Guest guest Posted June 30, 2007 Report Share Posted June 30, 2007 The PCOM clinic recently ran out of whole dang gui for a day or so because of an ordering fluke. In discussing substitution, an interesting topic came up- can dang gui wei (Chinese angelica tails) be substituted for whole dang gui? As we all know, the tails are more blood-quickening while the head is more supplementing- the whole root harmonizes the blood by both supplementing and moving. So here's the crux of the discussion: Many Chinese language materia medicas say that dang gui wei breaks blood, while others simply say that it quickens the blood. Notably, the 5th edition " student's book " Chinese materia medica (a little green Chinese book that has long been considered the main authority where testing and such is concerned in China), the new 7th edition teacher's book (by the editor of the 5th edition teacher's book- a major expert in the PRC), and the well-known yellow hardbound reference series (also by PMPH) all ascribe a blood-breaking effect to dang gui wei. These three texts are arguably the greatest modern authorities, but another 3-5 important Chinese texts don't use the phrase blood-breaking, so the jury is split on the issue. Jiao Shu-De and Andy Ellis (presumably the editor who made the footnote in the text) both also mentioned the word blood-breaking in the context of dang gui wei. On the other hand, Bob Damone and Tan Tan Huang, two of PCOM's most respected teachers, both told me that they thought dang gui wei was not that dramatically different, and could be considered as a possible substitute until the new batch arrived. I had always assumed that they couldn't be substituted, because some of the materia medica descriptions used the stronger phrase " blood-breaking, " which neither Bob nor Tan Tan strongly associated with dang gui wei. Their perspective is natural since the difference between the body of the main root and the distal root is very slight, and furthermore it appears some chemical studies have shown their composition to be similar. The main root and tails both have similar effects in vitro on uterine tissue, suggesting that their action is not dramatically different in this regard. So clearly there are two perspectives on this. One group of books indicates a more moderate blood-moving action, while the other group indicates a stronger action. The boss at the herb shop that I apprenticed in always described it as blood-breaking, but he was educated the traditional way without any modern " TCM " influence and his opinions on many things are not exactly standard. Bob and Tan Tan both take the more moderate position that the tendency of supplementing and moving occurs on a less extreme continuum, and the two products probably aren't so dramatically different. So my question is, does anyone have any strong opinions or experiences that would lend weight to one perspective or the other? How different do we perceive the body and tail of dang gui to be from each other? On the one hand, I'm inclined to think that the difference cannot be too terribly dramatic, since the two medicinals are virtually the same product. On the other hand, I also know that ginseng heads are thought to be chemically similar to ginseng body, and modern research similarly does not strongly support their traditional distinction. Yet I would never think to substitute ginseng heads for ginseng body. An interesting quandrary. In the end, I substituted the granule form for the one day that we were out, but the scenario provoked me to think about it and check some books out. Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2007 Report Share Posted July 1, 2007 I would tend to agree with you, Bob and Tan Tan Huang. I could see the distinction as a 2 nd Century marketing point. " We only use the tails for blood Breaking. Modern research has shown it to be superior to using the whole herb! " Doug , " Eric Brand " <smilinglotus wrote: > > The PCOM clinic recently ran out of whole dang gui for a day or so > because of an ordering fluke. In discussing substitution, an > interesting topic came up- can dang gui wei (Chinese angelica tails) > be substituted for whole dang gui? As we all know, the tails are more > blood-quickening while the head is more supplementing- the whole root > harmonizes the blood by both supplementing and moving. So here's the > crux of the discussion: > > Many Chinese language materia medicas say that dang gui wei breaks > blood, while others simply say that it quickens the blood. Notably, > the 5th edition " student's book " Chinese materia medica (a little > green Chinese book that has long been considered the main authority > where testing and such is concerned in China), the new 7th edition > teacher's book (by the editor of the 5th edition teacher's book- a > major expert in the PRC), and the well-known yellow hardbound > reference series (also by PMPH) all ascribe a blood-breaking effect to > dang gui wei. These three texts are arguably the greatest modern > authorities, but another 3-5 important Chinese texts don't use the > phrase blood-breaking, so the jury is split on the issue. Jiao Shu-De > and Andy Ellis (presumably the editor who made the footnote in the > text) both also mentioned the word blood-breaking in the context of > dang gui wei. > > On the other hand, Bob Damone and Tan Tan Huang, two of PCOM's most > respected teachers, both told me that they thought dang gui wei was > not that dramatically different, and could be considered as a possible > substitute until the new batch arrived. I had always assumed that > they couldn't be substituted, because some of the materia medica > descriptions used the stronger phrase " blood-breaking, " which neither > Bob nor Tan Tan strongly associated with dang gui wei. Their > perspective is natural since the difference between the body of the > main root and the distal root is very slight, and furthermore it > appears some chemical studies have shown their composition to be > similar. The main root and tails both have similar effects in vitro > on uterine tissue, suggesting that their action is not dramatically > different in this regard. > > So clearly there are two perspectives on this. One group of books > indicates a more moderate blood-moving action, while the other group > indicates a stronger action. The boss at the herb shop that I > apprenticed in always described it as blood-breaking, but he was > educated the traditional way without any modern " TCM " influence and > his opinions on many things are not exactly standard. Bob and Tan Tan > both take the more moderate position that the tendency of > supplementing and moving occurs on a less extreme continuum, and the > two products probably aren't so dramatically different. > > So my question is, does anyone have any strong opinions or experiences > that would lend weight to one perspective or the other? How different > do we perceive the body and tail of dang gui to be from each other? > > On the one hand, I'm inclined to think that the difference cannot be > too terribly dramatic, since the two medicinals are virtually the same > product. On the other hand, I also know that ginseng heads are > thought to be chemically similar to ginseng body, and modern research > similarly does not strongly support their traditional distinction. > Yet I would never think to substitute ginseng heads for ginseng body. > An interesting quandrary. In the end, I substituted the granule > form for the one day that we were out, but the scenario provoked me to > think about it and check some books out. > > Eric > 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.