do our desires actually mean we match up with people who suit them?
- Two separate scientific studies suggest that our "ideals" don't really match what we look for in a romantic partner.
- Results of studies like these can change the way we date, especially in the online world.
- "You say you want these three attributes and you like the people who possess these attributes. But the story doesn't end there," says Paul Eastwick, co-author of the study and professor in the UC Davis Department of Psychology.
Do we really know what we want in love or are we just guessing?<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="204859156383d358652fda6f7eadda0f"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vQgfx2iYlso?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>More than 700 participants selected their top three qualities in a romantic partner (things like funny, attractive, inquisitive, kind, etc). They then reported their romantic desire for a series of people they knew personally. Some were blind date partners, others were romantic partners and some were simply platonic friends.</p><p>While participants did experience more romantic desire to the extent that these personal connections of theirs (people they knew) had the qualities they listed, there was more to the study. </p><p>Paul Eastwick, co-author and professor in the UC Davis Department of Psychology <a href="https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-07-romantic-partner-random-stranger.html" target="_blank">explains</a>: "You say you want these three attributes and you like the people who possess these attributes. But the story doesn't end there." </p><p>The participants also considered the extent to which their personal acquaintances possessed three attributes nominated by some other random person in the study. For example, if Kris listed "down-to-earth", intelligent and thoughtful as her own top three attributes, Vanessa also experienced more desire for people with those specific traits. </p>
Does what we want really match up with what we find?<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzQ0NDA4Ni9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTU5NjM3NzY5OX0.gdUo-UbjYhKUDOL39BDZseRynbwaK2H5dfJtbV0nw8Y/img.jpg?width=980" id="ff376" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="7c1e3a1bb9d576872ef5dce39b2e8e80" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="illustration of a man and woman matching on a dating app" />
What we claim to want and what we look for may be two separate things...
Image by GoodStudio on Shutterstock<p>So the question became: are we really listing what we want in an ideal partner or are we just listing vague qualities that people typically consider as positive?</p><p>"So in the end, we want partners who have positive qualities," Sparks explained, "but the qualities you specifically list do not actually have special predictive power for you." </p><p>In other words, the idea that we find certain things attractive in a person does not mean we actively seek out people who have those qualities, despite saying it's what we want in a love interest. The authors of this study suggest these findings could have implications for the way we approach online dating in the digital age. </p><p>This isn't the first study of its kind to suggest that what we find in love isn't really what we were looking for. The evidence suggests that we really are consistent in the abstract of it all: when asked to evaluate what you want on paper, you are more likely to suggest overall attractiveness in accordance with what you've stated are important ideals to you. But real life isn't so similar. </p><p>According to <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/meet-catch-and-keep/201506/when-it-comes-love-do-you-really-know-what-you-want" target="_blank">Psychology Today,</a> who covered a 2015 study with similar results, initial face-to-face encounters have very little effect on our romantic desire. "When we initially meet someone, our level of romantic interest in the person is independent of our standards."</p><p>While you might have no immediate interest in John, he may fit your criteria of being kind, loyal, and intelligent. Similarly, someone may be attracted to Elaine even though she doesn't have any of the qualities they originally said were important to them. </p><p><strong>What does this all mean? </strong></p><p>The authors of both the 2015 and 2020 studies say the same thing: give someone a chance before writing them off as a poor match. If your initial attraction is independent of the standards you've set out, the qualities which you've listed as important to you, the first time you meet someone may not give you enough information to make an informed decision.</p><p>"It's really easy to spend time hunting around online for someone who seems to match your ideals," said Sparks, "But our research suggests an alternative approach: Don't be too picky ahead of time about whether a partner matches your ideals on paper. Or, even better, let your friends pick your dates for you." </p>