Digest Number 1328/Dosage comparison

March 1, 2003

Emmanuel wrote " I'm scratching my head

about building a formula from scratch with just dry dosage

singles. The people at Min Tong, Taibo (in Lanzhou) and

other

such factories would not approve of such procedures. "

Perhaps not, but it can be economic necessity. If a

practioner cannot afford to stock both singles and standard

formulas, it does seem that singles allow for more

versatility.

Gabrielle

Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more

http://taxes./

March 3, 2003

Perhaps not, but it can be economic necessity. If apractioner cannot afford to stock both singles and standardformulas, it does seem that singles allow for moreversatility.>>>It is just as effective and i know many people, including me, that have been doing it for many years

Alon

March 3, 2003

, " ALON MARCUS "

<alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> Perhaps not, but it can be economic necessity. If a

> practioner cannot afford to stock both singles and standard

> formulas, it does seem that singles allow for more

> versatility.

> >>>It is just as effective and i know many people, including me,

that have been doing it for many years

> Alon

Alon,

How can you guage that it is 'just as effective'? I personally find

there is huge difference in the two. BUt this is my subjective

experience in taking the two... How do you guage things?

-JAson

March 3, 2003

How can you guage that it is 'just as effective'? I personally find there is huge difference in the two. BUt this is my subjective experience in taking the two...

>>>Obviously its only my observation. If you trust Chinese studies there was one published that one of the east cost suppliers advanced (blue something?). It says that there was no difference between combing powders and precooked formulas. Do you used powders? I thought you used raw herbs.

March 4, 2003

, " Alon Marcus "

<alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> How can you guage that it is 'just as effective'? I personally find

> there is huge difference in the two. BUt this is my subjective

> experience in taking the two...

> >>>Obviously its only my observation. If you trust Chinese studies

there was one published that one of the east cost suppliers advanced

(blue something?). It says that there was no difference between

combing powders and precooked formulas. Do you used powders? I thought

you used raw herbs.

Alon,

Sorry, I think I misunderstood what you were saying... I totally blew

that one... I get now that you feel there is no differnece between

putting sinlges together (granular) and a precooked formula

(granular)... I was comparing them to decoctions, which to me is night

and day. and yes I do use raw in about 98% of patients. But We have a

full granular (single and formula) pharmacy in our office, So I am

always taking the granulars myself and comparing them to the RAw

formulas. THis is interesting, because many times I just do not get

the effect from granulars.

-JAson

March 4, 2003

I was comparing them to decoctions, which to me is night and day. and yes I do use raw in about 98% of patients. But We have a full granular (single and formula) pharmacy in our office, So I am always taking the granulars myself and comparing them to the RAw formulas. THis is interesting, because many times I just do not get the effect from granulars

>>>>Have you compared putting single powders at equivalent doses? Which granules are you working with?

Alon

March 4, 2003

> >>>>Have you compared putting single powders at equivalent doses?

Which granules are you working with?

Lotus for formulas and KPC for singles. I have made some single

formulas (comparing them to a decoction), but I have never compared a

granular premade RX with a granula single RX... Maybe I will try this.

-Jason

March 4, 2003

This is a very interesting subject and I would like to share some

information.

A couple of months ago we had a visit from the supervisor of our factory

in China, Dr. Yan Yin Pan. He gave us a great lecture on how our

products are made and also a brief history on single powders vs. whole

extracted formulas. Apparently this idea was introduced in the 1920's

but failed because it was " against tradition " . The idea was again

introduced in the 1960s and again did not meet a warm reception. With

its introduction again in the 1980's and 1990's a couple of companies

and hospitals took to it but most of the doctors still do not want to

use the single extracts. The department of health now sponsors a few

projects but has not come out in support of this method as an

alternative to the standard method of extracting the formula as a whole.

There is research going on to determine if the single extracts work as

well as whole formulas. Dr. Pan gave a couple of examples of some recent

research:

For the formula Chai Hu Long Gu Mu Li tang, researchers found that

cooking the Long Gu and Mu Li first (as traditionally recommended)

changes the pH of the tea so that when the Chai Hu is added, different

chemicals are extracted than would be normally.

The other example he gave was on Sheng Mai San. Chemical analysis has

found that there is a new chemical constituent in the formula that is

not present in the single herbs. (I do not have the name of the

chemical, or the actual studies as they were of course written in

Chinese, but if it does come my way I will post it). I recall that some

time ago someone reported that his company was testing the chemical

constituents in both singles and formulas and finding that the formulas

contained the same components as the singles. At the time this seemed

flawed and that it should be the other way around, we should be looking

for chemicals in formulas not present in singles, as the Sheng Mai San

study indicates.

Standardization of formulas is another issue. Most herbs have a natural

yield of 8-12 to 1. Meaning you put in 8-12 pounds of a particular herb

to get 1 pound of extract. So, when you are getting a 5:1 extract, that

has been cut with a fair amount of starch, possibly more than the 50% of

most companies. The worst is Siberian Ginseng which has a natural yield

of 50:1 so the amount you are actually getting in a 5:1 extract is tiny.

So yes, it's important to talk about standardization but in the end the

quality is what is going to be what counts and what will bring your

patients back to you - because the herbs you gave them actually worked!

Colleen

How can you guage that it is 'just as effective'? I personally find

there is huge difference in the two. BUt this is my subjective

experience in taking the two...

>>>Obviously its only my observation. If you trust Chinese studies there

was one published that one of the east cost suppliers advanced (blue

something?). It says that there was no difference between combing

powders and precooked formulas. Do you used powders? I thought you used

raw herbs.

March 4, 2003

I can confirm that Collen Morris's post states precisely the case regarding singles and formula extracts from Chinese companies in Taiwan and in China. What she has described is how it looks from both of those worlds. Clinical research funded at universities and hospitals in China and Taiwan utilize formula extracts, not combined single extracts. It has been noted by Dr. Chiang at Min Tong and by many others in China that formulas have specific integrities of their own. Cooking an herb in the presence of other herbs makes phytochemicals soluble and released that would not otherwise be present. This can be seen with full spectrum HPLC fingerprints. Dr. Chiang says that it apparently was noted over the centuries empirically, and that's why there are root formulas. The not going "against tradition" element is part of the power of Chinese medicine as an empirical science.

Emmanuel Segmen

-

Colleen Morris

Tuesday, March 04, 2003 2:29 PM

Re: Digest Number 1328/Dosage comparison

This is a very interesting subject and I would like to share someinformation.A couple of months ago we had a visit from the supervisor of our factoryin China, Dr. Yan Yin Pan. He gave us a great lecture on how ourproducts are made and also a brief history on single powders vs. wholeextracted formulas. Apparently this idea was introduced in the 1920'sbut failed because it was "against tradition". The idea was againintroduced in the 1960s and again did not meet a warm reception. Withits introduction again in the 1980's and 1990's a couple of companiesand hospitals took to it but most of the doctors still do not want touse the single extracts. The department of health now sponsors a fewprojects but has not come out in support of this method as analternative to the standard method of extracting the formula as a whole.There is research going on to determine if the single extracts work aswell as whole formulas. Dr. Pan gave a couple of examples of some recentresearch:For the formula Chai Hu Long Gu Mu Li tang, researchers found thatcooking the Long Gu and Mu Li first (as traditionally recommended)changes the pH of the tea so that when the Chai Hu is added, differentchemicals are extracted than would be normally.The other example he gave was on Sheng Mai San. Chemical analysis hasfound that there is a new chemical constituent in the formula that isnot present in the single herbs. (I do not have the name of thechemical, or the actual studies as they were of course written inChinese, but if it does come my way I will post it). I recall that sometime ago someone reported that his company was testing the chemicalconstituents in both singles and formulas and finding that the formulascontained the same components as the singles. At the time this seemedflawed and that it should be the other way around, we should be lookingfor chemicals in formulas not present in singles, as the Sheng Mai Sanstudy indicates.Standardization of formulas is another issue. Most herbs have a naturalyield of 8-12 to 1. Meaning you put in 8-12 pounds of a particular herbto get 1 pound of extract. So, when you are getting a 5:1 extract, thathas been cut with a fair amount of starch, possibly more than the 50% ofmost companies. The worst is Siberian Ginseng which has a natural yieldof 50:1 so the amount you are actually getting in a 5:1 extract is tiny.So yes, it's important to talk about standardization but in the end thequality is what is going to be what counts and what will bring yourpatients back to you - because the herbs you gave them actually worked!ColleenHow can you guage that it is 'just as effective'? I personally find there is huge difference in the two. BUt this is my subjective experience in taking the two... >>>Obviously its only my observation. If you trust Chinese studies therewas one published that one of the east cost suppliers advanced (bluesomething?). It says that there was no difference between combingpowders and precooked formulas. Do you used powders? I thought you usedraw herbs.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.

March 5, 2003

Is there a standard definition for extract, decoction, elixir, tincture,

etc?

Colleen I don't understand your ratios. Is this to produce a liquid extract?

If I took 50 grams (or tons) of Siberian Ginseng to 1 gram (or ton) of

solvent I would get nothing, zero, zip.

Are you talking dried herbs as 8-12 times the amount of solvent to produce

an extract?

American and European herbalists, International Protocol Brussels 1902,

standardized herbal extracts as the weight of dried non-toxic herbs (20

grams) to a liquid solvent (100 grams) as a 20% extract or 1:5 w/v. For

toxic herbs it is a 10% or 1:10 w/v. Some Alchemist work at 1:1 and reduce

considerable from there. But that is rare in the marketplace. (These ratios

are often fudged because depending upon the absorbability of the herbs the

result would also be less so for convenience the dried herbs were /are often

wetted first with added solvent)

I read most TCM herbal decoctions begin as 1:1 or 1:3 w/v cooking down to a

3:1. These " discarded " herbs are far from completely extracted. Many

American clinics, and schools, I have visited tell their patients to recook

these herbs 2-3 more times. (Or to advise to cook three times then add the

three cookings together to produce 3 doses.)

I think an earlier Chinese method of mass production was to cook the herbs

forever, remove the dregs, dry the dregs, crush and powder the dregs then

mix the liquid back and voila herbal concentrated powder.

Modern herb companies use chemicals and gasses to extract everything and

then attempt to recover the chemicals and gasses. Almost all use alcohol. To

my mind Ma Huang Tang made according to the SHL method would not be the same

as that produced in today's laboratory. The SHL made some herbal formulas

into powders and some into pills most into decoctions and sometimes the

decoctions were twice cooked. - why did the SHL different between the

methods.

Scientific studies will always prove what they set out to prove.

Ya gotta love science.

Ed Kasper LAc

Santa Cruz, CA

Message: 8

Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:29:39 -0800

" Colleen Morris " <colleen

Re: Digest Number 1328/Dosage comparison

<<snipped>>> ...Standardization of formulas is another issue. Most herbs

have a natural