Given that there are about 7,000 cannabis strains out there, one has to ask themselves: How different can they all be?
The cannabis industry would have you believe that each of these thousands of strains is unique, and that as a patient you really need to try them all in order to find the one perfect for you.
However, as a clinician, I’ve found that as far as medicinal cannabis goes, the unique strain doesn’t really matter in terms of medical benefit.
How can this be?
To start off, we should talk about the difference between a patient’s preferences and feelings about a strain versus their individual outcome in terms of treatment.
For a rough analogy, let’s take pizza.
If I were to place an order at the local pizzeria and ask for your choice of toppings, you might tell me that you want pepperoni instead of mushroom. You ask for this based on your experience of how the taste of that pizza makes you feel.
That’s your preference.
However, if you were simply trying to solve your hunger, the toppings wouldn’t matter as much. As long as the slice in your hand fills your belly, the major issue troubling you is solved.
That’s your outcome.
Following that same train of thought, let’s take a medical issue such as back pain.
Both recreational and medical cannabis consumers may find one strain they prefer in terms of the effect it has on their perception. Say that you really enjoy the uplifting experience of consuming Strawberry Cough over the more drowsy Afghan Kush.
That’s your preference.
However, when it comes to the question of whether your back pain is relieved by vaporizing Strawberry Cough, Afghan Kush, or Pineapple Express, it turns out they all work just fine.
That’s your outcome.
To summarize: what we’ve found on a clinical level is that while cannabis patients may prefer treating their issue with one strain of cannabis over the other, there is not a significant difference between strains in terms of outcome on their condition. Thus, there’s no medical reason to focus on prescribing one strain over the other.
This isn’t really surprising once you take a step back from the established wisdom on strains.
Take, for example, the basic classifications of “Indica” and “Sativa.”
While anecdotal cannabis culture would tell you that one is relaxing and the other is energizing, that just doesn’t hold a lot of water when studied in a clinical setting.
Historically the terms “Indica” and “Sativa” referred mainly to the morphology of the plant and where it came from. They did not pertain to which medical outcome consuming them would produce.
If you look further into the research, you’ll find that strains which are supposed to fall directly into one category or another have so much chemical similarity that there’s no real basis for the expected difference in their behavior.
Even the idea that strains with high terpene levels supposedly lead to medical outcomes doesn’t necessarily ring true when it comes to the research.
While you could say that a strain containing higher levels of linalool is better for someone with ADHD, that strain may also have other terpenes, like Limonene, that could make the ADHD worse.
At a clinical level, there’s just not enough data that leads to a clear answer regarding individual strains and medical outcomes at the moment. The jury is still out.
So, how should we classify strains?
There is a growing movement among scientists to categorize strains based on their genetics or their chemical composition rather than strictly on their lineage.
A number of interesting studies such as the one reported on in the journal Nature have shown that by conducting chemical analysis on a range of strains, 5 different groups emerged that were chemically distinct enough to merit being separate.
What do these classifications mean for cannabis patients? Do certain illnesses or conditions respond to one category rather than another?
Unfortunately, the answer to this question hasn’t even begun to be researched.
We’ll get there someday, but at the moment we just don’t have the clinical experience to make any definitive claims that any of these categories will consistently lead to a desired medical outcome.
In the meantime, my opinion is that we need to get away from strain names altogether. They’re ridiculous, unreliable, and uninformative.
Instead, we should get specific about the chemical profiles of each strain. We should have unique cultivars that we know contain specific percentages of THC, CBD, terpenes, and other cannabinoids.
Then we need to figure out ways to clinically match these chemical components to different illnesses and perform studies to determine if those elements cause a positive outcome.
Ideally, someday clinicians will be able to plug the desired cannabis components – such as terpenes profiles or THC content – into a program containing all the individual strains available in their area. The program could then recommend to the patients a strain that will result in their desired medical outcome the most closely.
But all that is dependent on a whole lot of science we’re not doing yet and is a long way off.
So, what do I recommend to my patients if strains don’t matter in a medical outcome?
I give them broad outlines of what to look for in the shops around them.
Instead of telling them to search out, say OG Kush – which their dispensary might be out of or may be chemically different from the last batch – I recommend finding a strain that has between 15-20% THC.
The reason for such a modest THC content is that a supercharged THC percentage crowds out other helpful cannabinoids. This decreases the strain’s entourage effect and thus its overall effectiveness.
As a doctor, I’m looking for strains that are well-balanced and provide the best medical benefit for my patients rather than some unique “perfect” strain. A moderate level of THC and a balanced profile of cannabinoids will usually do the trick.
If that strain also turns out to be their pepperoni pizza, all the better.
– This article was originally posted at Green Flower
About CannabisNewsWire
CannabisNewsWire (CNW) is an information service that provides (1) access to our news aggregation and syndication servers, (2) CannabisNewsBreaks that summarize corporate news and information, (3) enhanced press release services, (4) social media distribution and optimization services, and (5) a full array of corporate communication solutions. As a multifaceted financial news and content distribution company with an extensive team of contributing journalists and writers, CNW is uniquely positioned to best serve private and public companies that desire to reach a wide audience of investors, consumers, journalists and the general public. CNW has an ever-growing distribution network of more than 5,000 key syndication outlets across the country. By cutting through the overload of information in today’s market, CNW brings its clients unparalleled visibility, recognition and brand awareness. CNW is where news, content and information converge.
To receive instant SMS alerts, text CANNABIS to 21000 (U.S. Mobile Phones Only)
For more information please visit https://www.cannabisnewswire.com
Please see full terms of use and disclaimers on the CannabisNewsWire website applicable to all content provided by CNW, wherever published or re-published: http://CNW.fm/Disclaimer
Do you have a questions or are you interested in working with CNW? Ask our Editor
CannabisNewsWire (CNW)
Denver, Colorado
www.cannabisnewswire.com
303.498.7722 Office
Editor@CannabisNewsWire.com
This article contains Third-Party Content submitted by third parties, including articles submitted through the CNW Premium Partnership Program. All opinions, statements and representations expressed by such third parties are theirs alone and do not express or represent the views and opinions of CNW or its affiliates and owners. Content created by third parties is the sole responsibility of such third parties, and CNW does not endorse, guarantee or make representations concerning the accuracy and completeness of all third-party content. You acknowledge that by CNW providing you with this internet portal that makes accessible to you the ability to view third-party content through the CNW site, CNW does not undertake any obligation to you as a reader of such content or assume any liability relating to such third-party content. CNW expressly disclaims liability relating to such third-party content. CNW and its members, affiliates, successors, assigns, officers, directors, and partners assume no responsibility or liability that may arise from the third-party content, including, but not limited to, responsibility or liability for claims for defamation, libel, slander, infringement, invasion of privacy and publicity rights, fraud, or misrepresentation, or an private right of action under the federal securities laws of the United States or common law. Notwithstanding the foregoing, CNW reserves the right to remove third-party content at any time in its sole discretion.
