The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
a lot of what the munchies is is this ability to kind of almost lock in the reward value of food so that it doesn't Decay despite satiety despite eating over time it just keeps it highly Salient so that they want to work for it still
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
the animal no longer likes it so again same situation you can get the animal stoned and it will re-engage in eating that food that it had devalued through being paired with a nause and so through either satiety or making it um kind of a a negative Associated flavor because the animal got nauseous before you can kind of override these Effects by giving THC
you can satiate them you can make someone full and then get them high on cannabis and they'll reinitiate eating so that's an interesting thing in of itself because that means you're disrupting either the ability of the brain to detect satiety or you're messing with a process we call reward devaluation