Marijuana.com

nerphroll

What do you mean?

__________________
HELP ME IVE BEEN DOING THIS FOR OVER 13 YEARS!!!!!!!!!!
PURIFY ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Budiz

consider this webpage

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...504567-05.hcsp

you could use these pk parameters to determine everything you want to know about the pharmacokinetic parameters for MJ, Du, Drug in the urine is commonly used in pharmaceutics and can be used as such to determine what you went around your booty to do. However it is a great approach to the problem and the results you give seem in check. I will run some tests.

Kind regards

nerphroll

I don't see how that web page relates to my original post, but please clarify. My original post was simply intended to highlight a very simple point. Specifically, the higher urinary creatinine concentration you start out with, the less likely you are to come up "diluted" by urine creatinine criteria when you use a dilution method, and that being a man with large muscle mass is more advantageous than being a woman with small muscle mass. This is an established nephrologic principle, I was just trying to show how it can be used to better understand drug testing.

Budiz

ok guess i got a lil side tracked with that last post, more about pk of MJ (sections 4.6, 4.7.)

However what i meant to say is that there is an equation used to determine creatinine clearance, and in that equation you multiply by .85 if the person is a female. Therefore females clear 15% less creatinine than males on average. If clearing the creatinine means it is in the urine, then women have less creatinine in their urine and thus dilute easier. Long story short, your correct. And i know you like that.

nerphroll

Thank you for protecting my ego. I can step back from the ledge now and go on living.


The equation you mention is {(140-age)*(weight in kg)} / {72 * serum creatinine}, then multiply by 0.85 for a woman. The 0.85 is to reflect the lower muscle mass, on average, of women, as you said. Interestingly, when this equation was first derived, in a bunch of men, the 0.85 factor was just someone's "guess". No science behind it at all.

Happy Thursday

 

Budiz

Indeed. You are correct and interesting factoid.

regards