spagyric-traditional cooking methods

[Guest guest]

Ed,

 

You raise an interesting point.

 

Traditionaly, the Classical Chinese Formulae were decocted just as you

suggested. But in addition, they were also frequently decocted a second and

possibly even a third time (I always called this " cooking the Rx to death " ),

and always thought this was due more to traditional chinese cultural " poverty

consciousness " , than for any pharmacological reason.

 

Of course different cooking regimines were prescribed for the different

classes of ingredients in the perscriptions (pepprmint in at the last as an

infusion, aconite, or bones, stones, and shells in the pot 1-2 hours before

the other ingredients, etc.).

 

Of course many traditional formulas were also made up as honeyed " tea pills "

(wan), or as powder's (san). Nowadays of copurse, many, many high quality

tinctures are available in a broad spectrum of ingredients and formulas from

numerous different herb companies.

 

So are high quality powdered extracts, either as individual herbs, or as

traditional formulas, all done up according to the traditional " decoction "

protocols, than " freeze dried " , and then usually mixed up with some binder

(such as a quantity of the original powdered herbs, starch granules, etc.).

 

They all seem to work well as long as they start with good ingredients, and

they are not " Burnt " by over cooking/processing.

 

That said, I guess it's a matter of semantics as whether these actually are

" different formulas " , or just variations and refinements of the old

traditional Rx's. As a debating exercise you could take either side of that

arguement, and make persuasive and valid arguements for either position.

 

Personally, I prefer the dried extracts, not only for better pt. compliance,

but especially because of the professional biochemical analysis, and quality

control measures done before shipping tthe finished product, (especially the

testing done for pesticides, heavy metals, and microbiological contaminants).

 

It will be interesting to see what other lister's perceptions are on this

issue.

 

All the best,

 

Bruce

 

--original message

follows-----

In a message dated 04/23/2000 9:03:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

Health writes:

 

<< Subj: RE: spagyric

04/23/2000 9:03:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time

Health (HappyHerbalist.com)

Reply-to: <A HREF= " " >

@</A>

 

As always I remain curious as to herbal preparations. From the books

presented in schools it appears that the most frequent " traditional method "

was simply to boil the herbs in the classic herbal cooking pot. This method

used very high heat reducing the volume by 2/3. The shape of the vessel

contributed to saving some vitals oils (I presume).

This popular Chinese Method seems in opposition compared to the popular

European Method of Tincture and Extraction where the emphasis is on low heat

and a slow process. Or a simple infusion method into hot - not boiled -

water.

Obstinately the low heat was to prevent the destruction of certain plant

ingredients. If this is so then wouldn't the same TCM formulas -- one made

traditionally in a boiling pot and one made via European Extracted produce

two different formulas ?

 

Was that why it was said " the sages poisoned themselves a hundred times a

day "

really curious,

Ed Kasper L.Ac, Santa Cruz California

 

 

------

Your high school sweetheart-where is he now? With 4.4 million alumni

already registered at Classmates.com, there's a good chance you'll

find her here. Visit your online high school class reunion at:

http://click./1/3139/6/_/542111/_/956505723/

------

 

Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help

 

 

 

----------------------- Headers --------------------------------

Return-Path: <sentto-201013-784-GRCanning=aol.com (AT) returns (DOT) >

Received: from rly-yg03.mx.aol.com (rly-yg03.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.3])

by air-yg04.mail.aol.com (v70.20) with ESMTP; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 12:03:07 -0400

Received: from hm. (hm. [208.50.144.92]) by

rly-yg03.mx.aol.com (v71.10) with ESMTP; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 12:02:42 2000

X-eGroups-Return: sentto-201013-784-GRCanning=aol.com (AT) returns (DOT)

Received: from [10.1.10.35] by hm. with NNFMP; 23 Apr 2000

16:02:04 -0000

Received: (qmail 9601 invoked from network); 23 Apr 2000 16:02:02 -0000

Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 23 Apr 2000

16:02:02 -0000

Received: from unknown (HELO qg.) (10.1.2.27) by mta1 with SMTP;

23 Apr 2000 16:02:02 -0000

Received: (qmail 27461 invoked from network); 23 Apr 2000 16:02:02 -0000

Received: from unknown (HELO ap.brinet.net) (198.172.168.20) by

qg. with SMTP; 23 Apr 2000 16:02:02 -0000

Received: from [63.193.247.63] by ap.brinet.net (NTMail 3.03.0017/1.aabv)

with ESMTP id ya372136 for ; Sun, 23 Apr 2000

11:58:12 -0400

Message-ID: <NCBBLLIPAHIOENBMIPAMIEDMDKAA.eddy

X-Priority: 3 (Normal)

X-MSMail-Priority: Normal

X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)

X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600

In-<8du9sn+enpl (AT) eGroups (DOT) com>

Importance: Normal

X-eGroups- " HappyHerbalist.com " <eddy

" HappyHerbalist.com " <Health

MIME-Version: 1.0

Mailing-List: list ; contact

-owner

Delivered-mailing list

Precedence: bulk

List-Un: <->

Sun, 23 Apr 2000 09:13:23 -0700

RE: spagyric

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

 

>>

[Guest guest]

ME, too.

>

> Personally, I prefer the dried extracts, not only for better pt.

compliance,

> but especially because of the professional biochemical analysis,

and quality

> control measures done before shipping tthe finished product,

(especially the

> testing done for pesticides, heavy metals, and microbiological

contaminants).

>

> It will be interesting to see what other lister's perceptions are

on this

> issue.

>

> All the best,

>

> Bruce

>

> >>