Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Nicotine receptors

rtmilburn

rtmilburn

Well-known member
Is there any supps that hit these receptors, other than nicotine? If there is, is there any that won't cause receptor down-regulation? As I feel a supp that hits these receptors would be amazing. It would help smokers quite(I'm not one), would be an amazing nootropic, decent in preworkouts, great antidepressant, etc etc
 
Nicotine works on the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor, so technically it's an acetylcholine receptor that nicotine is an agonist for. Choline and several other things can also act as agonists.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
Nicotine works on the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor, so technically it's an acetylcholine receptor that nicotine is an agonist for. Choline and several other things can also act as agonists.
Click to expand...

also, would the effects over time desensitize the receptors thus making it harder to accomplish what you would be trying to do in the first place? if that makes sense
 
The quick and easy answer is yes, but it all depends on what you're using. This might help answer the question Invalid Link Removed
 
Aleksandar37 said:
Nicotine works on the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor, so technically it's an acetylcholine receptor that nicotine is an agonist for. Choline and several other things can also act as agonists.
Click to expand...

Doesn't nicotine works on a specific receptors, that are actually called nicotine receptors? These receptors have both anti-acetylcholine and pro-acetylcholine(dependings on the location in the brain on whether it increases or decreases). There actually is an anti-acetylcholine prescription medication that share alot of the same properties that nicotine does.

The reason Im asking is to my understanding is that, non of typical cholinergic and acetylcholinergic supps do not effect these receptors.

I could definitely be wrong but this is what my research has shown me.
 
Try Dust v2. Has ArcoFuel, a stimulant. Some cultures chew the betel nut leaves as kind of like chewing or nicotine addiction kind of thing. ArcoFuel is the extraction of it.
 
rtmilburn said:
Doesn't nicotine works on a specific receptors, that are actually called nicotine receptors? These receptors have both anti-acetylcholine and pro-acetylcholine(dependings on the location in the brain on whether it increases or decreases). There actually is an anti-acetylcholine prescription medication that share alot of the same properties that nicotine does.

The reason Im asking is to my understanding is that, non of typical cholinergic and acetylcholinergic supps do not effect these receptors.

I could definitely be wrong but this is what my research has shown me.
Click to expand...

Yep, my one sentence explanation way oversimplified a lot :) There are receptor subtypes.
 
Bossmoss94 said:
Try Dust v2. Has ArcoFuel, a stimulant. Some cultures chew the betel nut leaves as kind of like chewing or nicotine addiction kind of thing. ArcoFuel is the extraction of it.
Click to expand...
I advise that people read up on the potential risks associated with arecoline before using a supplement that contains it.
 
I'm gonna bump with the Wikipedia wisdom
In many Asian cultures, the*areca nut*is chewed along with*betel leaf*to obtain a*stimulating*effect.[3]*Arecoline is the primary active ingredient responsible for the central nervous system effects of the areca nut. Arecoline has been compared to*nicotine; however, nicotine acts primarily on the*nicotinic acetylcholine receptor. Arecoline is known to be a partial agonist of*muscarinicacetylcholine*M1, M2, M3*receptors and M4,[1][4][5]*which is believed to be the primary cause of its*parasympathetic*effects (such as pupillary constriction, bronchial constriction, etc.).

LD50: 100*mg/kg, administered subcutaneously in mouse.[2]

Current science is confident that areca nut chewing is carcinogenic. Research suggests this is probably at least partly because of arecoline itself, although it could also be from the other constituents of the nut as well, some of which are precursors to*nitrosaminesthat form in the mouth during chewing. Section 5.5 Evaluation on page 238 of IARC Monograph 85-6 states the following:[6]
 
There is limited evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of arecoline.There is inadequate evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of arecaidine.
 
Sounds like chewing the nut is bad, but no one knows really if the chem is bad.

One thing though - bronchial constriction ? That I can do without.

Ex smoker here, I try to preserve whatever lung capacity I haven't wrecked in the 10 years I did smoke.

I vape sometimes now.

Also I love (d) Copenhagen also. The_Old_Guy I hope your a long cut guy ;)
 
sespress said:
Sounds like chewing the nut is bad, but no one knows really if the chem is bad.

One thing though - bronchial constriction ? That I can do without.

Ex smoker here, I try to preserve whatever lung capacity I haven't wrecked in the 10 years I did smoke.

I vape sometimes now.

Also I love (d) Copenhagen also. The_Old_Guy I hope your a long cut guy ;)
Click to expand...
But why risk it? Why bother with it when such concerns exist? There are plenty of other stimulants that don't have this "elephant in the room." There's a relative dearth of information on arecoline, even relevant to other stimulants, and I just don't think the effects it has outweigh the potential concerns. At the end of the day, it all comes down to balancing risk and reward; do the rewards outweigh the risks? I personally don't feel like they do, but that's up to the individual, but I do think said individuals should be made aware of the potential concerns so they can make an educated and informed decision.

TL;DR
The way I see it, arecoline's benefits aren't enough to justify/outweigh the potential risks. There are other stimulants that are "better" that don't carry the same potential risks; I'd just advise using them instead.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
But why risk it? Why bother with it when such concerns exist? There are plenty of other stimulants that don't have this "elephant in the room." There's a relative dearth of information on arecoline, even relevant to other stimulants, and I just don't think the effects it has outweigh the potential concerns. At the end of the day, it all comes down to balancing risk and reward; do the rewards outweigh the risks? I personally don't feel like they do, but that's up to the individual, but I do think said individuals should be made aware of the potential concerns so they can make an educated and informed decision.

TL;DR
The way I see it, arecoline's benefits aren't enough to justify/outweigh the potential risks. There are other stimulants that are "better" that don't carry the same potential risks; I'd just advise using them instead.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah no I don't plan on taking it, cancer potential aside - the immediate constriction makes me think shortness of breath and hypertension, neither are even at all beneficial - even in a " I'm up all night for finals" way. Especially not in the gym. I can totally see that going wrong.

Just thought the Wikipedia info was interesting. Especially the transmitter sites it works on.

Plus look up a pic of locals who gave chewed they stuff. Copenhagen doesn't delete teeth like that - looks like meth!
 
sespress said:
There is limited evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of arecoline.There is inadequate evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of arecaidine.
Click to expand...

There is limited evidence, but the evidence still exists. Also, carcinogenicity isn't the only thing to worry about Invalid Link Removed
 
Ouch!

In conclusion, the results indicate that arecoline could induce neuronal apoptotic death by attenuating antioxidant defense and enhancing oxidative stress.
 
I wonder if this receptor being activated just comes with cancer risk not matter the substance? As nicotine itself also carcinogenic obviously way less though.
 
rtmilburn said:
I wonder if this receptor being activated just comes with cancer risk not matter the substance? As nicotine itself also carcinogenic obviously way less though.
Click to expand...

No this has to do with the actual compound, not the receptor. Extract from No_Hype:

Arecoline undergoes nitrosation in the oral cavity - thus giving rise to the formation of N-nitroso-guvacoline, 3-methyl-nitrosamino propionitrile, and 3-methyl-nitrosoamino propionaldehyde - which are carcinogenic & genotoxic.

Additionally, genotoxic reactants formed from arecoline and areca nut derived nitrosamines can lead to DNA/genetic damage in exposed oral keratinocytes.
 
NoAddedHmones said:
No this has to do with the actual compound, not the receptor. Extract from No_Hype:

Arecoline undergoes nitrosation in the oral cavity - thus giving rise to the formation of N-nitroso-guvacoline, 3-methyl-nitrosamino propionitrile, and 3-methyl-nitrosoamino propionaldehyde - which are carcinogenic & genotoxic.

Additionally, genotoxic reactants formed from arecoline and areca nut derived nitrosamines can lead to DNA/genetic damage in exposed oral keratinocytes.
Click to expand...
Thanks man!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top