Guest guest Posted May 19, 2008 Report Share Posted May 19, 2008 Dears, An aromatherapist friend sent me a link to this article: http://users.erols.com/sisakson/pages/synergy.htm She was really excited about this point of view, which is not surprising since, besides being an incredibly gifted natural perfumer, she is also working on her PhD in biochemistry. I am not sure I share her excitement, though. It seems to me (especially in the light of recent discussions on what is and isn't aromatherapy and natural vs. synthetic) that the claims in the article that the best synergies are created based on the chemical profile of the oil, are simply not true. This raises a couple of issues for me: a) I would appreciate your comments on the article, if you think it's even worthy of critiquing; and b) how do you personally go about creating a perfect synergy? Thank you very much in advance, Nika Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2008 Report Share Posted May 19, 2008 Nika, First off I'm in the middle of transcribing, and have not read the article. I know that there is some scientific explanation of the reason that something works well with another thing, however,for me it's very " intuitive " I know what I like and I know what I don't like... If I think it needs something usually it will pop into my head. Granted that's only for me. For me synergy comes with knowing what scents complement each other. It's likened unto the color wheel in art. You have your primary colors, your secondary colors, tertiary colors and so on. And after a while of working with something you get to know the nuances of why this color complements that color, and why a blue based purple does not go with an orange based red. So in working with aromatherapy overtime your nose and person can get accustomed to the " palette " of scents and Jennifer. > - > Nika Franchi > 03:34 pm > ATFE2 > [ATFE2] Synergy? > > Dears, > > An aromatherapist friend sent me a link to this article: > http://users.erols.com/sisakson/pages/synergy.htm > > She was really excited about this point of view, which is not surprising > since, besides being an incredibly gifted natural perfumer, she is also > working on her PhD in biochemistry. I am not sure I share her > excitement, though. It seems to me (especially in the light of recent > discussions on what is and isn't aromatherapy and natural vs. synthetic) > that the claims in the article that the best synergies are created based > on the chemical profile of the oil, are simply not true. > > This raises a couple of issues for me: > > a) I would appreciate your comments on the article, if you think it's > even worthy of critiquing; and > b) how do you personally go about creating a perfect synergy? > > Thank you very much in advance, > Nika > > --- > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2008 Report Share Posted May 20, 2008 Hi Nika . . . :-) The AGORA pages were created by an internet online community originating from the 'idma' aromatherapy mailing list beginning around 1994-up to the present. This idea was the wonderful brainchild of Michel Vanhove in France (he was then in The Netherlands) and many of us contributed by writing articles and by hosting them on our websites all around the globe. The articles are not peer-reviewed and you will note the copyright of 1999 on this one. Much has been challenged about aromatherapy knowledge since that time, especially the lack of scientific verification of essential oil chemotypes and chemical constituents eliciting certain physiological actions in the human body or amelioration of specific ailments and disease. While there are lots of theories and anecdotal information; there are few comprehensive or published scientific studies to back these theories. Essential oil chemistry is considered a primary component of aromatherapy training, however, the aromatherapy community has not created national or international standards based on good research that clearly substantiates claims of effects based on chemistry. The International Journal of Clinical Aromatherapy http://www.ijca.net/index.php is probably the most up to date source of evidence-based aromatherapy information with a peer-review board. The failure of the aromatherapy community to go through the process with ISO to properly establish standards is now a travesty since there are so many regulatory agencies in lockstep with Codex Alimentarius and EU regulations that could possibly inhibit access to essential oils and many might end up on the 'dangerous' list because these regulators aren't very well versed in essential oils, especially vs. their synthetic counterparts. The article is probably worth a critical look, now almost 10 years later. I'm not sure any of us here could answer your part b) question with any real certitude. When blending for aromatherapy, I use Martin Watt's Essential Oil Safety Manual, the IJCA and Bob Harris' original database of research to establish total percentages of any chemical constituent that needs caution, however, I am well aware that we do not know much about the synergistic effects of combining the same (or different) chemicals from a range of different essential oils by blending. The journal Aromatherapy Today has some well researched and annotated articles, but doesn't have a widely based peer review process, either. Don't mean to be pessimistic, however, I do regret the lack of diligence with our aromatherapy organizations (some now defunct and many just dysfunctional) to create proper standards, thus credibility for the art/practice of aromatherapy. Robert Tisserand is publishing a new essential oil safety book in the near future. I hope this addresses the idea of synergy and safety in a comprehensive manner. Be well, Marcia Elston Samara Botane/Nature Intelligence, est. 1988 <http://www.wingedseed.com/> http://www.wingedseed.com Online 3/95 <http://www.aromaconnection.org/> http://www.aromaconnection.org Group Blog 2/07 " Only after the last tree has been cut; only after the last river has been poisoned; only after the last fish has been caught; only then will you find that money cannot be eaten. " Cree Prophecy _____ ATFE2 [ATFE2 ] On Behalf Of Nika Franchi Monday, May 19, 2008 1:34 PM ATFE2 [ATFE2] Synergy? Dears, An aromatherapist friend sent me a link to this article: http://users. <http://users.erols.com/sisakson/pages/synergy.htm> erols.com/sisakson/pages/synergy.htm She was really excited about this point of view, which is not surprising since, besides being an incredibly gifted natural perfumer, she is also working on her PhD in biochemistry. I am not sure I share her excitement, though. It seems to me (especially in the light of recent discussions on what is and isn't aromatherapy and natural vs. synthetic) that the claims in the article that the best synergies are created based on the chemical profile of the oil, are simply not true. This raises a couple of issues for me: a) I would appreciate your comments on the article, if you think it's even worthy of critiquing; and b) how do you personally go about creating a perfect synergy? Thank you very much in advance, Nika Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2008 Report Share Posted May 20, 2008 Jennifer, Thanks for your reply. My process is similar to yours. I do know my oils - their smells, their properties, their " personalities " . So when I go about creating a blend I first contemplate it for a while, thinking and doing research (going through my books and manuals) on the therapeutic properties of the oils I intend to use, and then I choose the oils that have the properties I seek, work well together and will smell good in a blend (yes, sort of like a color wheel). But then occasionally while mixing a blend I get a strong urge to add a certain oil that I haven't planned on - the picture that always pops in my head is one of a little kid who is so eager to show off his knowledge that he starts jumping up and down in front of you just to attract your attention. Usually I would check on this oil and it would turn out that it can either tighten my blend or smooth it or in some other way make it better. I guess this urge really is intuition. But first definitely comes my research and experience. (Actually, the same exact thing happens to me in the kitchen (and I am very proud to be considered a gourmet cook), especially with my use of spices. I never use pre-mixed blends but have a huge spice collection. I add my spices very much on a whim - but my creativity is certainly based on my extensive knowledge of world cuisines. ) But I digress. Going back to the article. It states: >>For instance, many spice oils can have very beneficial effects in treating conditions such as rheumatism and arthritis, yet these oils can cause a toxic reaction with some people >>and some skin types. Thus, by careful blending of oils, the toxic side effects can be reduced and, in some cases, eliminated. >> I am not aware of any way to actually eliminate " the toxic side effects " of any oil. I suspect that these spice oils are mostly the ones that, according to Plant Aromatics, are not safe to use on skin, unless they've been tampered with in a lab (the proper English word for this process escapes me now), sort of like Bergamot FCF. But eliminate? Can this be true? The article goes on to say: >>for instance, if you want an antispasmodic, you should go for oils with esters, phenolic ethers, sesquiterpenes, or phenols.>> It was my understanding that although we do have a fair amount of information on many of our oils, it is the stuff that we don't know that makes EOs such a unique and powerful material to work with, otherwise, like Butch argued a couple of weeks ago, why don't we use synthetics? To sum my objections up: I am not at all trying to fight the idea of a scientific approach to AT. I'm just questioning the scientific reasoning and research that went into this particular article. Best, Nika pixieladie wrote: > Nika, > > First off I'm in the middle of transcribing, and have not read the > article. I know that there is some scientific explanation of the reason > that something works well with another thing, however,for me it's very > " intuitive " I know what I like and I know what I don't like... If I > think it needs something usually it will pop into my head. Granted > that's > only for me. For me synergy comes with knowing what scents complement > each other. It's likened unto the color wheel in art. You have your > primary colors, your secondary colors, tertiary colors and so on. And > after a while of working with something you get to know the nuances of > why > this color complements that color, and why a blue based purple does > not go > with an orange based red. So in working with aromatherapy overtime your > nose and person can get accustomed to the " palette " of scents and > > > Jennifer. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2008 Report Share Posted May 20, 2008 Hey Nika I'm probably going to say the same thing Marcia did, but this is what I do. When I make a synergy, I choose out a bunch of oils that I like and then I try to match them up in ways that no one chemical component out weighs all the others. In other words, I like to make sure I don't have a ketone or ester etc loaded combination but something balanced. At least as balanced as I can get it. I don't get obsessive about it. That's what I do. K On 5/19/08, Nika Franchi <nikafranchi wrote: > > Jennifer, > > Thanks for your reply. My process is similar to yours. I do know my oils > - their smells, their properties, their " personalities " . So when I go > about creating a blend I first contemplate it for a while, thinking and > doing research (going through my books and manuals) on the therapeutic > properties of the oils I intend to use, and then I choose the oils that > have the properties I seek, work well together and will smell good in a > blend (yes, sort of like a color wheel). But then occasionally while > mixing a blend I get a strong urge to add a certain oil that I haven't > planned on - the picture that always pops in my head is one of a little > kid who is so eager to show off his knowledge that he starts jumping up > and down in front of you just to attract your attention. Usually I > would check on this oil and it would turn out that it can either tighten > my blend or smooth it or in some other way make it better. I guess this > urge really is intuition. But first definitely comes my research and > experience. > > (Actually, the same exact thing happens to me in the kitchen (and I am > very proud to be considered a gourmet cook), especially with my use of > spices. I never use pre-mixed blends but have a huge spice collection. I > add my spices very much on a whim - but my creativity is certainly based > on my extensive knowledge of world cuisines. ) But I digress. > > Going back to the article. > > It states: > >>For instance, many spice oils can have very beneficial effects in > treating conditions such as rheumatism and arthritis, yet these oils can > cause a toxic reaction with some people >>and some skin types. Thus, by > careful blending of oils, the toxic side effects can be reduced and, in > some cases, eliminated. >> > > I am not aware of any way to actually eliminate " the toxic side effects " > of any oil. I suspect that these spice oils are mostly the ones that, > according to Plant Aromatics, are not safe to use on skin, unless > they've been tampered with in a lab (the proper English word for this > process escapes me now), sort of like Bergamot FCF. But eliminate? Can > this be true? > > The article goes on to say: > >>for instance, if you want an antispasmodic, you should go for oils > with esters, phenolic ethers, sesquiterpenes, or phenols.>> > > It was my understanding that although we do have a fair amount of > information on many of our oils, it is the stuff that we don't know that > makes EOs such a unique and powerful material to work with, otherwise, > like Butch argued a couple of weeks ago, why don't we use synthetics? > > To sum my objections up: I am not at all trying to fight the idea of a > scientific approach to AT. I'm just questioning the scientific reasoning > and research that went into this particular article. > > Best, > Nika > > pixieladie <pixieladie%40sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > Nika, > > > > First off I'm in the middle of transcribing, and have not read the > > article. I know that there is some scientific explanation of the reason > > that something works well with another thing, however,for me it's very > > " intuitive " I know what I like and I know what I don't like... If I > > think it needs something usually it will pop into my head. Granted > > that's > > only for me. For me synergy comes with knowing what scents complement > > each other. It's likened unto the color wheel in art. You have your > > primary colors, your secondary colors, tertiary colors and so on. And > > after a while of working with something you get to know the nuances of > > why > > this color complements that color, and why a blue based purple does > > not go > > with an orange based red. So in working with aromatherapy overtime your > > nose and person can get accustomed to the " palette " of scents and > > > > > > Jennifer. > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2008 Report Share Posted May 20, 2008 Hi Marcia, nice to see you again. I remember both the AGORA pages and the IDMA list. Boy, that was a loooooong Internet time ago. 1999. Wow. I actually missed the date on this article and might've never written my original post had I realized that it was that old and outdated. >>Much has been challenged about aromatherapy knowledge since that >>time, especially the lack of scientific verification of essential oil >>chemotypes and chemical constituents eliciting certain physiological actions >>in the human body or amelioration of specific ailments and disease. >> But certainly the pharmaceutical industry has done research into physiological actions of _identifiable constituents_ of EOs, haven't they (although I realize it may not be available to us)? And if it's just the identifiable constituents that define the actions of the oils, why do we keep insisting on using natural essential oils rather than their chemical replicas, for which we do know their actions? Regardless of existence/lack of research on known constituents, it seems like since there is so much more to EOs than just their " known " chemical composition, aren't we really going by more or less anecdotal evidence - which may or may not be supported by the existing research? In which case, even if we do check available scientific data, how can we truly state that we produce synergies based on chemotypes rather than anything other than anecdotal evidence or intuition? I really do appreciate your thoughts on these issues. I am trying to figure out to which extent I really need to catch up on my chemistry. As a related but separate issue I will also really appreciate everyone's ideas on books regarding chemistry of essential oils. It's been 25 years since I took a decent course in chemistry, and it's probably time for me to read up on it, at least to some extent. Cheers, Nika Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2008 Report Share Posted May 20, 2008 Kathleen, Seeing what you and Marcia have to say I'm starting to think I really do need to read up on my chemistry. In self-defense I can only say that I'm not a professional aromatherapist but just a very enthusiastic home practitioner. Any ideas on good AT chemistry books per chance? Thanks, Nika Kathleen Petrides wrote: > Hey Nika > > I'm probably going to say the same thing Marcia did, but this is what > I do. > > When I make a synergy, I choose out a bunch of oils that I like and then I > try to match them up in ways that no one chemical component out weighs all > the others. In other words, I like to make sure I don't have a ketone or > ester etc loaded combination but something balanced. At least as > balanced as > I can get it. I don't get obsessive about it. > > That's what I do. > > K > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2008 Report Share Posted May 20, 2008 No, but at one point I made a simplistic chart that a lot of folk found useful. It's gone missing off my site, but hang on a minute.... yeah I was right, I once let someone put it up on her site and after rummaging around google, it's still there. You can take a peek if you like. I didn't take a hard look to see if all was the same... it's dinner time. ;-) http://www.users.qwest.net/~blackburns/smeLLeNNium2.html K On 5/19/08, Nika Franchi <nikafranchi wrote: > > Kathleen, > > Seeing what you and Marcia have to say I'm starting to think I really do > need to read up on my chemistry. In self-defense I can only say that I'm > not a professional aromatherapist but just a very enthusiastic home > practitioner. > > Any ideas on good AT chemistry books per chance? > > Thanks, > Nika > > Kathleen Petrides wrote: > > > Hey Nika > > > > I'm probably going to say the same thing Marcia did, but this is what > > I do. > > > > When I make a synergy, I choose out a bunch of oils that I like and then > I > > try to match them up in ways that no one chemical component out weighs > all > > the others. In other words, I like to make sure I don't have a ketone or > > ester etc loaded combination but something balanced. At least as > > balanced as > > I can get it. I don't get obsessive about it. > > > > That's what I do. > > > > K > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2008 Report Share Posted May 20, 2008 I have just uploaded a scan of a chemical abstracts article on this subject. It is in the files section in a new folder. It's not very good but just readable. I do have other papers where researchers have indicated a synergistic action and if I come across them will also put them in that folder. Martin Watt http://www.aromamedical.com ATFE2 , " Kathleen Petrides " <Beadhussy wrote: > > No, but at one point I made a simplistic chart that a lot of folk found > useful. It's gone missing off my site, but hang on a minute.... yeah I was > right, I once let someone put it up on her site and after rummaging around > google, it's still there. You can take a peek if you like. I didn't take a > hard look to see if all was the same... it's dinner time. ;-) > > http://www.users.qwest.net/~blackburns/smeLLeNNium2.html > > K 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.