Guest guest Posted February 19, 2003 Report Share Posted February 19, 2003 Hi All, The active agents in ingredients used in herbalism may be water- soluble, alcohol-soluble, soluble in other solvents, or insoluble. Two main solvents are used to prepare dried extracts from single- or multiple- ingredients used in herbal medicine: (a) Water and (b) Alcoholic solution. I am not sure if other solvents (such as acetone, chloroform, etc) are used. In theory, such solvents could be used and removed totally and safely from the supernatant by heating or vacuum distillation to dryness later. Regardless of the solvent used, the SUPERNATANT is dried to prepare the extracts but I understand that the RESIDUE (non- extracted part) is discarded. Is that correct? For example, the following minerals are INSOLUBLE in water, CaCO3 (in the shells (Muli, Haigeqiao, Gekefeng, Walengzi, Zhenzhu, Zibeichi), and sedimentary rock (Longgu, Longchi)), CaSO4 (in gypsum-Shigao), and calcium phosphate (in bone, such as Hugu (banned but usually substituted by ox- or horse- bone). Is the Ca in Cuttlebone-Haipiaoxiao mainly carbonate or phosphate? Anyway, both are insoluble in water, otherwise bones would fall apart in the body! CaO (in calcined shells, like Duanwalengzi, or calcined pearl- Zhenzhumu) is partly? soluble in water, converting to hydroxide (slaked lime?, limewater?). It follows that water- or alcohol- extract of shells, sedimentary rocks or bones can have little or no Ca in the extract. However, other minerals are very soluble in water, for example MgSO4 or Na2SO4 (as in Mangxiao), thus THEIR water-extracts, when dried, would contain all of the original material. This raises the question of how standard decoctions could contain anything other than contaminant amounts of the INSOLUBLE ingredients, assuming that only the SUPERNATANT is used medicinally (and the residue discarded). 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] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 2003 Report Share Posted February 19, 2003 If people are trying to figure out dosaging when adding powdered singles to a powdered formula, ask the manufacturer. Min Tong, Sun Ten, or Lotus people would be happy to explain their dosaging recommendations to you. When I worked at Min Tong, I had some training in their newer Taichung factory. I noted that all of the formulas are prepared for cooking in exactly the same way you would perform a formula decoction for your patient. The art or craftsmanship comes in bringing it to a dry dosage from the decocted broth. Every formula is unique regarding how it will stick to a dry carrier as well as how much water is absorbed by the spent herbs. Someone may decide to use a powdered herb from the formula to use as the carrier. Every formula is different. It's also important to note that some herbs are in the formula to make other herbs soluble in the boiling water and to release their contents. While I'm a biochemist by training, Dr. Chiang at Min Tong is also a pharmacologist as well as one of the biochemists characterizing new herbal markers. It's important to note that no one knows the "active ingredients" in herbal decoctions. If each herb contributes only 100 different molecules in a ten herb formula, the interactions and permutations are already impossible to cope with. Some molecules make others soluble while some molecules will react to form new molecules and compounds. That's why "standardization" of phytochemicals from individual herbs is only a game that marketers play. It has no meaning in terms of clinical outcomes in Chinese medicine. The point is to stick with the empiricism of Chinese medicine which is cooking herbs together to form tea. Each factory will have to determine the dosaging for their dry dosage extract usually by looking at amplitudes of markers. So don't try to make an independent guess. Call your manufacturer and let them tell you how to combine their ingredients for proper dosaging. That's their job. They will answer your questions about singles. Emmanuel Segmen - ; vBMA Wednesday, February 19, 2003 3:20 PM Extracts of INSOLUBLE ingredients? Hi All,The active agents in ingredients used in herbalism may be water-soluble, alcohol-soluble, soluble in other solvents, or insoluble.Two main solvents are used to prepare dried extracts from single- or multiple- ingredients used in herbal medicine: (a) Water and (b) Alcoholic solution. I am not sure if other solvents (such as acetone, chloroform, etc) are used. In theory, such solvents could be used and removed totally and safely from the supernatant by heating or vacuum distillation to dryness later.Regardless of the solvent used, the SUPERNATANT is dried to prepare the extracts but I understand that the RESIDUE (non-extracted part) is discarded. Is that correct?For example, the following minerals are INSOLUBLE in water, CaCO3 (in the shells (Muli, Haigeqiao, Gekefeng, Walengzi, Zhenzhu, Zibeichi), and sedimentary rock (Longgu, Longchi)), CaSO4 (in gypsum-Shigao), and calcium phosphate (in bone, such as Hugu (banned but usually substituted by ox- or horse- bone).Is the Ca in Cuttlebone-Haipiaoxiao mainly carbonate or phosphate? Anyway, both are insoluble in water, otherwise bones would fall apart in the body!CaO (in calcined shells, like Duanwalengzi, or calcined pearl-Zhenzhumu) is partly? soluble in water, converting to hydroxide (slaked lime?, limewater?). It follows that water- or alcohol- extract of shells, sedimentary rocks or bones can have little or no Ca in the extract.However, other minerals are very soluble in water, for example MgSO4 or Na2SO4 (as in Mangxiao), thus THEIR water-extracts, when dried, would contain all of the original material.This raises the question of how standard decoctions could contain anything other than contaminant amounts of the INSOLUBLE ingredients, assuming that only the SUPERNATANT is used medicinally (and the residue discarded).Best regards,WORK : Teagasc Staff Development Unit, Sandymount Ave., Dublin 4, IrelandWWW : Email: <Tel : 353-; [in the Republic: 0]HOME : 1 Esker Lawns, Lucan, Dublin, IrelandWWW : http://homepage.eircom.net/~progers/searchap.htmEmail: <Tel : 353-; [in the Republic: 0]Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2003 Report Share Posted February 20, 2003 , " " < @e...> wrote: > > For example, the following minerals are INSOLUBLE in water, > CaCO3 (in the shells (Muli, Haigeqiao, Gekefeng, Walengzi, > Zhenzhu, Zibeichi), and sedimentary rock (Longgu, Longchi)), > CaSO4 (in gypsum-Shigao), and calcium phosphate (in bone, such > as Hugu (banned but usually substituted by ox- or horse- bone). > (slaked lime?, limewater?). Phil do these substances precipitate into solution or perhaps percolate into solution during vigorous decoction or perhaps interact with other substances in a formula that changes their solubility in water. the actions of many of these substances would be best explained by the actions of the mineral salts they contain. it is hard to believe the chinese just coincidentally imagined the same effects of these substances that would be predicted by modern pharmacology. So they must have gotten into the bloodstream somehow, don't you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2003 Report Share Posted February 20, 2003 , " Emmanuel Segmen " < susegmen@i...> wrote: That's why " standardization " of phytochemicals from individual herbs is only a game that marketers play. It has no meaning in terms of clinical outcomes in Chinese medicine. I pretty much agree with everything you wrote. However, I think the value of measuring biochemical markers has at least one narrow purpose. It can allow one to compare relative dosage of otherwise identical products delivered in various different forms (liquid, pill, etc.). So if take 100 grams of herbs and make a decoction of this for a single daily dosage, can I measure a marker such as ephedrine and compare the amount in the decotion to the amount found in the daily dosage of an 8:1 liquid extract or a 5:1 powder or a 12:1 capsule? This basically seems to be the position that has guided herb production regulation in japan. One can only reliably dose an herbal product if it meets certain reference standards OR if one can personally evaluate the raw herbs being used for decoction. to be honest, I prefer the latter, but many practitioners do not have regular access to raw herb pharmacies. so they need an alternative to the organoleptic method. Many practitioners are aware that dosage changes often make a critical difference in formula efficacy. So the corollary must be that one has to be able to accurately convert dosages between different product forms, especially when some of those forms are quite novel compared to traditonal forms. Product manufacturers of pills tell me that their label dosage is generally much lower than the possible safe upper limit. So we can't just rely on label dosage in those cases. So the question is whether measuring markers would reliably demonstrate the dosage equivalencies in this very narrow sense. It makes sense to me it would, but I am, alas, not a biochemist. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2003 Report Share Posted February 20, 2003 Phil and Those salts are indeed soluble in water. Most human body reactions have to occur in water. Bone is made of mineral salts and protein fibers as well as globular protein. Bone's "ground substance" is solid while connective tissues like ligaments and tendons have a ground substance that is liquid. They are more or less the same except that the proteins are bound together in bone and cartilage with covalent bonds. If you boil bones in water, it's hard to completely release the mineral salts because you can't break the covalent bonds. Beef tendon will boil to a gel like liquid after several hours. You can digest bone in protease enzymes. I've done that for medical students so that they can dissect the skull bones of a "half head". Bone matrix will turn to a gel when digested in protease enzymes. Your stomach and small intestines are the site of protein digestion. So finely divided bones and shells can indeed be digested and the nutrients absorbed ... to some degree. That's why in the pharmacy you pound those things to a powder to increase the surface area for digestion ... as well as interaction with other ingredients in the boiling formula. Emmanuel Segmen - < Thursday, February 20, 2003 8:37 AM Re: Extracts of INSOLUBLE ingredients? , "" <@e...> wrote:> > For example, the following minerals are INSOLUBLE in water, > CaCO3 (in the shells (Muli, Haigeqiao, Gekefeng, Walengzi, > Zhenzhu, Zibeichi), and sedimentary rock (Longgu, Longchi)), > CaSO4 (in gypsum-Shigao), and calcium phosphate (in bone, such > as Hugu (banned but usually substituted by ox- or horse- bone).> (slaked lime?, limewater?). Phildo these substances precipitate into solution or perhaps percolate into solution during vigorous decoction or perhaps interact with other substances in a formula that changes their solubility in water.the actions of many of these substances would be best explained by the actions of the mineral salts they contain. it is hard to believe the chinese just coincidentally imagined the same effects of these substances that would be predicted by modern pharmacology. So they must have gotten into the bloodstream somehow, don't you think?ToddChinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2003 Report Share Posted February 21, 2003 Hi All, I wrote: >>For example, the following minerals are INSOLUBLE in water, CaCO3 (in the shells (Muli, Haigeqiao, Gekefeng, Walengzi, Zhenzhu, Zibeichi), and sedimentary rock (Longgu, Longchi)), CaSO4 (in gypsum-Shigao), and calcium phosphate (in bone, such as Hugu (banned but usually substituted by ox- or horse- bone). replied: >>Phil, do these substances precipitate into solution or perhaps percolate into solution during vigorous decoction or perhaps interact with other substances in a formula that changes their solubility in water. My chemistry and biochemistry is rusty, but I cannot see how water-insoluble Ca compounds (like carbonate, phosphate and sulphate) can be soluble in boiling water, UNLESS the boiling mix contains other compounds (such as an acid) to convert the insoluble compound to soluble salts. Of course Ca carbonate and phosphate are bioavailable once they are ingested! In human and animal nutrition, they are used routinely as effective oral Ca supplements; this is because the low pH of the gastric digesta converts them into soluble salts. But bioavailability AFTER ingestion is NOT the issue! My question was how can INSOLUBLE compounds appear in herbal EXTRACTS if only the SUPERNATANT is dried and the residue discarded! added: >>the actions of many of these substances would be best explained by the actions of the mineral salts they contain. It is hard to believe the Chinese just coincidentally imagined the same effects of these substances that would be predicted by modern pharmacology. So they must have gotten into the bloodstream somehow, don't you think? Todd If those substances are ingested, yes, but if they are not in the EXTRACT, how can they reach the bloodstream? Emmanuel wrote: >>Phil and Those salts are indeed soluble in water. Emmanuel, do you mean Ca carbonate, phosphate and sulphate? I may be wrong on this, but I think that is NOT correct. While it is possbile to get limited amoutns of calcium carbonate equivalents into solution, calcium carbonate is at best a sparingly soluble substance, so you can't get much of it into solution. It makes sense that corals would use some sparingly soluble substance for skeletal material. Organisms that try to make skeletons out of soluble substances stand the test of evolutionary pressure. You can imagine them having the same problem as the wicked witch of the west? in the Wizard of Oz.... pour a little water on them and they are melting.... [see http://www.reefs.org/library/article/c_bingman.html ]. See also http://scale-watcher.com/sworks.html [Temperature: Unlike sugar and salt, the solubility of calcium carbonate decreases with increasing temperature. The effect of this is seen as scaling in tea pots and water heaters. pH or Acidity: The lower the pH, the higher the acidity, the greater the solubility of calcium carbonate. Pressure: When the pressure of water drops, scale can form. The reason is related to the effect of acidity. Water under pressure can dissolve more CO2. Increases in water temperature also force out CO2 with the same effect as releasing pressure. Unsaturated Water Dissolves Scale: With calcium ions converted to crystals, the water has capacity to dissolve more calcium.] Emmanuel continued: >>Most human body reactions … occur in water. Bone is made of mineral salts and protein fibres as well as globular protein. Bone's " ground substance " is solid while connective tissues like ligaments and tendons have a ground substance that is liquid. They are more or less the same except that the proteins are bound together in bone and cartilage with covalent bonds. If you boil bones in water, it's hard to completely release the mineral salts because you can't break the covalent bonds. Precisely! If one boils bones, one will get stock, but the % of total bone DM released into stock [EXTRACT] is very small. That is why I cannot understand why bone or insoluble mineral earths/stones can be extracted effectively! Emmanuel continued: >>Beef tendon will boil to a gel-like liquid after several hours. You can digest bone in protease enzymes. I've done that for medical students so that they can dissect the skull bones of a " half head " . Bone matrix will turn to a gel when digested in protease enzymes. Yes, but how much Ca or P from the bone is in the supernatant? >>The stomach and small intestines are the sites of protein digestion. So finely divided bones and shells can indeed be digested and the nutrients absorbed... to some degree. That's why in the pharmacy you pound those things to a powder to increase the surface area for digestion... as well as interaction with other ingredients in the boiling formula. Emmanuel Segmen As I replied to many water-insoluble compounds are highly soluble in the stomach and duodenum. But my query was how do significant amounts of water-INSOLUBLE minerals get into the supernatant that is used to prepare herbal EXTRACTS? 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] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2003 Report Share Posted February 21, 2003 You've made many insightful remarks and asked insightful questions. This is exactly the kind of questions I've been addressing since 1991-1994 when I worked for Min Tong Herbs. I will apologize in advance for a slightly complex but hopefully clear answer. Biochemical markers are an internal factory standard to indicate that you are getting the same concentrations from one manufacturing run to the next. It also gives you a clue as to relative dosages as you've articulated so well. But only a "clue" and not a specific linear numerical comparison. Technically it should never be used for more than this purpose and should never be used to make marketing claims or statements about specific potencies. High performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) "markers" are useful in exactly the manner you initially described. But then that's just an internal property of production standards. You'd like to perform a liquid extract in the same manner as a traditional doctor has done for so many centuries. That's where the empiricism is and what has generated all of the literature. The claims regarding 5:1 or 8:1 can mean so many things to the production engineer ... and also so little. If ginseng root normally has 1.0% to 1.3% ginsenosides, and your normal one hour of cooking of Bu Zhong Yi Qi Tang from 4 parts to 1 part yields a broth with 5% ginsenosides, can we claim that we've made a 5:1 concentrated extract? No, it's not so linear a relationship. This is wonderful for checking whether we made the broth the same way each time. But if I could check each of the 1000s of markers (none of which can be claimed as an "active ingredient" ... no such research exists), then I would see that some aromatics are less and other more stable and soluble molecules are more. That's just chemistry. If we bother to check HPLC marker amplitudes with each cooking, then we get a clue if we have done it the same each time. That's what GMP standards requires of the manufacturer. There are thousands of molecules in each extract, and we don't know the relative significance of any of them regarding physiological or pharmacological actions. HPLC marker amplitudes are not yet useful in this manner and may never become useful for such measurements ... at least not in our lifetime as there's not enough lab hours in the next 50 years. And this work might take centuries. Please do not confuse chemical assays with biological (or clinical) assays. The latter is very difficult and time consuming. Chinese medicine has been doing it for thousands of years. The translation to biochemistry may be another thousand years away. This is not just my comment but also the comment of Dr. Chiang at Min Tong. You can get a liquid extract to mimic pretty closely what you do when you are cooking herbs in the traditional manner in your clinic or your kitchen. And maybe you can compare liquids based on HPLC markers, but I honestly think that it's like measuring the toenails of an elephant to compare the animals' relative sizes. Taking the liquid to a dry dosage has so many more variables added on, that trying to measure potency in some linear numerical manner is pretty shaky. The president of Min Tong Herbs, Dr. Chiang, indicated to me many times his annoyance with people who made specific numerical claims about the concentration of their extracts. You're lucky to have any one molecule from a plant you can really count on to be in a non-variable concentration from crop to crop. And you can not claim that molecule is an "active ingredient". My observation is that Dr. Chiang and Dr. John Chen of Lotus are in agreement that full-spectrum comparisons of extracts from batch to batch make sense in the factory. John was then a bit annoyed with me when I called him on pushing his HPLC findings into his advertising. John is correct in noting to me that he's got to find something about his product that's sets it apart from other products. The problem with that kind of advertising is that you end up with discussions like this one. (I'll take this moment here, John, to offer you my personal apologies for bugging you so hard.) Can the numerical potency of a dry dosage herbal extract be calculated from chemical analysis? My simple answer is no. At least you can't make linear comparisons across product lines that have any real meaning. It's the same old saw that using raw herbs to cook at home is the best format, liquid extracts may be pretty close to the fresh home brewing, and dry dosage extracts may not have the same potency or may lack complete characteristics of the home brew. I apologize for not being able to support a clear numerical comparison of product lines. Western science hasn't made the translation yet from herbal chemistry to bioassay. Such biochemical analyses have only existed for a few decades. If you are used to working with a particular company like Min Tong, KPC, Far East Summit or Lotus, then people in each company can guide you how to add single extracts to their formula extracts. Min Tong for instance goes into the hospital pharmacy setting in both Taiwan and Japan. I have visited a hospital pharmacy in Taichung to see how the raw powders are measured for dosaging. Standards exist for treating conditions with specific dry dosages of a formula and for modifying a formula with specific amounts of a dry dosage product. Ask the company you are working with, and they will guide you. Insist on speaking with a trained clinician and not a marketing person. From my experience, you'll get an honest answer. It may not always be a simple answer. Your questions indicate that we are experiencing paradigm collision. I hope my answer has provided some clarity. It's not an overstatement that American practitioners of Chinese medicine are cultural heroes ... at least in my view. Emmanuel Segmen - < Thursday, February 20, 2003 1:51 PM Re: Extracts of INSOLUBLE ingredients? , "Emmanuel Segmen" <susegmen@i...> wrote:That's why "standardization" of phytochemicals from individual herbs is only a game that marketers play. It has no meaning in terms of clinical outcomes in Chinese medicine.I pretty much agree with everything you wrote. However, I think the value of measuring biochemical markers has at least one narrow purpose. It can allow one to compare relative dosage of otherwise identical products delivered in various different forms (liquid, pill, etc.). So if take 100 grams of herbs and make a decoction of this for a single daily dosage, can I measure a marker such as ephedrine and compare the amount in the decotion to the amount found in the daily dosage of an 8:1 liquid extract or a 5:1 powder or a 12:1 capsule? This basically seems to be the position that has guided herb production regulation in japan. One can only reliably dose an herbal product if it meets certain reference standards OR if one can personally evaluate the raw herbs being used for decoction. to be honest, I prefer the latter, but many practitioners do not have regular access to raw herb pharmacies. so they need an alternative to the organoleptic method. Many practitioners are aware that dosage changes often make a critical difference in formula efficacy. So the corollary must be that one has to be able to accurately convert dosages between different product forms, especially when some of those forms are quite novel compared to traditonal forms. Product manufacturers of pills tell me that their label dosage is generally much lower than the possible safe upper limit. So we can't just rely on label dosage in those cases. So the question is whether measuring markers would reliably demonstrate the dosage equivalencies in this very narrow sense. It makes sense to me it would, but I am, alas, not a biochemist. :-)ToddChinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2003 Report Share Posted February 21, 2003 Emmanuel, Thanks for the concise statement of the problem. I've been looking at this set of issues since 1996 or so when I was asked to come up with a marketing campaign for a private Chinese pharmaceutical firm that wanted to introduce their products into the American market. Your summary is extremely and refreshingly clear. I've spoken to several people in the PRC over the past few years who are interested in addressing the whole matter from a slightly different point of view based in the application of systems science to analysis of Chinese medicinals and formulas. If you're interested in this, can you please contact me off list. Ken , " Emmanuel Segmen " <susegmen@i...> wrote: > > > You've made many insightful remarks and asked insightful questions. This is exactly the kind of questions I've been addressing since 1991-1994 when I worked for Min Tong Herbs. I will apologize in advance for a slightly complex but hopefully clear answer. > > Biochemical markers are an internal factory standard to indicate that you are getting the same concentrations from one manufacturing run to the next. It also gives you a clue as to relative dosages as you've articulated so well. But only a " clue " and not a specific linear numerical comparison. Technically it should never be used for more than this purpose and should never be used to make marketing claims or statements about specific potencies. High performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) " markers " are useful in exactly the manner you initially described. But then that's just an internal property of production standards. You'd like to perform a liquid extract in the same manner as a traditional doctor has done for so many centuries. That's where the empiricism is and what has generated all of the literature. The claims regarding 5:1 or 8:1 can mean so many things to the production engineer ... and also so little. > > If ginseng root normally has 1.0% to 1.3% ginsenosides, and your normal one hour of cooking of Bu Zhong Yi Qi Tang from 4 parts to 1 part yields a broth with 5% ginsenosides, can we claim that we've made a 5:1 concentrated extract? No, it's not so linear a relationship. This is wonderful for checking whether we made the broth the same way each time. But if I could check each of the 1000s of markers (none of which can be claimed as an " active ingredient " ... no such research exists), then I would see that some aromatics are less and other more stable and soluble molecules are more. That's just chemistry. If we bother to check HPLC marker amplitudes with each cooking, then we get a clue if we have done it the same each time. That's what GMP standards requires of the manufacturer. There are thousands of molecules in each extract, and we don't know the relative significance of any of them regarding physiological or pharmacological actions. HPLC marker amplitudes are not yet useful in this manner and may never become useful for such measurements ... at least not in our lifetime as there's not enough lab hours in the next 50 years. And this work might take centuries. Please do not confuse chemical assays with biological (or clinical) assays. The latter is very difficult and time consuming. Chinese medicine has been doing it for thousands of years. The translation to biochemistry may be another thousand years away. This is not just my comment but also the comment of Dr. Chiang at Min Tong. > > You can get a liquid extract to mimic pretty closely what you do when you are cooking herbs in the traditional manner in your clinic or your kitchen. And maybe you can compare liquids based on HPLC markers, but I honestly think that it's like measuring the toenails of an elephant to compare the animals' relative sizes. Taking the liquid to a dry dosage has so many more variables added on, that trying to measure potency in some linear numerical manner is pretty shaky. The president of Min Tong Herbs, Dr. Chiang, indicated to me many times his annoyance with people who made specific numerical claims about the concentration of their extracts. You're lucky to have any one molecule from a plant you can really count on to be in a non-variable concentration from crop to crop. And you can not claim that molecule is an " active ingredient " . My observation is that Dr. Chiang and Dr. John Chen of Lotus are in agreement that full-spectrum comparisons of extracts from batch to batch make sense in the factory. John was then a bit annoyed with me when I called him on pushing his HPLC findings into his advertising. John is correct in noting to me that he's got to find something about his product that's sets it apart from other products. The problem with that kind of advertising is that you end up with discussions like this one. (I'll take this moment here, John, to offer you my personal apologies for bugging you so hard.) > > Can the numerical potency of a dry dosage herbal extract be calculated from chemical analysis? My simple answer is no. At least you can't make linear comparisons across product lines that have any real meaning. It's the same old saw that using raw herbs to cook at home is the best format, liquid extracts may be pretty close to the fresh home brewing, and dry dosage extracts may not have the same potency or may lack complete characteristics of the home brew. > > I apologize for not being able to support a clear numerical comparison of product lines. Western science hasn't made the translation yet from herbal chemistry to bioassay. Such biochemical analyses have only existed for a few decades. If you are used to working with a particular company like Min Tong, KPC, Far East Summit or Lotus, then people in each company can guide you how to add single extracts to their formula extracts. Min Tong for instance goes into the hospital pharmacy setting in both Taiwan and Japan. I have visited a hospital pharmacy in Taichung to see how the raw powders are measured for dosaging. Standards exist for treating conditions with specific dry dosages of a formula and for modifying a formula with specific amounts of a dry dosage product. Ask the company you are working with, and they will guide you. Insist on speaking with a trained clinician and not a marketing person. From my experience, you'll get an honest answer. It may not always be a simple answer. > > Your questions indicate that we are experiencing paradigm collision. I hope my answer has provided some clarity. It's not an overstatement that American practitioners of Chinese medicine are cultural heroes ... at least in my view. > Emmanuel Segmen > - > <@i...> > > Thursday, February 20, 2003 1:51 PM > Re: Extracts of INSOLUBLE ingredients? > > > , " Emmanuel Segmen " < > susegmen@i...> wrote: > That's why " standardization " of phytochemicals from individual herbs > is only a game that marketers play. It has no meaning in terms of > clinical outcomes in Chinese medicine. > > I pretty much agree with everything you wrote. However, I think the > value of measuring biochemical markers has at least one narrow > purpose. It can allow one to compare relative dosage of otherwise > identical products delivered in various different forms (liquid, > pill, etc.). So if take 100 grams of herbs and make a decoction of > this for a single daily dosage, can I measure a marker such as > ephedrine and compare the amount in the decotion to the amount found > in the daily dosage of an 8:1 liquid extract or a 5:1 powder or a > 12:1 capsule? This basically seems to be the position that has > guided herb production regulation in japan. > > One can only reliably dose an herbal product if it meets certain > reference standards OR if one can personally evaluate the raw herbs > being used for decoction. to be honest, I prefer the latter, but > many practitioners do not have regular access to raw herb pharmacies. > so they need an alternative to the organoleptic method. Many > practitioners are aware that dosage changes often make a critical > difference in formula efficacy. So the corollary must be that one > has to be able to accurately convert dosages between different > product forms, especially when some of those forms are quite novel > compared to traditonal forms. Product manufacturers of pills tell me > that their label dosage is generally much lower than the possible > safe upper limit. So we can't just rely on label dosage in those > cases. So the question is whether measuring markers would reliably > demonstrate the dosage equivalencies in this very narrow sense. It > makes sense to me it would, but I am, alas, not a biochemist. :- ) > > Todd > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2003 Report Share Posted February 23, 2003 Dear Stephen and Friends, While I respectfully hunt down numerical answers to your questions, I would be most grateful to occasionally address the subtext I broached and to hear from others who may wish to comment. It's my perspective that the human body is the one doing the "dosaging". In as much as the clinician helps to bring this about, I wanted to emphasize one of your comments, Stephen. You said, "My years of experience indicate that the varying qualities imparted by different processing methods definitely influence the degree to which it causes a physiological effect." Processing methods, I assume, may be the traditional ones or the modern ones. Bringing about the physiological effect is the point. Causing the effect to be greater or smaller is pharmacological in nature and in my humble opinion quite inappropriate. The effect appropriate to the patient's physiology in their context is physiological. The herbal processing methods of oral and written tradition are well known and the ones studied in Chinese medical colleges. When you feel the pulse before and after administration of needles or herbal formulas, you are feeling the dosaging of the human body with regard to it's own homeostasis. In addition, joyful exercise, taiji and deep sleep also bring about such dosaging, and these "medicines" present differences in diagnostic signs. My hope is that as clinicians, you will rely less on chemical analysis or feel the need for validation by Western scientific methods. Alternatively, such validation is healthy for Chinese medicine's existence in America especially in the eyes of the FDA. So there's a balance that can exist here. I suspect that people like Stephen will contribute to the health of that balance. So this is the subtext I'm broaching. I'm noting, and please tell me if I'm wrong, that some American L.Ac.s feel empowered by using and prescribing extracts that come in bottles that look a lot like "medicine" ... especially medicine of the pharmaceutical persuasion. I've seen plenty of American patients at the American Coll. of TCM Clinic look at our bags of herbs somewhat askance. It's not what the American mind envisions as medicine. Perhaps prescribing dry dosage formula extracts helps to make one more commercially viable as a practitioner in the American scene. I hope people succeed in their work professionally and economically. I also hope that our American scene does not prevent practitioners from making available the best of the oral and written traditions. While I teach at a college, I also make a living from helping to sell finished dry dosage products to L.Ac.s and helping to sell raw ingredients to manufacturers who make finished dry and liquid dosage products. So I'm not here to cut my own income. I broach these subtexts because I'd like the best of Chinese medicine to be both pursued as well as available. Yours in gratitude, Emmanuel Segmen - dragon90405 <yulong Friday, February 21, 2003 10:14 PM Re: Extracts of INSOLUBLE ingredients? Emmanuel,Thanks for the concise statement of theproblem. I've been looking at this set ofissues since 1996 or so when I was askedto come up with a marketing campaign fora private Chinese pharmaceutical firm thatwanted to introduce their products into the American market. Your summary is extremely and refreshingly clear.I've spoken to several people in the PRCover the past few years who are interestedin addressing the whole matter from a slightly different point of view basedin the application of systems scienceto analysis of Chinese medicinals andformulas.If you're interested in this, can you pleasecontact me off list.Ken , "Emmanuel Segmen" <susegmen@i...> wrote:> > > You've made many insightful remarks and asked insightful questions. This is exactly the kind of questions I've been addressing since 1991-1994 when I worked for Min Tong Herbs. I will apologize in advance for a slightly complex but hopefully clear answer.> > Biochemical markers are an internal factory standard to indicate that you are getting the same concentrations from one manufacturing run to the next. It also gives you a clue as to relative dosages as you've articulated so well. But only a "clue" and not a specific linear numerical comparison. Technically it should never be used for more than this purpose and should never be used to make marketing claims or statements about specific potencies. High performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) "markers" are useful in exactly the manner you initially described. But then that's just an internal property of production standards. You'd like to perform a liquid extract in the same manner as a traditional doctor has done for so many centuries. That's where the empiricism is and what has generated all of the literature. The claims regarding 5:1 or 8:1 can mean so many things to the production engineer ... and also so little. > > If ginseng root normally has 1.0% to 1.3% ginsenosides, and your normal one hour of cooking of Bu Zhong Yi Qi Tang from 4 parts to 1 part yields a broth with 5% ginsenosides, can we claim that we've made a 5:1 concentrated extract? No, it's not so linear a relationship. This is wonderful for checking whether we made the broth the same way each time. But if I could check each of the 1000s of markers (none of which can be claimed as an "active ingredient" ... no such research exists), then I would see that some aromatics are less and other more stable and soluble molecules are more. That's just chemistry. If we bother to check HPLC marker amplitudes with each cooking, then we get a clue if we have done it the same each time. That's what GMP standards requires of the manufacturer. There are thousands of molecules in each extract, and we don't know the relative significance of any of them regarding physiological or pharmacological actions. HPLC marker amplitudes are not yet useful in this manner and may never become useful for such measurements ... at least not in our lifetime as there's not enough lab hours in the next 50 years. And this work might take centuries. Please do not confuse chemical assays with biological (or clinical) assays. The latter is very difficult and time consuming. Chinese medicine has been doing it for thousands of years. The translation to biochemistry may be another thousand years away. This is not just my comment but also the comment of Dr. Chiang at Min Tong.> > You can get a liquid extract to mimic pretty closely what you do when you are cooking herbs in the traditional manner in your clinic or your kitchen. And maybe you can compare liquids based on HPLC markers, but I honestly think that it's like measuring the toenails of an elephant to compare the animals' relative sizes. Taking the liquid to a dry dosage has so many more variables added on, that trying to measure potency in some linear numerical manner is pretty shaky. The president of Min Tong Herbs, Dr. Chiang, indicated to me many times his annoyance with people who made specific numerical claims about the concentration of their extracts. You're lucky to have any one molecule from a plant you can really count on to be in a non-variable concentration from crop to crop. And you can not claim that molecule is an "active ingredient". My observation is that Dr. Chiang and Dr. John Chen of Lotus are in agreement that full-spectrum comparisons of extracts from batch to batch make sense in the factory. John was then a bit annoyed with me when I called him on pushing his HPLC findings into his advertising. John is correct in noting to me that he's got to find something about his product that's sets it apart from other products. The problem with that kind of advertising is that you end up with discussions like this one. (I'll take this moment here, John, to offer you my personal apologies for bugging you so hard.)> > Can the numerical potency of a dry dosage herbal extract be calculated from chemical analysis? My simple answer is no. At least you can't make linear comparisons across product lines that have any real meaning. It's the same old saw that using raw herbs to cook at home is the best format, liquid extracts may be pretty close to the fresh home brewing, and dry dosage extracts may not have the same potency or may lack complete characteristics of the home brew. > > I apologize for not being able to support a clear numerical comparison of product lines. Western science hasn't made the translation yet from herbal chemistry to bioassay. Such biochemical analyses have only existed for a few decades. If you are used to working with a particular company like Min Tong, KPC, Far East Summit or Lotus, then people in each company can guide you how to add single extracts to their formula extracts. Min Tong for instance goes into the hospital pharmacy setting in both Taiwan and Japan. I have visited a hospital pharmacy in Taichung to see how the raw powders are measured for dosaging. Standards exist for treating conditions with specific dry dosages of a formula and for modifying a formula with specific amounts of a dry dosage product. Ask the company you are working with, and they will guide you. Insist on speaking with a trained clinician and not a marketing person. From my experience, you'll get an honest answer. It may not always be a simple answer. > > Your questions indicate that we are experiencing paradigm collision. I hope my answer has provided some clarity. It's not an overstatement that American practitioners of Chinese medicine are cultural heroes ... at least in my view.> Emmanuel Segmen> - > <@i...> > > Thursday, February 20, 2003 1:51 PM> Re: Extracts of INSOLUBLE ingredients?> > > , "Emmanuel Segmen" <> susegmen@i...> wrote:> That's why "standardization" of phytochemicals from individual herbs > is only a game that marketers play. It has no meaning in terms of > clinical outcomes in Chinese medicine.> > I pretty much agree with everything you wrote. However, I think the > value of measuring biochemical markers has at least one narrow > purpose. It can allow one to compare relative dosage of otherwise > identical products delivered in various different forms (liquid, > pill, etc.). So if take 100 grams of herbs and make a decoction of > this for a single daily dosage, can I measure a marker such as > ephedrine and compare the amount in the decotion to the amount found > in the daily dosage of an 8:1 liquid extract or a 5:1 powder or a > 12:1 capsule? This basically seems to be the position that has > guided herb production regulation in japan. > > One can only reliably dose an herbal product if it meets certain > reference standards OR if one can personally evaluate the raw herbs > being used for decoction. to be honest, I prefer the latter, but > many practitioners do not have regular access to raw herb pharmacies. > so they need an alternative to the organoleptic method. Many > practitioners are aware that dosage changes often make a critical > difference in formula efficacy. So the corollary must be that one > has to be able to accurately convert dosages between different > product forms, especially when some of those forms are quite novel > compared to traditonal forms. Product manufacturers of pills tell me > that their label dosage is generally much lower than the possible > safe upper limit. So we can't just rely on label dosage in those > cases. So the question is whether measuring markers would reliably > demonstrate the dosage equivalencies in this very narrow sense. It > makes sense to me it would, but I am, alas, not a biochemist. :-)> > Todd> > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2003 Report Share Posted February 24, 2003 , " Emmanuel Segmen " <susegmen@i...> wrote: <When you feel the pulse before and after administration of needles <or herbal formulas, you are feeling the dosaging of the human body <with regard to it's own homeostasis. Very nice! <In addition, joyful exercise, taiji and deep sleep also bring about <such dosaging, and these " medicines " present differences in <diagnostic signs. Agreed! Thank you. Fernando Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2003 Report Share Posted February 24, 2003 , " Emmanuel Segmen " < susegmen@i...> wrote: Bringing about the physiological effect is the point. Causing the effect to be greater or smaller is pharmacological in nature and in my humble opinion quite inappropriate. The effect appropriate to the patient's physiology in their context is physiological. If what you are saying is that one wants to stop sweating or move the bowels or stop vomiting, then one needs just enough medicine to set the process in motion. I agree it doesn't makes sense to use more or less. I like the signal to noise ratio concept here. If the noise (disease) is very loud, one needs a signal (remedy) of greater intensity to overcome the noise. so it is not about getting a stronger effect, but needing more signal to reach the threshold to overcome the noise to get the physiological effect intended. what allows this threshold to be crossed is increased action of the herb, which can be measured in part pharmacologically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2003 Report Share Posted February 24, 2003 Hi Phil, Forgive me, you're right! What was I thinking? Calcium carbonate even stripped of the shell's ground substance polypeptides is still water insoluble. It's even insoluble in the blood ... sometimes causing kidney problems. I apologize for the incorrect presentation. So the calcium carbonate is not in the traditional herbal extract supernatant, nor would it then be in the dry dosage extract. If it's not in the traditional herbal extract supernatant, why would you want it in the dry dosage extract? Or perhaps you don't. Stock from bones and tendons are filled polypeptides that gives that gel like quality to the stock. Apparently that's what is required in the traditional medicine: the polypeptides and not the CaCO3. Would one presume? Or would it be chelated nutrients? Why would knowledge of the exact ingredients matter as long as the herbal extract supernatant was incorporated into the dry dosage extract? Emmanuel Segmen But bioavailability AFTER ingestion is NOT the issue! My question was how can INSOLUBLE compounds appear in herbal EXTRACTS if only the SUPERNATANT is dried and the residue discarded!Todd added: >>the actions of many of these substances would be best explained by the actions of the mineral salts they contain. It is hard to believe the Chinese just coincidentally imagined the same effects of these substances that would be predicted by modern pharmacology. So they must have gotten into the bloodstream somehow, don't you think? Todd If those substances are ingested, yes, but if they are not in the EXTRACT, how can they reach the bloodstream?Emmanuel wrote: >>Phil and Those salts are indeed soluble in water. Emmanuel, do you mean Ca carbonate, phosphate and sulphate? I may be wrong on this, but I think that is NOT correct. While it is possbile to get limited amoutns of calcium carbonate equivalents into solution, calcium carbonate is at best a sparingly soluble substance, so you can't get much of it into solution. It makes sense that corals would use some sparingly soluble substance for skeletal material. Organisms that try to make skeletons out of soluble substances stand the test of evolutionary pressure. You can imagine them having the same problem as the wicked witch of the west? in the Wizard of Oz.... pour a little water on them and they are melting.... [see http://www.reefs.org/library/article/c_bingman.html ]. See also http://scale-watcher.com/sworks.html [Temperature: Unlike sugar and salt, the solubility of calcium carbonate decreases with increasing temperature. The effect of this is seen as scaling in tea pots and water heaters. pH or Acidity: The lower the pH, the higher the acidity, the greater the solubility of calcium carbonate. Pressure: When the pressure of water drops, scale can form. The reason is related to the effect of acidity. Water under pressure can dissolve more CO2. Increases in water temperature also force out CO2 with the same effect as releasing pressure. Unsaturated Water Dissolves Scale: With calcium ions converted to crystals, the water has capacity to dissolve more calcium.]Emmanuel continued: >>Most human body reactions … occur in water. Bone is made of mineral salts and protein fibres as well as globular protein. Bone's "ground substance" is solid while connective tissues like ligaments and tendons have a ground substance that is liquid. They are more or less the same except that the proteins are bound together in bone and cartilage with covalent bonds. If you boil bones in water, it's hard to completely release the mineral salts because you can't break the covalent bonds. Precisely! If one boils bones, one will get stock, but the % of total bone DM released into stock [EXTRACT] is very small. That is why I cannot understand why bone or insoluble mineral earths/stones can be extracted effectively!Emmanuel continued: >>Beef tendon will boil to a gel-like liquid after several hours. You can digest bone in protease enzymes. I've done that for medical students so that they can dissect the skull bones of a "half head". Bone matrix will turn to a gel when digested in protease enzymes. Yes, but how much Ca or P from the bone is in the supernatant?>>The stomach and small intestines are the sites of protein digestion. So finely divided bones and shells can indeed be digested and the nutrients absorbed... to some degree. That's why in the pharmacy you pound those things to a powder to increase the surface area for digestion... as well as interaction with other ingredients in the boiling formula. Emmanuel SegmenAs I replied to many water-insoluble compounds are highly soluble in the stomach and duodenum. But my query was how do significant amounts of water-INSOLUBLE minerals get into the supernatant that is used to prepare herbal EXTRACTS?Best regards,WORK : Teagasc Staff Development Unit, Sandymount Ave., Dublin 4, IrelandWWW : Email: <Tel : 353-; [in the Republic: 0]HOME : 1 Esker Lawns, Lucan, Dublin, IrelandWWW : http://homepage.eircom.net/~progers/searchap.htmEmail: <Tel : 353-; [in the Republic: 0]Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2003 Report Share Posted February 24, 2003 This is more eloquently put than my own post. It brings to mind a current discussion in the Western science community regarding insulin insensitivity. It's possible to deliver so much glucose to the blood (from overeating processed carbohydrates) over a prolonged period, that the liver tissues eventually become insensitive to insulin. The liver is the first to become insulin insensitive, so appetite remains high and people keep eating ... they gain weight. Insulin levels go way up because the liver can't see the insulin ... too much noise. So, right, signal to noise ratio. That's great. Regarding Alon's comments on insulin therapy. I believe I've represented it correctly. It's what I'm trained to teach. Of course, cortisol is a human adrenal cortex hormone, and it's synthetic prednisone is used therapeutically ... certainly not as a supplement. I won't bore anyone on list with this. You can exchange with me off list, Alon, if you wanted to make further points. Alon, I would not object if you wanted to view your Chinese herbs as pharmaceuticals and take great care in their application. I appreciate your "coming out" on this. I did suspect it as a subtext for some people in this discussion. I applaud your vision and look forward to hearing more. In gratitude and with all due respect, Emmanuel Segmen - < Monday, February 24, 2003 10:20 AM Re: Extracts of INSOLUBLE ingredients? , "Emmanuel Segmen" <susegmen@i...> wrote:Bringing about the physiological effect is the point. Causing the effect to be greater or smaller is pharmacological in nature and in my humble opinion quite inappropriate. The effect appropriate to the patient's physiology in their context is physiological. If what you are saying is that one wants to stop sweating or move the bowels or stop vomiting, then one needs just enough medicine to set the process in motion. I agree it doesn't makes sense to use more or less. I like the signal to noise ratio concept here. If the noise (disease) is very loud, one needs a signal (remedy) of greater intensity to overcome the noise. so it is not about getting a stronger effect, but needing more signal to reach the threshold to overcome the noise to get the physiological effect intended. what allows this threshold to be crossed is increased action of the herb, which can be measured in part pharmacologically.ToddChinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.