Shan Han Lun way, or spray-dried extracts of Singles or Formulas?

[Guest guest]

Hi All, & Hi Ed,

 

" Ed Kasper wrote:

> ... alcohol extracted herbs are different than water extracted

> herbs. The proper ratios of herbs are determined by formulas based

> upon texts like the Shan Han Lun, which used water extraction or

> herbs that were crushed into powders. There seems to me a faulty

> line of logic that assumes alcohol extraction are identical - or

> touted as superior to the formulas reverenced. One does create a

> different product. May be superior but it is different - isn't it?

> Why not cook herbs according to the Text (Shan Han Lun for example)

> Dehydrate to powders, rehydrate to use and then compare the

> reconstituted herbs to the original cooked herbs. The same

> comparisons could be made with single herbs and then combining to

> compare with the original cooked formula.

 

IMO, these are valid concerns. However, there are many reasons

why mass-produced extracts or granules are preferable in today's

busy society, where " time is money " .

 

Don Wen has many great reasons for using spray-dried extracts as

granules. Apart from Don's reasons, it is recognised (if not fully

accepted), even in the Far East, that DIY cooking/decocting and

other DIY preparations by the patient of raw ingredients costs a lot

of time and hassle and can result in non-compliance. Also, there

can be misunderstandings of how to prepare the materials before

use, and how much to take per dose, etc.

 

> ...alcohol extracted herbs are different than water extracted herbs.

 

Agreed; some actives are more soluble in alcohol and some more

soluble in water. A diluted alcohol solution (40-50%) seems to be a

compromise. One can argue also that TWO different extracts are

needed from the raw ingredients:

(a) an alcohol extract and

(b) a water extract of the residue left behind.

 

Spray-drying and combining BOTH of the extracts would probably

contain most of the active ingredients that would be available for

mucosal and gastrointestinal absorption had ground powders been

taken instead.

 

However, even that may not be enough. For example, some useful

ingredients, like magnesia or calcium carbonate (as in shells) may

be almost totally insoluble in water OR alcohol; In the body, they

would be digested, at least partially, by gastric acids.

 

> Why are some herbs twice cooked, pan fried, some added early some

> last?

 

For me, that is the most difficult part of Ed's concerns. There are

many examples in herbal textbooks and on the WWW where the

TYPE of processing, and the duration of cooking/decoction, can

alter some of the actions of the raw herb quite dramatically.

 

For example charred herbs tend to be better haemostats; herbs

cooked for a long time tend to be less toxic as regards cyanides

and oxalates, etc. Prepared Fuzi is said to be much less toxic

than raw Fuzi, etc. Herbs with volatile actives can lose much of

their potency if heated or decocted too long, etc.

 

However, can we not assume that the herbalist advisers and

pharmacists in the major extract-manugfacturing labs are well

aware of these differences? Can we not trust them to take whatever

preparation steps may be needed to produce the finest remedies

for the task(s) for which they are to be used?

 

> The question of heavy metals, chemicals, pesticides are an

> important but secondary issue. My argument is that the standard

> should be how does it compare to the original text - without the

> hype. Ed Kasper

 

Today, cost-benefit analysis (in its broadest sense) is a standard

tool in MOST businesses. I am not too hung up on sticking rigidly

to dogmas of the past, or to exact formulas proposed 1000-2000

years ago. Whether is is an old or a new formula, a ground herbal

powder or a spray-dried extract, I am more interested in what

works well and safely.

 

Several Listers have alluded to Change as the ultimate reality in

TCM, as in life. We MUST expect (and adapt to) change; failure to

adapt to change is a warning of early extinction.

 

IMO, we have a great lesson to learn from the Japanese model.

Because of its emphasis on western-style science and technology,

I would rank Japan (though in the Far East) as a " western country "

in its approach to Medicine. Though Taiwan and Korea are heading

rapidly in that direction, as far as I know, Japan is the only

" western-medicine-oriented " country whose Government not only

accepts and licenses ancient herbal remedies (210 Kampo

formulas according to Don Wen) for use in its official Medical

System, including its hospitals, and gives Kampo full cover under

its Health Insurance system.

 

For me, though it may have some drawbacks and limit the ability of

individual herbalists from formulating remedies according to their

own preferences, the Japanese Kampo model offers the best

prospect of oriental herbal medicine to become accepted in the

West. In particular, this is because QC is much easier in the

Kampo Model than in the Free-Style model based on mixing and

preparing raw herbal ingredients in the clinic.

 

Also, the fact that one can choose from 210 Kampo formulas

allows some flexibility to combine 2 or more formulas if a

practitioner wants to achieve a combination of TCM actions if

he/she feels a single (particular) Kampo formula cannot achieve on

its own.

 

Best regards,

 

 

WORK : Teagasc Staff Development Unit, Sandymount Ave., Dublin 4, Ireland

WWW :

Email: <

Tel : 353-; [in the Republic: 0]

 

HOME : 1 Esker Lawns, Lucan, Dublin, Ireland

WWW : http://homepage.eircom.net/~progers/searchap.htm

Email: <

Tel : 353-; [in the Republic: 0]