GHB or GBL

[screwed99]

I have read about all the GHB recipes from GBL, but don't yet fully understand why someone would want to do this recipe. Do the benefits of this conversion really make it worth it or not?
Apart from the obvious taste of GBL and the possibilty of stomach disturbances leading to diarrohea and/or gas, it seems to be much better in terms of experience. There is a greater possibilty of overdose, but if people are confident of being able to control their intake GBL has a shorter onset and is longer lasting than GHB. It is also said to give more of a sedative feeling than GHB and is less prone to clonic muscle movements (twitching).
Obviously GBL is metabolised to GHB in the body but does anyone have more information on this break down and on what else is absorbed to create a slightly different experience, (other than the fact that it is slowly broken down and released in the body). Thanks.

Reputation Comments on this post:

A good question, well put.

[MrG]

Fact is, there is a whole raft of clinical research relating to the safety and efficacy of GHB whilst GBL research is thin on the ground. A number of assumptions are made concerning GBL on the basis that it gets converted to GBL in-vivo but the jury is still out as to whether those kind of assumptions are safe.

The heavier effects of GBL on the user are not to be taken lightly either. While a user could be fully clued up as to what they are doing with GBL it is still perfectly possible for an experienced G user to get their ass kicked because they stopped paying attention to their dosing.

SWIM knows this to be all too true.


Look, until there is definite proven research to support an argument for or against GBL, it really does come down to the simple fact that GHB is proven to be safe for human consumption whereas GBL has not been studied to the same degree.

Check out this report:

http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26372

Whilst it is about GHB there is a reference to GBL:

Oral carcinogenicity studies have been conducted in rats and mice with gamma-butyrolactone (GBL), a compound that is metabolized to sodium oxybate in vivo, with no clear evidence of carcinogenic potential.


So it all sounds good. Except for the fact that it was simply an oral carcinogenicity test - How much given in a single day before the animal died.

It does not answer the question of how regular GBL consumption might affect the human body.

There are a great many patients (Narcoleptics, Fybromyalgia sufferers and recovering alcoholics) who are safely using Xyrem (GHB) *every* day and will continue to do so for many years to come.

That's a pretty convincing reason to want to choose GHB over GBL.

For the time being anyway.

[Lehendakari]

In a long-term dosing experiment in rodents, very high doses of butyrolactone showed a surprising lack of toxicity [NTIS, 1992]. The researchers gave 0, 112 and 225 mg/kg GBL to male rats; 0, 225 and 450 mg/kg GBL to female rats; and 0, 262 and 526 mg/kg GBL to both male and female mice. Scaled to human body size, these rodent dosages are about ten times what humans would use. The GBL was administered 5 days per week by gavage (stomach tube).
At the end of 2 years (old age, for rats), the survival of male rats was 48% for the control group, 54% for the intermediate-dose group and 64% for the high-dose group. That’s right, the GBL-treated male rats lived longer! This was attributed to a decreased incidence of mononuclear leukemia. In the female rats receiving double the dose of the male rats, the survival was not significantly different between the three groups: 56%, 54% and 54% respectively. However, the body weight of the GBL-dosed females was 10-20% lower than that of the controls.
In the mice, body weights were reduced in both sexes, 6% in the males and 14-17% in the females. Female survival at two years (also old age for mice) was 76% in the control group, 68% in the intermediate-dose group and 76% in the high-dose group. Male survival was a disaster. Survival was 70% in the control group, 60% in the intermediate-dose group and 24% in the high-dose group. The higher mortality was attributed entirely to fighting and bite wounds inflicted during recovery from GBL-induced sedation. At week 67, the high-dose males were transferred from group cages to individual cages, thus eliminating fighting-related deaths and allowing males to gain back some of their lost weight.
GBL administration caused no increased incidence of neoplasms (tumors) or lesions (tissue damage) in the male rats. Female rats showed a decrease in the incidence of mammary cysts (84%, 70% and 46%), pituitary cysts (50%, 35% and 22%) and mammary fibroadenomas (44%, 28% and 12%), which were all attributed to GBL. GBL-treated male mice showed a reduced incidence of hepatocellular adenoma (liver tumor) (48%, 16% and 18%) and an increased incidence of pheochromacytoma (adrenal tumor) (4%, 12% and 8%).
What does all this mean? The predominance of strong positive effects over weak adverse effects at such high dosages establishes that GBL is fundamentally safe and potentially beneficial.
Despite the illogic of Matthew’s presentation, there may be some wisdom in his advice. There is certainly a lot we do not know about exactly how we might adapt to long-term use of butyrolactone in different circumstances. I have two concerns. The first is acidosis. Every molecule of GBL that is hydrolyzed by lactonase generates one molecule of GHB-acid [illustration not shown], or, equivalently, consumes one molecule of hydroxide [sidebar not shown]. This can alter pH (acidity-alkalinity) in the blood stream. In some people, blood acidification might be a problem. While it is true that 1-2 grams of an organic acid is not a very large acidification effect in absolute terms, it happens in a relatively short period of time and may have subtle effects on pH-dependent systems. For example, blood pH is critical for regulating the binding and release of oxygen from hemoglobin. This might affect somebody with emphysema (with deficient oxygen absorption) or diabetes (with higher risk of lactic acidosis) more than somebody in good health. Similarly, food choices affect blood acidity. Somebody eating an extreme diet might be more susceptible to circulatory acidosis than somebody eating a mixed diet. Since rats and mice tolerate this acidification effect at a ten-times greater magnitude, it is not likely to be a problem in normal, healthy people. However, it is a general rule that the average lab rat eats a more nutritious diet than the average person. So, this could be a problem in some people.
Another concern of mine is the potential problem of frequent use (multiple times per day), which has not been adequately studied. All of the prople who have reported withdrawal symptoms to me had used GBL (or GHB) on a semi-continuous basis. The dopamine suppression/rebound effect from GBL and GHB can be a powerful motivational influence. Excess dopamine is compulsive. It can make people obsess. It magnifies our response to stimulation. It is not unreasonable to suggest that rebound dopamine might have been responsible for the increased fighting among male mice in the above study.
While the effect of rebound dopamine is only transitory when GBL is given once a day, it may become magnified when subsequent doses are used in rapid succession to suppress the dopamine rebound [illustration not shown]. There may be even longer-term adaptations to dopamine suppression that might occur if dopamine is suppressed for days or weeks at a time. Upregulation of dopamine receptors is one possibility.
One way to monitor potential long-term adaptations to GBL is to take periodic breaks: one day off per week, one week off per month, one month off per year, etc.
If we lived in a rational world, GHB would be readily available and butyrolactone use would be unnecessary. But the reality of the situation is that medical use of GHB in the United States has been rendered all but impossible. Despite the avowed “intentions” of legislators who stated in hearings that they had no wish to prevent legitimate medical use of GHB, GHB has become unavailable. Patients needing GHB are not able to get their prescriptions filled anywhere in the USA. The use of butyrolactone may be a second-choice solution, but it may be better than doing without GHB or butyrolactone. Certainly, the FDA and police will have a harder time eliminating butyrolactone because of wide-spread industrial uses that must be sacrificed to accomplish a zero-tolerance policy. So far, GHB prohibitionists show no sign if recognizing the immense economic costs of criminalizing butyrolactone. Florida has already passed their anti-butyrolactone bill, and California’s bill is already out of Committee in the Assembly. It’s full steam ahead on the Titanic with the captain asleep and no iceberg early-warning system in sight. ——SWF

http://www.ceri.com/q_v7n4q1.htm

In SWIM's experience gbl and GHB are identical in effects and side-effects although GHB is easier to take (taste). GBL may have a bit more body discomfort but SWIM is not sure

Reputation Comments on this post:

Interesting find.

[MrG]

Good find. I drilled through that to the original report and have submitted the GBL Toxicity report to the D-F Archive.

Time to review and consider methinks.

[screwed99]

Alright cool. Point taken on doses now and swim feels no need to try GBL in a hurry when GHB works so well for him. Thanks for the safety info on the GHB experiments as well, Cheers guys.