Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

Granule conentration ratios

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

I had a question for those of you with granule expertise.

 

A collegue of mine who used to sell herbs for one particular company (I won't

say which

one) was told that concentration levels above 5:1 are not possible. This is what

she was

told and what she has been passing on to others:

 

" When concentrating an herb, scientists use analytical chromotography, more

specifically HPLC (high performace liquid chromotography), to measure the

relative

proportions of analytes. For example, in ginseng the analyte in the highest

concentration

is/are ginsenosides. However, those are not the only active ingredients. There

is also

amadori compounds, algycon sapogenins, etc...

 

In order for an herb company to produce a 10:1 concentration, they concentrate

the

ginsengocides (the most prevalent analyte), but they have to sacrifice some of

the other

compounds to get it to that high of a concentration. It is not simply a matter

of just

cooking the herbs and reducing until it is a 10:1 concentration. It is much

more

" laboritized " than that. (The company I deal with) go with the 5:1 ratio

because that is as

high as they (anyone) can concentrate without sacrificing the other active

ingredients. "

 

Anyone know if there is some truth to this? Or is this just some manufacturers

mumbo

jumbo aimed at selling their product?

 

Cheers,

Trevor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've discussed this a lot in the past on CHA and there are a lot of

issues involved. My understanding is that your friend is basically

correct although there are other considerations based on the herb

itself which is being concentrated. Having a 5:1 ratio as a target

seems reasonable, (perhaps conservative for some herbs) while claiming

more is better (10:1) may rightly be seen as just a marketing factor.

Doug

 

 

 

, " Trevor Erikson "

<trevor_erikson wrote:

>

> I had a question for those of you with granule expertise.

>

> A collegue of mine who used to sell herbs for one particular company

(I won't say which

> one) was told that concentration levels above 5:1 are not possible.

This is what she was

> told and what she has been passing on to others:

>

> " When concentrating an herb, scientists use analytical

chromotography, more

> specifically HPLC (high performace liquid chromotography), to

measure the relative

> proportions of analytes. For example, in ginseng the analyte in the

highest concentration

> is/are ginsenosides. However, those are not the only active

ingredients. There is also

> amadori compounds, algycon sapogenins, etc...

>

> In order for an herb company to produce a 10:1 concentration, they

concentrate the

> ginsengocides (the most prevalent analyte), but they have to

sacrifice some of the other

> compounds to get it to that high of a concentration. It is not

simply a matter of just

> cooking the herbs and reducing until it is a 10:1 concentration. It

is much more

> " laboritized " than that. (The company I deal with) go with the 5:1

ratio because that is as

> high as they (anyone) can concentrate without sacrificing the other

active ingredients. "

>

> Anyone know if there is some truth to this? Or is this just some

manufacturers mumbo

> jumbo aimed at selling their product?

>

> Cheers,

> Trevor

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trevor,

 

 

 

This is complicated question. I think the best explanation I have seen is

Andy Ellis's paper that appeared while back in the Cinnabar Creek. IS this

in the uploaded files?

 

 

 

Basically, every herb has a different optimal extraction ratio. Some may be

2:1, some maybe 3:1 or 8:1. This depends on the actual herb as well as the

specific batch of herbs used at that moment in time. For example, the ratio

will be dependent on factors such as a given batch's moisture content etc.

Since every batch is essentially different, some companies just pick a

average ratio of the herbs, e.g. 5:1. Andy also points out, as you state,

that one can make an extraction of 5:1. 10:1 or even 20 or 30:1. Note: a

10:1 ratio starts with 10lbs of herb and cooks it down to 1lb. - a 3:1 is

3lbs cooked to 1. At first site, it may seem that the higher numbers are

better, but they are not necessarily. For example, a given company might

determine that a given herb is best extracted at a 4:1. This ratio is

determined so that the constituents profile most closely matches a raw herb

decoction. Consequently, when one uses a 10:1 method one extracts

constituents in an imbalanced manner, creating higher and lower levels (for

better or worse).

 

 

 

Now this optimal extraction ratio is the magical question. As stated this is

partly to do the quality of a given batch. KPC for example, does modify its

extraction ratio batch to batch based on this information. I know there are

other companies that do not.

 

The other issue is the actual extraction techniques. China claims to have

superior techniques that allow them to perform higher extraction ratios

(without losing sacrificing quality). This may be so. However, one must

always consider the powerful icnetive called marketing.

 

 

 

For clinical comparison, I personally recommend cooking a specific formula

in bulk then comparing them to the various granulars. We have done this at

our office (with 5+ taste testers, and multiple companies) and actually had

unanimous experiences in the nature, quality and " qi " of the products. It

was very clear what we liked and did not. One of big the criteria for us

was, how close did it match the raw formula.

 

 

 

In our office we have both raw/ bulk and granulars. Unfortunately, for the

convenience of our patients, we find that most of the time raw herbs just

outperform granulars. This says to me that the technology in the field is

still developing and has a long way to go to match the efficacy of raw. I am

sure others might disagree, but this is just our opinion.

 

 

 

Eric and I were discussing all of this over tea the other day, and I think

his upcoming (and previous) studies in the field of granulars will be very

enlightening. I look forward to see what new break-through techniques come

about.

 

 

 

(for the record I have no vested interest in any company)

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of Trevor Erikson

Thursday, January 15, 2009 5:04 PM

 

Granule conentration ratios

 

 

 

I had a question for those of you with granule expertise.

 

A collegue of mine who used to sell herbs for one particular company (I

won't say which

one) was told that concentration levels above 5:1 are not possible. This is

what she was

told and what she has been passing on to others:

 

" When concentrating an herb, scientists use analytical chromotography, more

specifically HPLC (high performace liquid chromotography), to measure the

relative

proportions of analytes. For example, in ginseng the analyte in the highest

concentration

is/are ginsenosides. However, those are not the only active ingredients.

There is also

amadori compounds, algycon sapogenins, etc...

 

In order for an herb company to produce a 10:1 concentration, they

concentrate the

ginsengocides (the most prevalent analyte), but they have to sacrifice some

of the other

compounds to get it to that high of a concentration. It is not simply a

matter of just

cooking the herbs and reducing until it is a 10:1 concentration. It is much

more

" laboritized " than that. (The company I deal with) go with the 5:1 ratio

because that is as

high as they (anyone) can concentrate without sacrificing the other active

ingredients. "

 

Anyone know if there is some truth to this? Or is this just some

manufacturers mumbo

jumbo aimed at selling their product?

 

Cheers,

Trevor

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

, " Trevor Erikson "

<trevor_erikson wrote:

>

> I had a question for those of you with granule expertise.

>

> A collegue of mine who used to sell herbs for one particular company

(I won't say which

> one) was told that concentration levels above 5:1 are not possible.

 

I think that this perspective is overly simplistic, to say the least.

While I don't know anything about your friend, the simplicity of the

statement suggests that their perspective is more likely to be

influenced by the specific marketing angle of the company they worked

for, rather than a broad understanding of all the variations in

manufacturing approaches that exist on the market. In fact, the

original post actually reads like it is a marketing attack on a

specific company rather than an informed view of the granule field as

a whole.

 

Basically every company on the market (Taiwan and mainland China

alike) starts with extracts that are higher than 5:1, though there are

some exceptions with individual substances. While it is true that

some products (ginkgo biloba leaf extracts, for example) do use

isolated marker compounds as a method of determining the

" concentration ratio, " the herbal products that most of us use for

Chinese medicine do not use the concentration of isolated marker

compounds to determine the concentration ratio. Rather, the

concentration ratio is determined as a source:product ratio (S:P).

Thus, 5:1 in this context means that 5 pounds of crude drug produces 1

pound of finished product.

 

In the general dietary supplement industry (not our Chinese medicine

industry), some products do use the method of isolating active

ingredients. For example, gingko biloba leaf is often extracted with

hexane or other solvents to concentrate the active ingredients to a

concentration of 50:1. This means that the amount of active

ingredients in one gram of extract are equivalent to the amount of

active ingredients in 50 grams of whole leaf. To my knowledge, there

are not any granule companies that produce products for the TCM market

that use this type of calculation. IMHO, anyone bringing up this

extraction approach as a way of comparing the TCM products is

conflating the issue by comparing apples and oranges. The ginkgo

approach is like isolating aspirin from white willow bark, it is a

drug technique that has nothing to do with the full-spectrum extracts

used by TCM companies.

 

Chinese medicine requires full-spectrum extracts that replicate a

natural water decoction. We use many substances that have multiple

known active ingredients, and we have many other substances that have

unknown active ingredients. Because we don't even know which

constituents are the " active " ones for many TCM substances, there is

no way to produce a full line of granule extracts based on the

concentration of specific active ingredients. Only the full-spectrum

water extract is appropriate for our needs, and only the concentration

ratios of source:product are prominently used in our industry.

 

Depending on the manufacturing technique, some products use fillers

and some do not. Thus, while nearly all the Taiwanese products start

with a concentration ratio much higher than 5:1, most Taiwanese

companies use 50% starch when creating the final granules; this brings

the final concentration down to anywhere from 7:1 to 2:1. While

different products naturally have different extraction ratios and the

stickiness of different herb extracts may require different amounts of

filler, in actual practice most of the Taiwanese products have either

a 50% or 35% filler proportion across the board, with minimal variety

from product to product.

 

In Taiwan, most granules are made by making a thick, viscous

semi-liquid extract that is sprayed onto a starch carrier. This method

came from the early generation of Japanese technology used for Kampo.

It is appropriate for the mixing approach that Taiwanese doctors use,

because a fine powder is achieved that mixes evenly and has a good

shelf life. However, because the starting medium is a thick viscous

goo instead of a dry powder, it tends to require more starch filler

than the new technology that is prominent in mainland China.

 

The Chinese mainland was about 30 years behind Taiwan in its adoption

of granules. This is due in part to the PRC's comparatively later

technological revolution, but the biggest influence was the adoption

of the small extraction machines that were introduced to China from

Korea. These home extractors caught on early and became the most

prominent method of using convenient herbal medicine in China. By

contrast, the convenient Taiwanese delivery forms came from Japan,

and the local trend of combining whole granule formulas with single

herb additions most likely became prominent in Taiwan because of the

Kampo influence. The mainland prescribing style never changed because

the Korean extractors allowed for standard formula construction, and

to this day most Chinese doctors use the formula construction approach

that most of us are trained in (rather than the Taiwanese granule

method).

 

When granule technology came to China about a decade ago, doctors were

still accustomed to prescribing formulas based upon single ingredients

rather than mixing pre-made classical formulas. The granule products

thus produced there reflected the concentrated forms of standard dose

ranges of single herbs, which are generally packaged in single dose

foil packs. Additionally, extraction technology had advanced

significantly since the 40 year old Japanese technology at the

inception of the granule era, so different options were available to

the Chinese granule factories that set up shop ten years ago.

 

These two factors led to the creation of dry extracts vs. viscous goo

that needed to be diluted with starch to form a flowing powder. Now,

while the dry extracts nearly always achieve higher than a 5:1 (S:P)

concentration, they clump easily if they are packaged in a way that

allows exposure to air. In the Chinese domestic market, this isn't a

factor because the granules are sold in single dose pouches, which

require no filler. For the export market, the granules are generally

compressed and mixed with starch to dilute them to an even 5:1

concentration, then packaged in 100 or 200g bottles.

 

The exceptions are products that are exported in single-dose foil

packs or are packaged in gelcaps. Both of these methods seal the

powder without air exposure, which allows them to have a long shelf

life without clumping or filler. A 10:1 extract without filler can

only be packaged in a way that avoids air exposure, the same product

needs to be turned into a 5:1 extract with 50% filler if the storage

and style of use mandates the use of open bottles of powder. (In

fact, whatever company Trevor's friend worked for probably does

exactly this for their 5:1 extracts, assuming that the packaging

method is 100g bottles of loose granules.)

 

Anyone interested in this topic should be sure to read widely. Don't

rely on the product literature of a single company, read them all,

look between the lines, and try the actual products side by side.

 

I've been to most of the major granule factories in both Taiwan and

China, and I've been to numerous hospitals in both places that use

these products on hundreds of thousands of patients. Clearly there

are multiple effective methods in use and multiple trustworthy

manufacturers. If you see someone making blanket statements

disparaging one system or the other, consider it as a red flag. The

companies that manufacture these things do not share their trade

secrets with each other, they don't use identical techniques and

methods, but they are generally all bound by law to replicate

traditional water decoctions. I am not aware of any TCM companies

that isolate single active ingredients to determine their

concentration ratios, and I'm deeply suspicious of the motives of

anyone who would say something so broad as " nothing can get stronger

than 5:1. " That's just not true. It is easily refuted with factual

evidence.

 

IMHO, herbal companies should open label their concentration ratios.

There are a number of great companies with good products, no one has

any reason to hide behind inaccurate and anonymous blanket statements.

All the players should just openly state their methods and their

concentration ratios. I can only think of one or two companies that

voluntarily share this information with their US customers, but I'd

love to see the day when companies openly share the simple facts with

the doctors that use their products, even big pharma handles it better

than this. This subject has been covered again and again on the

Chinese Herbal Medicine, yet I still find myself constantly having to

write pages and pages just to refute basic misinformation. It is

particularly annoying when I am responding to anonymous people

spreading what I consider to be misinformation based on competitive

marketing.

 

Eric Brand

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eric, Jason, and Douglas,

 

Thanks for your informative replies.

 

Even though much as been written on this topic, especially by you

Eric, it does seem that many practitioners are still very much in the

dark when it comes to the medicines they use. I was certainly thrown

for a loop when my friend presented what she thought to be very

accurate information. She basically trusted what she was handed and

didn't question the authority of it. Just passed it on as she was told

to do. Now that she is not in a granule selling role anymore, she has

questioned the so called truths which she was handed.

 

I am thankful for these professional forums, whereby we can all learn

from the educated elite, sharing, growing, and clarifying the constant

bombardment of this information overloaded era :-)

 

Best,

Trevor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

, " "

<johnkokko wrote:

>

> I've heard that chemical(s) are used to get to the higher extraction

ratios

> (x>10:1)...

> Is this true?

 

This is absolutely not true, at least not for all the 10:1

concentrates that I've ever seen on the Chinese or US markets. For

example, Blue Poppy makes 10:1 extracts that do not use any chemical

solvents at all, they are a traditional water decoction that is

concentrated to a dry powder. 10:1 concentrations are made in the

extraction processes of Tianjiang Pharmaceuticals, E-Fong, KPC, Sun

Ten, Quali, Koda, Zhuang Song Rong, Nong's, etc. I can't think of a

single producer that cannot produce a 10:1 concentrate with at least

some Chinese herbs. Some manufacturers may later add filler that

dilutes the extract to below 10:1, but the starting extract regularly

hits 10:1 or higher with pure water alone.

 

Out of curiosity, where are people hearing this total misinformation?

 

Eric Brand

Link to comment
Share on other sites

, " Trevor Erikson "

<trevor_erikson wrote:

I was certainly thrown

> for a loop when my friend presented what she thought to be very

> accurate information. She basically trusted what she was handed and

> didn't question the authority of it. Just passed it on as she was told

> to do.

 

Scary. I wonder how often this happens.

 

> I am thankful for these professional forums, whereby we can all learn

> from the educated elite, sharing, growing, and clarifying the constant

> bombardment of this information overloaded era :-)

 

Thanks for all your participation, I love reading your posts.

 

Eric

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eric,

 

 

 

I think this below statement maybe a bit misleading. Of course any company

can make a 10:1 concentrate, but this 10:1 might not be the most accurate

for a given herb. Consequently, KPC does not make (/hit) 10:1 (/5:1) for the

majority of their herbs.

 

 

 

A large percentage of their herbs are in the range of 3:1-4:1 ratio (and if

you exclude a 50% binder, that is still 6:1-8:1 starting out.) Some of the

herbs are actually in the 2:1-3:1 range. So KPC might start with some herbs

that are 10:1, but that is only a some, they are not just starting all their

herbs out at 10:1. Nor do they want to. This variability is not a problem

clinically, for reasons I am not sure of.

 

 

 

Although, experts that I have talked with say that the more correct ratio

outweighs precise measurements in concentration ratios. Hence they are in

essence more potent / accurate if produced " properly " . They give little

consideration about dosage changes if one herb is 3:1 or 4:1. Remember even

from batch to batch with this style of company they will vary the extraction

ratio based on the quality of the herb. Which is one major reason they do

not label extraction ratios. IT would add an exponential level of confusion

to the matter. For the labeling advocate, how would you use this information

anyway? If one is 3:1 another is 4.5:1 and the next batch was 3.5:1 and 4:1.

IMHO, impossible to make use of.

 

 

 

To play devil's advocate, if we consider this perspective, I wonder how a

company can just produce 10:1 across the board. It seems self-evident that

some herbs require different ratios. This is also well documented in Western

herbalism.

 

 

 

To reiterate the reason why a company produces variable ratios, is because

" they believe " that the accurate ratio of constituents that matches a water

decoction varies from herb to herb. Sometimes this might be low 3:1. But

once there is a 3:1, there is no way to get this to 5:1, although their

company might have a reputation (as most do for marketing) for having a 5:1

straight across the board. Such a 5:1 then is just not true. This isn't as

pretty as every herb having the exact same ratio, but that is not the point.

 

 

 

In regard to taste, we have found that some companies that have higher

ratios do have much stronger tastes (have more power?), but the taste is

strange and does not match what a water decoction tastes like. I have no

idea about clinical differences between such companies. I would like to hear

other's opinion. However, as Eric as stated, there are multiple techniques

out there and one company might have some tricks / knowledge that others do

not. I look forward to more information (Eric?) about how a company (e.g.

Chinese / Blue Poppy) can make straight 10:1. Are they always starting with

10 lbs of herb and reducing to 1 lb. Or do they also use variable starting

amounts like many Taiwanese companies? How does this work with minerals?

 

 

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of Eric Brand

 

 

 

10:1 concentrations are made in the

extraction processes of Tianjiang Pharmaceuticals, E-Fong, KPC, Sun

Ten, Quali, Koda, Zhuang Song Rong, Nong's, etc. I can't think of a

single producer that cannot produce a 10:1 concentrate with at least

some Chinese herbs. Some manufacturers may later add filler that

dilutes the extract to below 10:1, but the starting extract regularly

hits 10:1 or higher with pure water alone.

 

Out of curiosity, where are people hearing this total misinformation?

 

Eric Brand

 

_

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Eric Brand <smilinglotus wrote:

 

> > She basically trusted what she was handed and

> > didn't question the authority of it. Just passed it on as she was told

> > to do.

>

> Scary. I wonder how often this happens.

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are you kidding? This is the standard in our profession!

 

As students, we simply don't have the width of exposure to assess the

quality of any information. Exceptions would include those who grow up with

a family CM doc or in an herb-savvy culture.

 

We tend to flock to those authorities who resonate with our expectations,

whatever those may be. Chinese mysticism? I've seen much more of that in the

US than I ever saw in China. :)

 

Peer-review and critical thought are not concepts that I ever learned (or

heard of) during my masters program, though they were important ideas in the

DAOM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

, " "

wrote:

They give little

> consideration about dosage changes if one herb is 3:1 or 4:1.

 

In Taiwan, the way Taiwanese doctors dose granules isn't based on a

mathematical calculation to raw herb weights. They give 15-18g to

most patients, typically given as 6g doses TID. Within this dose,

the important thing is the ratios. Whole formulas are combined

together with single herb additions. Every factor, from formula

composition to dosage, is different with the Taiwanese granule

approach.

 

The variable potency of Taiwanese granules does not offer a major

conundrum for the style of medicine that they practice there, because

the doctors aren't using concentration ratios to calculate the

granule equivalent of their raw dose weight. Instead, they have a

totally different method of formula construction and dosing standards

that are influenced by what their national insurance system will

cover.

 

In the West, we have no outside factors like insurance dictating

dosage, and we do not use whole formulas in combination as a general

rule. Thus, the way that we use granules is totally different than

the Taiwanese standard. Most of us dose based on raw formula

construction, and we use granules based on a mathematical

relationship of granules to raw herbs. For the way we prescribe in

the US, the increased transparency of open labeling would be an

advantage. If we all prescribed Taiwanese granules the way Taiwanese

doctors did, then maybe your suggestion that we all voluntarily stay

in the dark on issues of labeling and mathematical equivalence would

be a better suggestion. But the way I see people prescribing around

the US, I'd say that a little more information on the math could

hardly be a bad thing.

 

However, as Eric as stated, there are multiple techniques

> out there and one company might have some tricks / knowledge that

others do

> not. I look forward to more information (Eric?) about how a company

(e.g.

> Chinese / Blue Poppy) can make straight 10:1. Are they always

starting with

> 10 lbs of herb and reducing to 1 lb. Or do they also use variable

starting

> amounts like many Taiwanese companies? How does this work with

minerals?

 

Blue Poppy's " Classics " line of extracts are a 10:1 concentration, 10

lbs of raw herbs to 1 lb of extract. Some of their custom formulas

are 8:1 or other ratios. All of their products are whole formulas

that are cooked together, so the issue of minerals is not present in

the same way as with single herb extracts.

 

Keep in mind that companies like Sun Ten and KPC have been in

operation for over 30 years, while the technology used by Blue Poppy

is probably less than 10 years old. There are significant

differences in technology and methods in use, it is comparing apples

and oranges to suggest that the limitations of one company's

technology automatically equate to limitations across the board.

Additionally, there are no fillers/starch used in the Blue Poppy

products, so the concentration ratio can be higher than if the

extract was packaged as a loose powder (also, the initial extract is

a dry powder instead of a viscous goo, so it can concentrate higher

because there is no water weight).

 

If one is going to single out Blue Poppy in this discussion, the most

obvious thing that is striking about Blue Poppy is this:

 

Blue Poppy is the only company on the market that openly labels their

concentration ratios and the exact quantities of the different herbs

in the final product.

 

Blue Poppy is the only company on the market that uses third-party

testing for 100% of their products. All other companies only have

the COA (certificate of analysis) from the factory, whereas Blue

Poppy's products are tested by the factory as well as by independent

US labs. To my knowledge, Blue Poppy is the only company that

willingly provides the COAs of every product they produce to any

customer upon request. These COAs include information on

concentration ratios as well as heavy metals, microbiology, pesticide

residues, etc.

 

Personally, I generally prescribe loose granules to patients because

I typically work with customized prescriptions. But I have used

their capsules for patients that can't take the taste of herbs, and

I've been happy with the results. At the PCOM clinic, we have used

Blue Poppy's capsules for quite a while and the general consensus is

that they do effectively treat the TCM patterns that they are

indicated for. So no complaints on the clinical side, and if

anything, I would consider them to be a leader in the field by the

fact that they third-party test everything and they openly label all

of their products. They certainly don't participate in competitive

cheap shots like some of the companies seem to be doing with

this " can't get higher than 5:1 " nonsense, so they've got that going

for them as well.

 

Eric Brand

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eric.

 

 

 

Thanks for the response. My issue, though, is much less about the

technology, which at this point seems unclear if one is better than the

other. All that we know is there are differences. I do image though, that if

Taiwanese companies thought the new style was better I am sure they could

use it.

 

 

 

I know you are affiliated somewhat with Blue Poppy so I did not mean to seem

like I was singling them out in a anyway. I just mentioned them because of a

previous post. I do commend them for their transparency and dedication to

the medicine. I do not doubt they get clinical results, but all companies

seem to be able to say this.

 

 

 

However, My question is more about the methodology (vs technology) of using

equal extracts (e.g. 5:1) for every herb (e.g. singles). With such

overwhelming knowledge that herbs require different conditions and ratios

for optimal balance of constituents (for extraction), what is the thinking

behind having every herbs extracted at the same ratio? Sure we can say they

have new technology (less fillers etc) which might allow for higher

extractions, but that doesn't answer the question.

 

 

 

I do think there are cheap shots out there, and I am trying to avoid any of

that. But I think the conversation about what can and cannot be extracted at

higher ratios is very valid. Cleary the opinion of many experts is that

certain herbs should not be extracted to these higher ratios because this

severely changes the ratio of constituents that is extracted. Consequently

making them very different than a traditional water decoction. Obviously a

company can use 20 lbs. of herb and cook it down to 1lb, hence creating a

20:1. Is this better than a 10:1. IS a 10:1 better than a 5:1. IS a 5:1

better than a 2:1. Having this conversation is something that this whole 5:1

- 10:1 ratio debate has avoided. IMO, this is not a cheap shot, but a valid

concern, and something I would like to hear more about.

 

 

 

Finally, I am glad to hear about Blue Poppy's third party testing. But are

you saying that the third party tests the extraction ratios? This seems a

bit odd, how do they do this?

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of Eric Brand

 

 

 

 

 

Blue Poppy's " Classics " line of extracts are a 10:1 concentration, 10

lbs of raw herbs to 1 lb of extract. Some of their custom formulas

are 8:1 or other ratios. All of their products are whole formulas

that are cooked together, so the issue of minerals is not present in

the same way as with single herb extracts.

 

Keep in mind that companies like Sun Ten and KPC have been in

operation for over 30 years, while the technology used by Blue Poppy

is probably less than 10 years old. There are significant

differences in technology and methods in use, it is comparing apples

and oranges to suggest that the limitations of one company's

technology automatically equate to limitations across the board.

Additionally, there are no fillers/starch used in the Blue Poppy

products, so the concentration ratio can be higher than if the

extract was packaged as a loose powder (also, the initial extract is

a dry powder instead of a viscous goo, so it can concentrate higher

because there is no water weight).

 

If one is going to single out Blue Poppy in this discussion, the most

obvious thing that is striking about Blue Poppy is this:

 

Blue Poppy is the only company on the market that openly labels their

concentration ratios and the exact quantities of the different herbs

in the final product.

 

Blue Poppy is the only company on the market that uses third-party

testing for 100% of their products. All other companies only have

the COA (certificate of analysis) from the factory, whereas Blue

Poppy's products are tested by the factory as well as by independent

US labs. To my knowledge, Blue Poppy is the only company that

willingly provides the COAs of every product they produce to any

customer upon request. These COAs include information on

concentration ratios as well as heavy metals, microbiology, pesticide

residues, etc.

 

Personally, I generally prescribe loose granules to patients because

I typically work with customized prescriptions. But I have used

their capsules for patients that can't take the taste of herbs, and

I've been happy with the results. At the PCOM clinic, we have used

Blue Poppy's capsules for quite a while and the general consensus is

that they do effectively treat the TCM patterns that they are

indicated for. So no complaints on the clinical side, and if

anything, I would consider them to be a leader in the field by the

fact that they third-party test everything and they openly label all

of their products. They certainly don't participate in competitive

cheap shots like some of the companies seem to be doing with

this " can't get higher than 5:1 " nonsense, so they've got that going

for them as well.

 

Eric Brand

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eric and group,

 

 

 

I agree that we prescribe different than Taiwanese, but I have never met

anyone (except maybe Eric?) that suggests that if we mix singles that we

make dosage choices based on precise extraction ratios. I will ask you this

then:

 

 

 

So people want more math to do when calculating granulars? People think that

if every herb had the " exact " ratio then things would be more precise and

one would get better results. Hhhmmm.. Maybe...

 

 

 

Maybe then someone could tell me the solution to this math problem: I want a

1 week supply of herbs at 3 scoops 3 times a day. Here is the formula with

the extraction ratios (hypothetical) next to each herb.

 

 

 

* Huai niu xi 4.5:1

 

* Shan yao - 3.75:1

 

* Long gu - 1:1

 

* Mu li - 1:1

 

* Dai zhe shi - 1.2:1

 

* Sheng di huang - 2.3:1

 

* Bai zi ren - 4.8:1

 

* Bai shao - 5:1

 

 

 

What is the answer? How long did it take to figure this out?

 

After one calculates this, and charts it, just remember that the next batch

of herbs that come through might look like this.

 

 

 

* Huai niu xi - 4.3:1

 

* Shan yao - 4.5:1

 

* Long gu - 1:1

 

* Mu li - 1:1

 

* Dai zhe shi 1:1

 

* Sheng di huang 2:1

 

* Bai zi ren - 5:1

 

* Bai shao - 4.7:1

 

 

 

So the patient calls for a refill. Oh but the bottles are now different. Get

out your calculator J

 

 

 

I await a reasonable way to deal with this problem. BTW - This is precisely

why companies such as KPC have decided not to put extraction ratios (which

change batch to batch) on every single bottle. It is not that they are

trying to be secretive or deceptive, it just is not useful it prescribing.

At this point I agree with them. BTW - you can call them and get a ballpark

for any herb that you so desire. I have done this and realized it is

pointless and do not change my dosages based on this information. Maybe if I

had a physics degree I would though J

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of Eric Brand

Monday, January 19, 2009 1:33 PM

 

Re: Granule conentration ratios

 

 

 

 

<%40> , " "

wrote:

They give little

> consideration about dosage changes if one herb is 3:1 or 4:1.

 

In Taiwan, the way Taiwanese doctors dose granules isn't based on a

mathematical calculation to raw herb weights. They give 15-18g to

most patients, typically given as 6g doses TID. Within this dose,

the important thing is the ratios. Whole formulas are combined

together with single herb additions. Every factor, from formula

composition to dosage, is different with the Taiwanese granule

approach.

 

The variable potency of Taiwanese granules does not offer a major

conundrum for the style of medicine that they practice there, because

the doctors aren't using concentration ratios to calculate the

granule equivalent of their raw dose weight. Instead, they have a

totally different method of formula construction and dosing standards

that are influenced by what their national insurance system will

cover.

 

In the West, we have no outside factors like insurance dictating

dosage, and we do not use whole formulas in combination as a general

rule. Thus, the way that we use granules is totally different than

the Taiwanese standard. Most of us dose based on raw formula

construction, and we use granules based on a mathematical

relationship of granules to raw herbs. For the way we prescribe in

the US, the increased transparency of open labeling would be an

advantage. If we all prescribed Taiwanese granules the way Taiwanese

doctors did, then maybe your suggestion that we all voluntarily stay

in the dark on issues of labeling and mathematical equivalence would

be a better suggestion. But the way I see people prescribing around

the US, I'd say that a little more information on the math could

hardly be a bad thing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jason,

 

Your starting point for calculation clearly becomes more difficult with the

target of " 3 scoops, 3 times a day. " I would like to please understand your

logic behind that initial condition.

 

I've found relatively substantial differences in the density of the Kamwo

powders at the clinic where I trained, affecting the number of " scoops per dose "

depending on the individual herbs chosen even if two separate formulas have

equivalent total weights.

 

My procedure is as follows:

 

1.) Start from the mindset that one is crafting a raw decoction, and calcuate

the desired weight of each herb accordingly based on traditional proportions or

modification thereof.

 

2.) Divide each herb's " raw weight " by that herb's powdered concentration ratio

to determine how much powder goes into the formula for each full-day's dosing.

For instance, if the raw formula called for 12g of Huai Niu Xi, 12 is divided by

4.5 (based on your example ratio below) to yield an equivalent of 2.7g of powder

per day.

 

3.) The result from # 2 above is multiplied by the number of days the formula

will be used. Obviously a 7-day formula would thus be 18.9g of 4.5:1 Huai Niu

Xi into the mixing container (2.7g x 7)

 

4.) The total weight is calculated for all the herb powders put into the

formula based on steps 1-3 above. Let's say it's 160g.

 

5.) That result is divided by the number of doses needed from the formula. So

for 7 days at 3 doses/day, 160 is divided by 21 yielding a " per dose " weight of

7.6 grams.

 

6.) Finally the number of scoops of the mixed powder formula equaling 7.6g is

determined (not including the weight of the plastic scoop of course), and

labeled for the client's correct per-use dosing.

 

I welcome any/all feedback to this approach. However I do not understand how

different concentration ratios would not lead one to a change in dosage based on

that information (assuming the traditional individual herb proportions of a

raw-equivalent formula are maintained, and excluding for now your valid question

about the possibly differing constituent proportions at various extraction

ratios).

 

Thanks for a good discussion.

 

 

Regards,

 

Jamey Kowalski

St. Petersburg, FL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jason,

 

The way I prefer to use granules is exactly the way Eric described as the

" Chinese style " .

Every single herb is foil packed into predetermined average to raw doses

(ranging from 3

to 15 grams depending on the herb). Every herb has been concentrated at a

different ratio.

Every single pack is labelled with this exact concentration ratio and the

quivalent to raw

dose, making it extremely easy to replicate a raw formula. All I do is pull a

pack for each

herb in the Rx, making sure to write the Rx in a way that takes the average dose

of each

pack into account, ie Pu Gong Ying is packaged at 10g average to raw so if I

want 20

grqms, then they get 2 packs per day. Chuan Xiong is packaged at 6 g average to

raw, so

if I want 30 grams, the patient gets 5 packs per day.

 

The scoop method does not work at all for dosing in an equivalent to raw basis.

Like you

said, it is impossible to determine how much of each herb a patient is actually

getting in

their prescription and is why the Tawainese docs don't care about concentration

ratios and

have developed a different style altogether. Although I use this system

sometimes for

patient convenience, I find it frustrating because of the dosing isssue. I find

this method a

complete guessing game.

 

Trevor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jamey,

 

I think your approach is probably the most accurate in terms of producing an

equivalent to

raw Rx.

 

The issues with this that I can see would come down to:

 

a) Having to know every herbs extact concentration ratio to determine an RX,

meaning the

amount of time to pull the herbs would be increased. Meanning a pain the ass,

unless it is

computerized or you have a photographic memory!

 

b) It assumes that the patient will be able to exactly duplicate the desired

grams per scoop

as you mentioned. I mean 7.6 g doses could be tricky. Do you mark a level on the

spoon?

 

One way to get around this problem that I have seen is achieved by putting each

individual

dose into a small sachet. A local company here in Vancouver, Bema herbs, uses

technology

that will mix my Rx and then weigh out individual doses, sealing them in a small

sachet,

and thus avoiding the problems that may occur with scooping.

 

Again this is why I prefer the foil packs, albeit an environmental mess, because

there is no

filler used and every pack is sealed with averaged out daily doses that have

taken the

individual concentration ratio into account. I find running this method to be so

much

easier.

 

Trevor

 

, " Jamey Kowalski " <jamey_kowalski

wrote:

>

> Jason,

>

> Your starting point for calculation clearly becomes more difficult with the

target of " 3

scoops, 3 times a day. " I would like to please understand your logic behind

that initial

condition.

>

> I've found relatively substantial differences in the density of the Kamwo

powders at the

clinic where I trained, affecting the number of " scoops per dose " depending on

the

individual herbs chosen even if two separate formulas have equivalent total

weights.

>

> My procedure is as follows:

>

> 1.) Start from the mindset that one is crafting a raw decoction, and calcuate

the desired

weight of each herb accordingly based on traditional proportions or modification

thereof.

>

> 2.) Divide each herb's " raw weight " by that herb's powdered concentration

ratio to

determine how much powder goes into the formula for each full-day's dosing. For

instance, if the raw formula called for 12g of Huai Niu Xi, 12 is divided by 4.5

(based on

your example ratio below) to yield an equivalent of 2.7g of powder per day.

>

> 3.) The result from # 2 above is multiplied by the number of days the formula

will be

used. Obviously a 7-day formula would thus be 18.9g of 4.5:1 Huai Niu Xi into

the mixing

container (2.7g x 7)

>

> 4.) The total weight is calculated for all the herb powders put into the

formula based on

steps 1-3 above. Let's say it's 160g.

>

> 5.) That result is divided by the number of doses needed from the formula.

So for 7

days at 3 doses/day, 160 is divided by 21 yielding a " per dose " weight of 7.6

grams.

>

> 6.) Finally the number of scoops of the mixed powder formula equaling 7.6g is

determined (not including the weight of the plastic scoop of course), and

labeled for the

client's correct per-use dosing.

>

> I welcome any/all feedback to this approach. However I do not understand how

different concentration ratios would not lead one to a change in dosage based on

that

information (assuming the traditional individual herb proportions of a

raw-equivalent

formula are maintained, and excluding for now your valid question about the

possibly

differing constituent proportions at various extraction ratios).

>

> Thanks for a good discussion.

>

>

> Regards,

>

> Jamey Kowalski

> St. Petersburg, FL

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

, " "

wrote:

> Thanks for the response. My issue, though, is much less about the

> technology, which at this point seems unclear if one is better than the

> other. All that we know is there are differences. I do image though,

that if

> Taiwanese companies thought the new style was better I am sure they

could

> use it.

 

The simple fact of the matter is that not everyone uses the same

uniform technology. In Taiwan alone, companies with the same number

of decades of experience and apparently similar technology regularly

produce products of totally different concentrations. For example, I

have seen two of the most famous, reputable and trustworthy companies

produce the exact same formula with nearly a 2X difference in potency.

Each company would argue that they have been in business for decades,

have meticulously researched the ideal extraction conditions for each

product, etc.

 

Here we are talking about two of the oldest and most well-respected

companies, very comparable style of manufacture, very comparable raw

materials, same generation and style of technology. Yet a two fold

difference in potency. Is one a poorly made high concentration and

the other is ideal? Or is one ideal and the other is weak? These two

products happen to have the same amount of filler. How about brand C,

another major Taiwanese brand, which consistently has 35% filler

instead of 50% filler. Again, same generation technology, same raw

herbs, why is there such a difference in the amount of starch required

for proper granulation? And how are we as consumers better off

without access to this info?

 

These are just examples from three of the big Taiwanese companies.

All three have good products, all are reliable, all have a big

following of doctors that swear by them. I would use them all and

recommend their use without hesitation. But it is a remarkable

variation in potency, even within the same technology. I think it is

interesting that the variation exists, but I think no third party

study have ever compared them to determine which method and

concentration is truly better. Each company will tell you that they

do it the ideal way, the others are either too weak or unnaturally

strong, and in reality no third party has ever actually assessed it

all in comparison and published the data visibly.

 

I've personally tried all of these granules side by side and I will

certainly agree that it is not all about the math. There are

differences in quality and consistency that affect one's experience

more than the math. But having the math as a reference point doesn't

hurt anyone.

 

To gain a feel for the scope of this issue, put this into perspective:

A big granule company pumps out about 100,000 bottles per day. Some

companies are known for their exterior-resolving formulas, some are

known for their tonics. Others are just reliable all around. The

Taiwanese government and hospitals embrace about 5-6 main producers,

and these all produce generally top notch products. Each one varies

in quality from product to product, brand to brand. To get the best

of each, you'd probably need to buy from multiple sources.

Nonetheless, of these top 6 brands, there is wide variance in quality

and concentration ratios (2X or even more at times), despite each one

performing at the " top of the industry. " Now, there are over 100

small granule producers in Taiwan in addition to this. Think of all

the variance without even talking about mainland China and a whole

different style of technology. They can't all be the " ideal. "

 

It's a complex issue, no one company can claim to have the summary of

all the knowledge. Dozens of companies have fully equipped labs, high

tech engineers who research all these parameters of ideal extraction

for each herb. They all use the analytic and pharmaceutical standards

of the PRC Pharmacopoeia, which specifies tons of details of known

analytic and extraction standards for each herb, but beyond that they

all do their own essentially trade-secret style research. You can

visit a factory, you can see what their equipment is like, you can try

their herbs, you can get a sense for whether they are professional and

trustworthy, but you can never completely accept the pitch you get

from any single company as the final story on the science of

extraction. You need to visit multiple companies, ask widely with

targeted intelligent questions. Herb extraction is a very complex

branch in the huge Chinese pharmaceutical industry, the state of the

science is beyond what any one company or one researcher knows.

 

The simple fact of the matter is that most doctors in Taiwan don't

know anything about what's going on in China granule-wise, and vice

versa. The first time the Taiwanese and mainland Chinese granule

suppliers have ever really interacted is here in America, and now we

as consumers are trying to objectively assess which products are best

for our needs. It is simplistic to suggest that all of the

comparatively high concentration methods used in mainland China are

inferior, or that the variable and sometimes lower concentrations of

the Taiwanese granules are inferior. Both have merit.

 

We are talking about an industry with hundreds of millions of dollars

in research. You talk about the pu gong ying diarrhea thing like it

is just a big mistake of over concentration by an ill-researched

mainland Chinese granule company. That granule company supplies

basically every hospital in China, they are larger than any single

granule company in the world and they definitely have a research

division that assesses stuff like pu gong ying extraction. Every

Chinese textbook says pu gong ying causes mild diarrhea at high doses,

it is a normal side effect of the herb, the point is that the side

effect shows that the granules may be stronger than their equivalent

raw herbs, it doesn't mean that the company that supplies 300 million

patients still hasn't figured out how to properly boil their dandelion.

 

Eric Brand

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eric,

 

 

 

I am in no way suggesting that Taiwanese granulars are across the board

superior to Chinese. That is not my point. I think it is clear there is a

wide variety in techniques. I get that, and that is particularly my point.

There is also different methodologies in processing (as you also point out]

that need to be rectified. AS you state they all can't be ideal. I could

care less which ones are better and worse, but there are clearly companies

that are making crap and others that are not. Hence I bring up one of the

major issues that I see and await further discussion on it.

 

 

 

We can't ignore the question because the field is too big and there are

multiple methods. These are questions we must directly ask our suppliers. I

have. When it comes to making equal extracts or variable extracts, one must

be superior when compared to bulk (even with varying technologies). This

answer may be different when it comes to clinical outcomes, but that is a

different issue than what I bring up.

 

 

 

As far as pu gong ying. I stick to my critique. I present possible reasons

for explanation. I do not (and will not) just blindly accept some " Chinese "

research especially when every doctor that I have talked to in China says

otherwise. (I understand there are others that disagree). But I think china

is still on the bulk train.

 

 

 

I also have had enough experience in China to know that much of the

research is BS. It is completely plausible to 'doctor' research or to find a

situation where side-effects can be misinterpreted as potency and widely

publicize to promote a style or company. Granulars are far in the minority

in China and anything they can do to carve out sectors of the market will be

done without thinking twice (ethical or not). Call me jaded, but that is my

experience there (and here). Are you suggesting since the largest granular

company in China put out research that supports their product that this

cannot be flawed. Especially since they have hundreds of millions dollars

behind them. Hhhmmm.

 

 

 

As previous stated, out of all the ways to compare granular to bulk, this pu

gong ying 'research' seems fishy to me. The basic premise for the research

seems flawed. One can easily make powerful extracts (of certain

constituents) but that does not mean they are balanced or even useful

clinically. Do you have a copy of the research so we can see it and evaluate

it?

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of Eric Brand

Wednesday, January 21, 2009 12:37 AM

 

Re: Granule conentration ratios

 

 

 

 

<%40> , " "

wrote:

> Thanks for the response. My issue, though, is much less about the

> technology, which at this point seems unclear if one is better than the

> other. All that we know is there are differences. I do image though,

that if

> Taiwanese companies thought the new style was better I am sure they

could

> use it.

 

The simple fact of the matter is that not everyone uses the same

uniform technology. In Taiwan alone, companies with the same number

of decades of experience and apparently similar technology regularly

produce products of totally different concentrations. For example, I

have seen two of the most famous, reputable and trustworthy companies

produce the exact same formula with nearly a 2X difference in potency.

Each company would argue that they have been in business for decades,

have meticulously researched the ideal extraction conditions for each

product, etc.

 

Here we are talking about two of the oldest and most well-respected

companies, very comparable style of manufacture, very comparable raw

materials, same generation and style of technology. Yet a two fold

difference in potency. Is one a poorly made high concentration and

the other is ideal? Or is one ideal and the other is weak? These two

products happen to have the same amount of filler. How about brand C,

another major Taiwanese brand, which consistently has 35% filler

instead of 50% filler. Again, same generation technology, same raw

herbs, why is there such a difference in the amount of starch required

for proper granulation? And how are we as consumers better off

without access to this info?

 

These are just examples from three of the big Taiwanese companies.

All three have good products, all are reliable, all have a big

following of doctors that swear by them. I would use them all and

recommend their use without hesitation. But it is a remarkable

variation in potency, even within the same technology. I think it is

interesting that the variation exists, but I think no third party

study have ever compared them to determine which method and

concentration is truly better. Each company will tell you that they

do it the ideal way, the others are either too weak or unnaturally

strong, and in reality no third party has ever actually assessed it

all in comparison and published the data visibly.

 

I've personally tried all of these granules side by side and I will

certainly agree that it is not all about the math. There are

differences in quality and consistency that affect one's experience

more than the math. But having the math as a reference point doesn't

hurt anyone.

 

To gain a feel for the scope of this issue, put this into perspective:

A big granule company pumps out about 100,000 bottles per day. Some

companies are known for their exterior-resolving formulas, some are

known for their tonics. Others are just reliable all around. The

Taiwanese government and hospitals embrace about 5-6 main producers,

and these all produce generally top notch products. Each one varies

in quality from product to product, brand to brand. To get the best

of each, you'd probably need to buy from multiple sources.

Nonetheless, of these top 6 brands, there is wide variance in quality

and concentration ratios (2X or even more at times), despite each one

performing at the " top of the industry. " Now, there are over 100

small granule producers in Taiwan in addition to this. Think of all

the variance without even talking about mainland China and a whole

different style of technology. They can't all be the " ideal. "

 

It's a complex issue, no one company can claim to have the summary of

all the knowledge. Dozens of companies have fully equipped labs, high

tech engineers who research all these parameters of ideal extraction

for each herb. They all use the analytic and pharmaceutical standards

of the PRC Pharmacopoeia, which specifies tons of details of known

analytic and extraction standards for each herb, but beyond that they

all do their own essentially trade-secret style research. You can

visit a factory, you can see what their equipment is like, you can try

their herbs, you can get a sense for whether they are professional and

trustworthy, but you can never completely accept the pitch you get

from any single company as the final story on the science of

extraction. You need to visit multiple companies, ask widely with

targeted intelligent questions. Herb extraction is a very complex

branch in the huge Chinese pharmaceutical industry, the state of the

science is beyond what any one company or one researcher knows.

 

The simple fact of the matter is that most doctors in Taiwan don't

know anything about what's going on in China granule-wise, and vice

versa. The first time the Taiwanese and mainland Chinese granule

suppliers have ever really interacted is here in America, and now we

as consumers are trying to objectively assess which products are best

for our needs. It is simplistic to suggest that all of the

comparatively high concentration methods used in mainland China are

inferior, or that the variable and sometimes lower concentrations of

the Taiwanese granules are inferior. Both have merit.

 

We are talking about an industry with hundreds of millions of dollars

in research. You talk about the pu gong ying diarrhea thing like it

is just a big mistake of over concentration by an ill-researched

mainland Chinese granule company. That granule company supplies

basically every hospital in China, they are larger than any single

granule company in the world and they definitely have a research

division that assesses stuff like pu gong ying extraction. Every

Chinese textbook says pu gong ying causes mild diarrhea at high doses,

it is a normal side effect of the herb, the point is that the side

effect shows that the granules may be stronger than their equivalent

raw herbs, it doesn't mean that the company that supplies 300 million

patients still hasn't figured out how to properly boil their dandelion.

 

Eric Brand

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jason,

 

although I understand and agree with your point about granules being

unbalanced by possibly missing certain valuable medicinal compounds,

and that raw is obviously always going to be superior, I personally

would be leary of a granule that could NOT produce the loose bowel as

mentioned.

 

I actually use, and have been taught to view, Pu Gong Ying's ability

to loosen the bowel at higher doses as a therapeutic effect, rather

than an unwanted side effect. This goes for other herbs like Sheng Bai

Zhu and Sheng Di Huang. There ability to loosen the bowel can be a

very important and useful to tool in patient care.

 

On the other hand, since the bowel loosening effect of Pu Gong Ying is

usually noticed at the higher raw dose range (over 18g), if the

granulation of Pu Gong Ying loosened the bowel at really low doses

then I would be suspicious that the granulation is very unbalanced.

What I have found clinically is that the bowel loosening function

(although not always reliable) is induced after the 20g equivalent to

raw dose when using the E Feng packets, which seems to be very similar

to how people react to the raw.

 

Obviously the Pu Gong Ying granule would have to be judged on its

other attributes in clinical setting, other than just loosening the

bowel. So in terms of noticing its ability to help resolve fire toxin

manifesting as pompholox eczema or as pustular acne, I have seen it

preform quite well.

 

Personally I would love to use only raw materials, as this is the

route that I was taught by many teachers to trust. But for now the

convenience of granules has its hold on me and so I make the best of

it by paying good attention to how patients respond to the meds I give

them. So far I am seeing fairly good results with granules, as long as

I dose them high enough. Some of the granule companies, like sun ten

and KPC, recommend 6-10g a day of their powders as a recommended dose,

but in clinical reality I don't see this to be the case. I usually see

more changes after 14+/ day. This goes for everything from psoriasis,

acne, eczema, seasonal allergic rhinnitis, dysmenorhea and delayed

menstrual cycles, etc. When dosed appropriately I have witnessed many

changes with these conditions using granules, meaning that the active

constitutes within the granule must be in some type of working order :-)

 

Trevor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point exactly.

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of Trevor Erikson

Wednesday, January 21, 2009 9:49 AM

 

Re: Granule conentration ratios

 

 

On the other hand, since the bowel loosening effect of Pu Gong Ying is

usually noticed at the higher raw dose range (over 18g), if the

granulation of Pu Gong Ying loosened the bowel at really low doses

then I would be suspicious that the granulation is very unbalanced.

What I have found clinically is that the bowel loosening function

(although not always reliable) is induced after the 20g equivalent to

raw dose when using the E Feng packets, which seems to be very similar

to how people react to the raw.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trevor,

 

 

 

There is no doubt that granulars can deliver clinical results. The issue I

have is distinguishing between various companies techniques and

methodologies. Which company do you personally use that you like?

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of Trevor Erikson

Wednesday, January 21, 2009 9:49 AM

 

Re: Granule conentration ratios

 

 

 

Jason,

 

although I understand and agree with your point about granules being

unbalanced by possibly missing certain valuable medicinal compounds,

and that raw is obviously always going to be superior, I personally

would be leary of a granule that could NOT produce the loose bowel as

mentioned.

 

I actually use, and have been taught to view, Pu Gong Ying's ability

to loosen the bowel at higher doses as a therapeutic effect, rather

than an unwanted side effect. This goes for other herbs like Sheng Bai

Zhu and Sheng Di Huang. There ability to loosen the bowel can be a

very important and useful to tool in patient care.

 

On the other hand, since the bowel loosening effect of Pu Gong Ying is

usually noticed at the higher raw dose range (over 18g), if the

granulation of Pu Gong Ying loosened the bowel at really low doses

then I would be suspicious that the granulation is very unbalanced.

What I have found clinically is that the bowel loosening function

(although not always reliable) is induced after the 20g equivalent to

raw dose when using the E Feng packets, which seems to be very similar

to how people react to the raw.

 

Obviously the Pu Gong Ying granule would have to be judged on its

other attributes in clinical setting, other than just loosening the

bowel. So in terms of noticing its ability to help resolve fire toxin

manifesting as pompholox eczema or as pustular acne, I have seen it

preform quite well.

 

Personally I would love to use only raw materials, as this is the

route that I was taught by many teachers to trust. But for now the

convenience of granules has its hold on me and so I make the best of

it by paying good attention to how patients respond to the meds I give

them. So far I am seeing fairly good results with granules, as long as

I dose them high enough. Some of the granule companies, like sun ten

and KPC, recommend 6-10g a day of their powders as a recommended dose,

but in clinical reality I don't see this to be the case. I usually see

more changes after 14+/ day. This goes for everything from psoriasis,

acne, eczema, seasonal allergic rhinnitis, dysmenorhea and delayed

menstrual cycles, etc. When dosed appropriately I have witnessed many

changes with these conditions using granules, meaning that the active

constitutes within the granule must be in some type of working order :-)

 

Trevor

 

 

 

 

Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com

Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.10/1906 - Release 1/21/2009

7:07 AM

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure the argument of new technology holds. For example sheng chang has

a new manufacturing facility in which they use German technology. I think its

more about the market they serve

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trevor

 

At 14+gm/day what are your instructions to your patients. Are they

measuring out 5+gm 3 times per day? What are the meassuring with? For

myself, depending upon the formula, 4gm can be fairly strong tasting.

 

Turiya Hill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jason,

 

In clinic we have a well stocked pharmacy of E Feng packets, which is

what I primarily use and I have been happy with the results.

 

I also use Sun Ten through a dispensing company called Bema

botanicals. They have two technologies that I like. The first being

the ability to dose exact weights into little biodegradable sachets,

making it easy for the client to just tear it open, empty and add

boiling water. They also have both a tablet and capsule machine for

the people with strong bad taste aversions or for those who are

travelling. Bema is able to get the herbs, no matter how they are

dispensed, to the client within 24 hours usually.

 

Obviously it is more expensive for the client having a third party

dispensory. Sun Ten is a taiwanese company and do use fillers, so I

tend to use whole formulas with a few single herb additions when using

their herbs. When I use E Feng I am writing the Rx from scratch (my

preferred route).

 

Trevor

 

, " "

wrote:

>

> Trevor,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...