Guest guest Posted March 5, 2003 Report Share Posted March 5, 2003 , " Alon Marcus " <alonmarcus@w...> wrote: > >>>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. As a purely subjective observation. If one cooks a raw herb formula in same proportions as a powdered extract formula and compare both to a mixture of single herb powders, you will find that they all taste different. I find raw herbs the most reliable. this is followed by powdered formulas. single herb powders are third best, but still far superior to most patents. I have also heard that the companies don't approve of this use of their products. I have heard two reasons: 1. the herbs are not all extracted at the same concentration, so dosages cannot be set merely by converting according to a factor of 5 or 6. 2. the herbs are not cooked together, so important synergistic changes that occur during cooking do not occur If 1 is true, then how come there are standard rules for adding singles to a formula. Each herb does not have a different daily dose based upon supposed concentration differences. Herbs that are does raw 3-9 grams are doses in granules at .5 -2 grams, basically a 5 or 6:1 ratio for ALL herbs. So the dosage issue seems hollow. Even if there are slight concentration variations, the range of difference must be small or the addition of single herbs could not be standardized. So I see no reason why one would not get relatively accurate dosage when combining singles. Number 2 is a trickier issue. I will concede that some losses occur due to lack of synergistic cooking. Otherwise, the various forms would taste the same. However the distinction is more like differences between red wines than comparing red wine and beer, for example. so while there are differences in wines, they all exert antioxidant effects. Same with these various forms of herbs. the differences do not come anywhere close to eliminating or dramatically altering the formulas effects. definitely not as good as raw or premade formulas, but way better than most patents in flexibility of ingredients, cost effectiveness and control of dosage. and the premade formulas have a serious drawback. they cannot have ingredients deleted. but more importantly, herb proportions cannot be varied. thus the dose of chai hu in KPC xiao chai hu tang is far too high to use for any purpose besides addressing a full blown shaoyang disorder. so if you want to adjust the dosage of this formula to use for simple liver qi depression, you are out of luck. if you are naiive to this dosage issue and just prescribe the premade formula, you run a very high risk of side effects (I know from expereince early in my career). It was for this reason that Heiner Fruehauf switched from formulas to singles and he is almost a classical zealot. In addition, this method was largely pioneered by Subhuti Dharmananda, a Ph.d. biologist who specialized in pharmacodynamics. He dismisses the case against this method for several reasons. Not the least of which is that his various research clinics began to see dramatic improvements in efficacy when using high dose combinations of singles (about 15 grams per day of formula). a final observation is that those who use the singles method are the ones who consistently report the documented changes in chronic illness that interest me. Subhuti's files are filled with such reports. those using low dose patents or premade formulas rarely report such results. I find many who rely on premade formulas tend to follow label directions uncritically. this often leads to use of doses that are far lower than those used in modern chinese research and classical literature. In my experience, these dosages are wholly inadequate for structural diseases like uterine fibroids (though apparently effective for functional disorders, many of which are self limited anyway, such as PMS). While raw herbs have all the benefits of single powders plus synergistic cooking and no losses form drying, the poor compliance results in lower overall cure rates with this form. Having said all that, I can't even remember the last time I prescribed powders. I seem to have unconsciously switched to raw herbs over the last 8 months. I have somehow managed to convince my patients to comply despite the fact that I rarely can tolerate making raw herbs myself (the tedious cooking, not the taste). I think the key to compliance is quick relief of acute symptoms. If you do that, compliance shoots up. Chinese Herbs " Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre minds " -- Albert Einstein Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 5, 2003 Report Share Posted March 5, 2003 I will concede that some losses occur due to lack of synergistic cooking. Otherwise, the various forms would taste the same >>>>You can not compare taste as extracts contain fillers etc. When you combine singles and have the patient put in boiling H2O in a cup with them is there interaction between singles? As far as compliance with raw herbs, for the first 10 years of my practice I used only raw herbs until I had some chronic patients bring me a big garbage bags full of old formulas wanting to know if they can still use them. I always ask patients did you take the herbs and several of these said they did. That is when I switched to single powders. I was not able to see a real change one way or the other as to efficacy, but one practice does not mean anything Alon 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.