Granule conentration ratios

[Guest guest]

Turiya,

 

When I am dosing at 14g/ day I am usually using Sun Ten's herbs as

dispensed from Bema botanitcals. They out the herbs into little 7g

sachets for me, which the patient will take 2 of a day.

 

I have never had a problem using granules at 7, 8, or even 10 gram

doses per each drinking. The people who have aversions to the taste of

herbs usually have an aversion even to 2g doses. For these folks I

have tablets custom made by the same company.

 

Trevor

 

, " turiyahill " <turiya

wrote:

>

> 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

>

[Guest guest]

I also get good compliance with powdered extracts. Dosage is typically

12 - 30 grams per day. Fairly rare for somebody to request that I put

them in capsules.

 

- Bill

 

 

 

, " Trevor Erikson "

<trevor_erikson wrote:

>

> Turiya,

>

> When I am dosing at 14g/ day I am usually using Sun Ten's herbs as

> dispensed from Bema botanitcals. They out the herbs into little 7g

> sachets for me, which the patient will take 2 of a day.

>

> I have never had a problem using granules at 7, 8, or even 10 gram

> doses per each drinking. The people who have aversions to the taste of

> herbs usually have an aversion even to 2g doses. For these folks I

> have tablets custom made by the same company.

>

> Trevor

>

> , " turiyahill " <turiya@>

> wrote:

> >

> > 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

> >

>

[Guest guest]

, " "

wrote:

> As far as pu gong ying. I stick to my critique.

 

Just let go of the pu gong ying thing. I wasn't referring to an

unnaturally low dose of pu gong ying causing side effects, I'm talking

about granules taken at a high dose to replicate high dose pu gong

ying, and saying that the granules may be even more potent. It is

just an example, don't turn a molehill into a mountain. It doesn't

foster group participation if someone can't even make a trivial point

in passing without feeling like people are gonna dive into a big

argument about every little thing.

 

I think CHA has many readers who lurk in the background and don't

participate precisely because they don't want someone to pick a fight

about any random thing they happen to say. I wasn't making a big deal

out of the pu gong ying thing, I was just trying to offer a little

feedback to a question about dose equivalency, next time I feel like I

shouldn't bother to offer anything at all. I am not a pu gong ying

expert but I guarantee that there are plenty of people employed by

granule companies that have the training in chemistry necessary to

know how to approach its extraction. If you happen to have true pu

gong ying expertise to offer or if you know of some basic chemical

principles that show the standard methods of extracting pu gong ying

are all wrong, feel free to offer some useful knowledge to the group.

But don't just play the devil's advocate and twist every random

comment into some big deal about why all of China has Chinese herbal

science all wrong. No one will want to participate if people just

argue for the sake of arguing.

 

But I think china

> is still on the bulk train.

 

Certainly a lot of doctors everywhere still prefer raw herbs. I don't

think anyone has ever claimed that any method is better than old

fashioned raw herbs. To the contrary, basically everyone in mainland

China and Taiwan still thinks raw is best. But compliance is poor

with raw herbs, that is why people explore other options. We're just

trying to share ideas here, we aren't trying to get in a mental kungfu

battle with every post. At least I'm not.

 

Eric

[Guest guest]

Eric,

 

 

 

Maybe your comment was in passing and trivial. I figured if I thought it was

interesting enough to think about and comment on then others probably did

also. Sorry if you feel it should not be 'dissected'. I personally do not

think anything is 'trivial' otherwise why would you say it?

 

 

 

But I think, right or wrong, the concept that granulars are more potent than

bulk (even if 1 herb) warrants investigation via critical thinking. Without

evaluating such statements properly we can all of a sudden have people

saying, " I heard from source XYZ that granulars are stronger and more

effective than bulk. " I think it was you who asked where does all the

misinformation come from? It is from people not being clear with their

thoughts and sources, as well as people just riffing (not that you doing any

of that). However, everything, especially in writing, needs to be critically

evaluated, and made as clear as possible. If you feel my concerns and

criticism are too harsh then next time please feel free to site were the

citation comes from, let us evaluate the research, and bow out. I think

everything we say and think should be challenged, period.

 

 

 

For example, if someone says treatment X is effective, I will always ask

where is this information from / how do we know this? An answer may come

from many realms, from personal experience, or from 'heard it from a friend'

to a double blind study. Qualifying information is essential for progression

of medicine. After knowing the source we can ask questions to help further

evaluate how true a statement might be. We all know that medicine is fraught

with misinformation and poorly presented 'statistics'. I personally am

skeptical about most things I hear. IMO, it is our JOB to think critically

and the first step it to try to explain things that seem contrary to normal

experience. This pu gong ying might be no big deal, but the basic

methodology you present for determining potency compared to raw herbs is

just IMHO flawed. I do not need a biochemical degree to ask the questions

and come up with possible explanations for interpretation of the 'data.' I

also have no qualms about admitting I am wrong about such an issue when

there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

 

 

 

Finally, I feel like I have brought up very valid concerns about the

granulars (in relation to extraction ratios) and as often happens the

original question never gets addressed and somehow the conversation gets

deviated into long drawn out red herring emails. Actually 'my' concerns and

criticism are not from me at all, but leaders in the field, with much more

experience than most of us on the list. Therefore I feel they are very worth

discussing. Maybe people feel that none of this should be debated, but I

have personally enjoyed the responses from others and look forward to

further comments. But I can tell Eric is done with this thread for the

moment, so I will wait until it comes up at a later date.

 

 

 

CHA does have many lurkers, as does every group. But this may be partly

because of people asking questions such as where is it from? Our field has a

strong reputation of MSU and one thing I value about the CHA is our group's

ability to ask questions and think critically and not swallow everything

hook line and sinker. This may not be for everyone, but after spending time

on some of the many other Chinese medicine groups this element of critical

questioning and thinking is greatly appreciated. IMO, this really keeps the

reins on some very out their stuff. For better or worse, right? I know it

has been a criticism of others on this group before. I welcome Doug (the

moderator) to contact me if he feels my way of thinking is out of line.

 

 

 

Sorry for the long message,

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of Eric Brand

Thursday, January 22, 2009 5:17 PM

 

Re: Granule conentration ratios

 

 

 

 

<%40> , " "

wrote:

> As far as pu gong ying. I stick to my critique.

 

Just let go of the pu gong ying thing. I wasn't referring to an

unnaturally low dose of pu gong ying causing side effects, I'm talking

about granules taken at a high dose to replicate high dose pu gong

ying, and saying that the granules may be even more potent. It is

just an example, don't turn a molehill into a mountain. It doesn't

foster group participation if someone can't even make a trivial point

in passing without feeling like people are gonna dive into a big

argument about every little thing.

 

I think CHA has many readers who lurk in the background and don't

participate precisely because they don't want someone to pick a fight

about any random thing they happen to say. I wasn't making a big deal

out of the pu gong ying thing, I was just trying to offer a little

feedback to a question about dose equivalency, next time I feel like I

shouldn't bother to offer anything at all. I am not a pu gong ying

expert but I guarantee that there are plenty of people employed by

granule companies that have the training in chemistry necessary to

know how to approach its extraction. If you happen to have true pu

gong ying expertise to offer or if you know of some basic chemical

principles that show the standard methods of extracting pu gong ying

are all wrong, feel free to offer some useful knowledge to the group.

But don't just play the devil's advocate and twist every random

comment into some big deal about why all of China has Chinese herbal

science all wrong. No one will want to participate if people just

argue for the sake of arguing.

 

But I think china

> is still on the bulk train.

 

Certainly a lot of doctors everywhere still prefer raw herbs. I don't

think anyone has ever claimed that any method is better than old

fashioned raw herbs. To the contrary, basically everyone in mainland

China and Taiwan still thinks raw is best. But compliance is poor

with raw herbs, that is why people explore other options. We're just

trying to share ideas here, we aren't trying to get in a mental kungfu

battle with every post. At least I'm not.

 

Eric

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

hmmmm... well, CHA has had the pleasure of this impressive exchange

between two really impressive figures. Eric and Jason, you both

constantly amaze me with the depth of your knowledge and passion

towards each subject you take on.

 

There is no need to apologize... in my view, the granule question will

remain a question as long as we have the privilege of using raw herbs

to compare them to. I just throw up my hands when faced with trying to

explain how to dose granules. (I use what is on the box so to speak) I

see the issues (and I've kind of forgotten what they are) as pretty

unresolvable. Therefore I especially admire and tip my hat for the

attempt to unravel the connection between what has been in the books

for a few thousand years and the technological developments of the

last 50 years.

 

At some point, (if not now or perhaps it has already happened),

granules will be their own " standard " . Many questions continue to

remain, perhaps we, (CHA- Eric, Jason, Trevor, Al, Alon and all who

contributed to this long thread) will revisit it.

 

Doug

[Guest guest]

This is a very good discussion and I learned a lot from you guys.

 

I'm not sure if everyone is aware of the debates about the dosage of raw

herbs.

Basically the dosage that used in Shang Han Lun is about 5-10 times stronger

(raw herbs to raw herbs) then today's textbook.

 

Each side has their supporters, but most people will agree that the correct

composition ratio of herbs in a formula is much more important then the

exact dosage of each individual herbs. This is especially true for the

formulas in Shang Han Lun because there each formula has its special ratio.

If you prescribe a formula using the ratio of 1:1:1:1.. for all different

herbs, then I guess the dosage become more important here.

 

This is why most Taiwanese doctors I know do not pay too much attention to

concentration ratios (once they choose a brand), but they will avoid mixing

granules from different brand into one formula. If they don't get a good

result from it, either double/triple the dosage in the formula, or re-exam

the patient and change the formula.

 

 

On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 11:35 PM, wrote:

 

> hmmmm... well, CHA has had the pleasure of this impressive exchange

> between two really impressive figures. Eric and Jason, you both

> constantly amaze me with the depth of your knowledge and passion

> towards each subject you take on.

>

> There is no need to apologize... in my view, the granule question will

> remain a question as long as we have the privilege of using raw herbs

> to compare them to. I just throw up my hands when faced with trying to

> explain how to dose granules. (I use what is on the box so to speak) I

> see the issues (and I've kind of forgotten what they are) as pretty

> unresolvable. Therefore I especially admire and tip my hat for the

> attempt to unravel the connection between what has been in the books

> for a few thousand years and the technological developments of the

> last 50 years.

>

> At some point, (if not now or perhaps it has already happened),

> granules will be their own " standard " . Many questions continue to

> remain, perhaps we, (CHA- Eric, Jason, Trevor, Al, Alon and all who

> contributed to this long thread) will revisit it.

>

> Doug

>

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

They also do not use single herbs to make formulas

 

 

400 29th St. Suite 419

Oakland Ca 94609

 

 

 

alonmarcus

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Who is they?

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of alon marcus

Saturday, January 24, 2009 11:53 AM

 

Re: Granule conentration ratios

 

 

 

They also do not use single herbs to make formulas

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

In taiwan

 

 

400 29th St. Suite 419

Oakland Ca 94609

 

 

 

alonmarcus

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

If the powdered extract is made by using water as a solvent, then it

should have a very similar constituent profile to a decoction. The

same thing is happening in both cases: water extracts the medicinal

compounds, and the remainder is thrown in the compost pile. With the

powdered extract, the drying is just an additional step.

 

- Bill Schoenbart

 

 

>

> although I understand and agree with your point about granules being

> unbalanced by possibly missing certain valuable medicinal compounds,

[Guest guest]

Bill,

 

 

 

This is not necessary true, there are many factors that determine the ratio

of constituents, and this is the whole debate. Just because someone uses

water as solvent does not guarantee anything.

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of bill_schoenbart

Monday, January 26, 2009 12:23 PM

 

Re: Granule conentration ratios

 

 

 

If the powdered extract is made by using water as a solvent, then it

should have a very similar constituent profile to a decoction. The

same thing is happening in both cases: water extracts the medicinal

compounds, and the remainder is thrown in the compost pile. With the

powdered extract, the drying is just an additional additional step.

 

- Bill Schoenbart

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " bill_schoenbart "

<plantmed2 wrote:

>

> If the powdered extract is made by using water as a solvent, then it

> should have a very similar constituent profile to a decoction. The

> same thing is happening in both cases: water extracts the medicinal

> compounds, and the remainder is thrown in the compost pile. With the

> powdered extract, the drying is just an additional step.

 

The interesting thing is, it is only really because of the granule

industry and its water-based extracts that we know what we know about

the chemistry of decoctions in the first place. The main area where

the decoction process is mimicked with lab analysis is in the research

department of granule companies.

 

China has an official pharmacopoeia that contains detailed information

about thousands of substances, their national pharmacopoeia is in fact

a mixture of herbal, animal, and mineral crude drugs (Chinese

traditional medicinal substances) and modern pharmaceuticals. It is a

3 volume set published by People's Medical Publishing House (PMPH),

priced for academic institutions at something like $800. It has

information on the chemistry, extraction procedures, drug analysis and

use, TLC and HPLC assessment, microscopic assessment, etc. It is the

definitive work on the topic and contains the core material that is

used by all the lab companies that do testing analysis on Chinese

medicinals as well as by all the pharmaceutical companies that make

granules in both mainland China and Taiwan.

 

Where does this data all come from? Apparently a significant portion

of the TLC (thin layer chromatography) analytical standards that are

used for identification purposes in the Chinese pharmacopoeia were

actually done by China's largest granule company. Really the main

labs for decocting authenticated Chinese medicinals for analysis are

either the granule labs themselves or academic institutions such as

that of Hong Kong Baptist University. I suspect that the situation in

the US is not much different, much of the scientific information that

is published on pharmaceutical chemistry comes from either labs in

academic institutions or the pharmaceutical companies themselves.

 

When I really heard that the TLC ID standards used by the government

actually came from a granule company, I was both surprised and not

surprised. For better or worse, the distance between the state and

private industry is not always very wide anywhere in the world, US and

China alike. All the world uses the Chinese pharmacopoeia as the base

standard for all things related to Chinese medicine. Fundamentally

China's largest granule companies have a lot of government connections

and SATCM (State Administration of TCM) support, so I wasn't really

surprised when I heard that they contributed to the TLC section of the

national standard.

 

In yet another illustration of how hard it sometimes is to separate

science, government, and the private sector, I recently saw two whole

books on the subject of granule research (comparing granules to raw).

One book was published by the publishing branch of China's SATCM

(State Administration of TCM), but nearly all the studies used

granules from a single supplier. However, nearly all of the hospitals

in the country using granules (I heard over 1000 hospitals now) use

the same granules from said company.

 

Just as our field here is a close community at the top of the field,

so is the Chinese community of Chinese medicine in China. The people

that run the big hospitals, big publishing companies, and big

pharmaceutical companies all know each other, they have worked

together earlier in their careers, they see each other at conferences,

they all occupy the same network. Obviously there is inherent bias

present, but essentially the situation is probably exactly the same

with the pharmaceutical, university, and trade organizations for WM

here in America. Its just how it is, we know about the constituents

of herbs/actions of drugs because labs analyze them. Some labs are

private and some use public funds, and all can be biased or ethical

and fair.

 

Interestingly, these two books have hundreds of summaries on clinical

research comparing raw herbs and granules. Because mainland Chinese

hospitals mix granule formulas from singles instead of boiling the

formulas together, this research also compares the differences between

cooking the herbs together in a home decoction vs. mixing singles. At

a glance, some of the studies have better designs than others and I'm

sure that selection bias may exist, but clearly a lot of people have

looked at the issue.

 

I am personally a strong proponent of cooking the herbs together. Thus

I prefer to use the Taiwanese prescribing style of starting from base

formulas that have been cooked together. I'll be in Taiwan in a few

weeks so I will try to find some more research that looks into it from

this angle. (I believe that the awesome Jiao Shu-De Ten Lectures on

Formulas book by Paradigm contains an interesting reference to this

concept in the bu zhong yi qi tang monograph, if memory serves.) Yet

despite the fact that I prefer using whole formulas that have been

cooked together, I cannot let my own bias prevent me from noticing one

simple fact: hundreds of thousands of patient visits in China are

managed by granule powders (most above 5:1, incidentally). Clearly

there is therapeutic value.

 

Chinese doctors are often conservative to change by nature, and the

doctors there have a lot of experience using raw herbs. If the

granules weren't working reasonably well, people would notice. Of

course many doctors in mainland China and Taiwan eschew granules, but

a significant number of doctors are generally resistant to any changes

(some doctors even still rely almost exclusively on classical

formulas, for example). Nearly all doctors prefer raw herbs but most

concede that granules have their place. I would say the general

consensus is that they work, there is a huge body of evidence that

supports granule efficacy in both mainland China and Taiwan, despite

their different respective approaches.

 

As an aside, it should be noted that many companies that produce

extracts in China for the US or other export markets do boil the herbs

together in a traditional decoction (for example, Blue Poppy, Nuherbs,

and Nong's all do this). This is something of a fusion between the

Taiwanese approach and the Chinese technology. However, these

compound formulas are rarely available in mainland hospitals.

 

For people who want to read some of the studies (Chinese only), the

two books I found are called " clinical use of granulated Chinese

medicinals for formulations " zhongyao peifang keli, linchuang yingyong

by the SATCM press (zhongguo zhongyiyao chubanshe) and " use and

research of concentrated Chinese medicinal granules " zhongyao nongsuo

keli de linchuang yingyong yu yanjiu by PMPH (renmin weisheng

chubanshe). (btw, I haven't come across the pu gong ying research

citation in there yet, but it was done by the Shandong University

Hospital in Jinan, China, don't have a way to check it b/c I'm on the

road.)

 

Eric Brand

[Guest guest]

Another area to consider is what is lost in the dehydrating process.

Perhaps there are some constituents that are sensitive to this process

and don't make it to the final granulated product.

 

Some herbs like Da Huang are only traditionally cooked for a couple

minutes and I have heard that when dehydrated there is nothing left

because the original brew was too watery. In this situation granule

companies will mix in some of the raw ground herb as a filler. Even

though I have seen that granulations of Da Huang work very well in

promoting a bowel movement, I wonder about other effects that are

perhaps lost.

 

For example, Jiu Da Huang can be a good herb to bring heat down away

from the face when treating acne, particularly when the face is

flushed. When using the granulation of this particular herb, I have

questioned its effectiveness as the results have not always been

great. I really haven't used it that often yet so I don't have the

greatest opinion, but nevertheless it is still a question that I seek

to answer.

 

And then, on the other hand, I remember being told that aromatic herbs

lose a lot of their punch when made into granules because of the

delicacy of the oils within them. But I have to say that I had

enormous success in treating many cases of Allergic Rhinnitis this

last spring, 2008, using granular modifications of Cang Er Zi Tang, a

formula rich in aromatic oils. So obviously many of the so called

sensitive herbs still managed to keep their potency through the

granule making process.

 

 

Trevor

 

, " "

wrote:

>

> Bill,

>

>

>

> This is not necessary true, there are many factors that determine

the ratio

> of constituents, and this is the whole debate. Just because someone uses

> water as solvent does not guarantee anything.

>

>

>

> -Jason

>

 

> On Behalf Of bill_schoenbart

> Monday, January 26, 2009 12:23 PM

>

> Re: Granule conentration ratios

>

>

>

> If the powdered extract is made by using water as a solvent, then it

> should have a very similar constituent profile to a decoction. The

> same thing is happening in both cases: water extracts the medicinal

> compounds, and the remainder is thrown in the compost pile. With the

> powdered extract, the drying is just an additional additional step.

>

> - Bill Schoenbart

>

 

[Guest guest]

In term so of singles versus compounded formulas, this has always been

a issue for me that I have not been able to resolve. On the one hand

it is easy to understand that new chemical compounds will be created

when herbs are cooked together and that these compounds will have an

effect on the treatment. So on this level, I agree that using whole

formulas with granules make sense.

 

But then I have watched one of my mentors, who is Taiwanese, make his

own traditional honey pills using fresh ground powders mixed together.

These herbs are not cooked together, they are only mixed together, and

the end results for the patients taking them was usually very positive.

 

In my own personal clinical experience with granules, I have found

greater results when I can make my own formulas from singles,

especially when treating atopic eczema or psoriasis. This could be due

to dosing, as when I use the singles the patient is usually getting a

much higher dose of granule than when I use the scooping of pre-made

formula method. It could also be related to how I am combining

multiple formulas and singles together, and that I need more time to

perfect this. I would love to sit in on some Docs in Taiwan who use

granules, particularly for dermatologic problems, and see how they

(the herbs and the Doctor himself) work.

 

Trevor

[Guest guest]

I use the dried extracts as standard pre-made formulas and also mix

singles to make up formulas. Both seem to work well.

 

- Bill

 

 

, " Trevor Erikson "

<trevor_erikson wrote:

>

> In term so of singles versus compounded formulas, this has always been

> a issue for me that I have not been able to resolve. On the one hand

> it is easy to understand that new chemical compounds will be created

> when herbs are cooked together and that these compounds will have an

> effect on the treatment. So on this level, I agree that using whole

> formulas with granules make sense.

>

> But then I have watched one of my mentors, who is Taiwanese, make his

> own traditional honey pills using fresh ground powders mixed together.

> These herbs are not cooked together, they are only mixed together, and

> the end results for the patients taking them was usually very positive.

>

> In my own personal clinical experience with granules, I have found

> greater results when I can make my own formulas from singles,

> especially when treating atopic eczema or psoriasis. This could be due

> to dosing, as when I use the singles the patient is usually getting a

> much higher dose of granule than when I use the scooping of pre-made

> formula method. It could also be related to how I am combining

> multiple formulas and singles together, and that I need more time to

> perfect this. I would love to sit in on some Docs in Taiwan who use

> granules, particularly for dermatologic problems, and see how they

> (the herbs and the Doctor himself) work.

>

> Trevor

>

[Guest guest]

, " bill_schoenbart "

<plantmed2 wrote:

>

> I use the dried extracts as standard pre-made formulas and also mix

> singles to make up formulas. Both seem to work well.

 

This is my experience as well. Both approaches seem to be highly

effective.

 

Thanks for your posts, I'm with you on basically all the points that

you've raised.

 

Eric

[Guest guest]

Please explain. If water is used as a solvent in making an extract, it

should have a similar profile to a decoction, which is also a water

extract. Things get strange when other solvents are used, especially

when the whole thing is run through a column to concentrate certain

compounds. This typically isn't done with aqueous extracts.

 

- Bill

 

 

 

 

, " "

wrote:

>

> Bill,

>

>

>

> This is not necessary true, there are many factors that determine

the ratio

> of constituents, and this is the whole debate. Just because someone uses

> water as solvent does not guarantee anything.

>

>

>

> -Jason

>

 

> On Behalf Of bill_schoenbart

> Monday, January 26, 2009 12:23 PM

>

> Re: Granule conentration ratios

>

>

>

> If the powdered extract is made by using water as a solvent, then it

> should have a very similar constituent profile to a decoction. The

> same thing is happening in both cases: water extracts the medicinal

> compounds, and the remainder is thrown in the compost pile. With the

> powdered extract, the drying is just an additional additional step.

>

> - Bill Schoenbart

>

 

[Guest guest]

Bill,

 

 

 

As mentioned there are many variables that can severely alter the " profile " .

Please consult past CHA messages that discuss this, as well as Andy Ellis's

recent essay on granulars.

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of bill_schoenbart

Saturday, January 31, 2009 9:02 PM

 

Re: Granule conentration ratios

 

 

 

Please explain. If water is used as a solvent in making an extract, it

should have a similar profile to a decoction, which is also a water

extract. Things get strange when other solvents are used, especially

when the whole thing is run through a column to concentrate certain

compounds. This typically isn't done with aqueous extracts.

 

- Bill

 

 

<%40> , " "

wrote:

>

> Bill,

>

>

>

> This is not necessary true, there are many factors that determine

the ratio

> of constituents, and this is the whole debate. Just because someone uses

> water as solvent does not guarantee anything.

>

>

>

> -Jason

>

 

<%40>

> [

<%40> ] On Behalf Of bill_schoenbart

> Monday, January 26, 2009 12:23 PM

>

<%40>

> Re: Granule conentration ratios

>

>

>

> If the powdered extract is made by using water as a solvent, then it

> should have a very similar constituent profile to a decoction. The

> same thing is happening in both cases: water extracts the medicinal

> compounds, and the remainder is thrown in the compost pile. With the

> powdered extract, the drying is just an additional additional step.

>

> - Bill Schoenbart

>

 

[Guest guest]

Jason,

 

I have seen the messages, but I haven't seen the evidence. In the

absence of comparative chromatograms, it's just an opinion. The only

way to make a definitive statement is to compare HPLC and HPTLC

chromatograms.

 

- Bill

 

 

, " "

wrote:

>

> Bill,

>

>

>

> As mentioned there are many variables that can severely alter the

" profile " .

> Please consult past CHA messages that discuss this, as well as Andy

Ellis's

> recent essay on granulars.

>

>

>

> -Jason

>

>

>

>

>

>

> On Behalf Of bill_schoenbart

> Saturday, January 31, 2009 9:02 PM

>

> Re: Granule conentration ratios

>

>

>

> Please explain. If water is used as a solvent in making an extract, it

> should have a similar profile to a decoction, which is also a water

> extract. Things get strange when other solvents are used, especially

> when the whole thing is run through a column to concentrate certain

> compounds. This typically isn't done with aqueous extracts.

>

> - Bill

>

>

> <%40> , " "

> <@> wrote:

> >

> > Bill,

> >

> >

> >

> > This is not necessary true, there are many factors that determine

> the ratio

> > of constituents, and this is the whole debate. Just because

someone uses

> > water as solvent does not guarantee anything.

> >

> >

> >

> > -Jason

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> <%40>

> > [

> <%40> ] On Behalf Of

bill_schoenbart

> > Monday, January 26, 2009 12:23 PM

> >

> <%40>

> > Re: Granule conentration ratios

> >

> >

> >

> > If the powdered extract is made by using water as a solvent, then it

> > should have a very similar constituent profile to a decoction. The

> > same thing is happening in both cases: water extracts the medicinal

> > compounds, and the remainder is thrown in the compost pile. With the

> > powdered extract, the drying is just an additional additional step.

> >

> > - Bill Schoenbart

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Bill,

 

 

 

I have seen many comparative studies / articles that discuss the differences

using methods such as HPLC. I would contact Andy or others if you need the

more technical proof of this discussion. It is a bit much for this

discussion board and my time.

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of bill_schoenbart

Sunday, February 01, 2009 2:58 PM

 

Re: Granule conentration ratios

 

 

 

Jason,

 

I have seen the messages, but I haven't seen the evidence. In the

absence of comparative chromatograms, it's just an opinion. The only

way to make a definitive statement is to compare HPLC and HPTLC

chromatograms.

 

- Bill

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jason,

 

If you have seen these articles, could you provide links? Making a

blanket statement that aqueous dried extracts are different from

decoctions needs some evidence to back it up. Simply stating that you

have " seen articles " or that " Andy says so " does not constitute

evidence. This is an important issue that requires scientific

evidence, since it is a science issue that is being discussed.

 

- Bill

 

 

, " "

wrote:

>

> Bill,

>

>

>

> I have seen many comparative studies / articles that discuss the

differences

> using methods such as HPLC. I would contact Andy or others if you

need the

> more technical proof of this discussion. It is a bit much for this

> discussion board and my time.

>

>

>

> -Jason

>

>

>

>

>

>

> On Behalf Of bill_schoenbart

> Sunday, February 01, 2009 2:58 PM

>

> Re: Granule conentration ratios

>

>

>

> Jason,

>

> I have seen the messages, but I haven't seen the evidence. In the

> absence of comparative chromatograms, it's just an opinion. The only

> way to make a definitive statement is to compare HPLC and HPTLC

> chromatograms.

>

> - Bill

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Bill,

 

 

 

Sorry you will have to hunt these down yourself, I do not have time, sorry I

brought it up. For me, it is just common sense and knowledge that the two

(aqueous dried extracts & decoctions) can be vastly different. Most of what

I have seen has been in journals (not links) and many in Chinese. I read

these years ago. As stated, Andy makes a clear presentation of this idea,

and he may have the actual studies more handy. I do not keep this stuff

lying around. I am also sure Western herbalism has this info. Check there.

BTW- Andy is one of the most experienced and knowledgeable experts in the

west on the subject, therefore his word is pretty strong. But as stated in

my previous email, don't take his word for it, contact him and get the

studies.

 

 

 

But contemplate this, the mere fact that different ratios of extraction

exist for different herbs, says 1 thing, that ratio matters. If ratio

matters (and companies do debate which ones are best) then CLEARY one can

make a " aqueous dried extract " that differs from a decoction. Therefore

since many companies are doing things drastically differently at this point

(different technologies, different ratios, determining proper ratios on

different constituents) then is common sense (at least to me), that some of

these are going to differ more than others when compared to decoctions. Are

you saying that every company out there has a product that is identical to a

decoction? Of course this is not true, therefore we can make the statement

that just because someone makes a aqueous dried extract that it will not

inherently be identical to a decoction. Some may be closer to others.

Clinically also this is quite obvious to me. So I have no need to say

anything more or hunt down studies. Thanks for the dialogue.

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of bill_schoenbart

Sunday, February 01, 2009 9:29 PM

 

Re: Granule conentration ratios

 

 

 

Jason,

 

If you have seen these articles, could you provide links? Making a

blanket statement that aqueous dried extracts are different from

decoctions needs some evidence to back it up. Simply stating that you

have " seen articles " or that " Andy says so " does not constitute

evidence. This is an important issue that requires scientific

evidence, since it is a science issue that is being discussed.

 

- Bill

 

 

<%40> , " "

wrote:

>

> Bill,

>

>

>

> I have seen many comparative studies / articles that discuss the

differences

> using methods such as HPLC. I would contact Andy or others if you

need the

> more technical proof of this discussion. It is a bit much for this

> discussion board and my time.

>

>

>

> -Jason

>

>

>

>

>

>

<%40>

> [

<%40> ] On Behalf Of bill_schoenbart

> Sunday, February 01, 2009 2:58 PM

>

<%40>

> Re: Granule conentration ratios

>

>

>

> Jason,

>

> I have seen the messages, but I haven't seen the evidence. In the

> absence of comparative chromatograms, it's just an opinion. The only

> way to make a definitive statement is to compare HPLC and HPTLC

> chromatograms.

>

> - Bill

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I would like to review Andy Ellis's essay on granular. Could you please

direct myself and the group to its whereabouts.

 

Thanks so much,

 

Jennifer

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " bill_schoenbart "

<plantmed2 wrote:

>

> Jason,

>

> If you have seen these articles, could you provide links? Making a

> blanket statement that aqueous dried extracts are different from

> decoctions needs some evidence to back it up. Simply stating that you

> have " seen articles " or that " Andy says so " does not constitute

> evidence. This is an important issue that requires scientific

> evidence, since it is a science issue that is being discussed.

 

I strongly agree with Bill that scientific issues require

investigation and evidence. Jason, you often advocate challenging

ideas and assumptions and are generally keen to request that others

provide citations and supporting evidence to back up their viewpoint.

So it is a bit disappointing that you tell Bill to go dig up the

information himself after you say that you've seen multiple supporting

articles on the topic.

 

You are correct that Andy Ellis has written a nice essay on this

topic, and I would be among the first to point out that Andy is very

knowledgeable on the topic of granules. However, as much as I like

Andy and respect his expertise, one essay published in the product

literature of one commercial granule company is not sufficient

evidence for a mature scientific debate.

 

Andy's article can be found in the Notes from Cinnabar Creek published

by Golden Flower Chinese Herbs, it is a provocative read. Bob Flaws,

another noted expert in the field, has published an article from Blue

Poppy that challenges many of the points implied by Andy's article,

and is another essential article on this topic. The Evergreen catalog

(the product literature of yet another vested interest) displays a

HPLC chart that shows that their products are higher in certain

constituents than some of their competitors. Remarkably, the product

literature of every company tends to suggest that their own products

are the best.

 

The advancement of the discussion requires us to move beyond the level

of " Andy says, Bob says, John says. " Generally a mature academic

debate requires that evidence be presented to challenge the prevailing

scientific opinion. Currently, overwhelming evidence supports the

fact that full-spectrum water extracts as made by granule companies

are chemically similar to (gasp) conventional full-spectrum water

extracts. Sure, you can add different excipients and dilute this

extract to different degrees, but much of this dilution has to do with

business decisions such as delivery style rather than science.

Granules in Taiwan are colloquially known as " ke xue zhong yao, "

(scientific Chinese medicine)- specifically, the science of producing

granules is the effective replication of the traditional water

decoction. You test which constituents come out in ideal lab

conditions, replicate it on a commercial scale, and test to ensure

that the final product conforms.

 

True, different companies use different excipients and achieve

different concentration ratios. But we need to move beyond asking the

salesmen and start actually looking at the issue scientifically. For

this, we need concrete examples and data. It is easy to barrage

someone with questions and demand evidence, but it actually requires

time and effort to collect information that adds to the group's

understanding.

 

If everyone thinks the world is round and I say it is flat, typically

I would be the one that would need to produce evidence that shows that

the world is indeed flat, since the prevailing scientific evidence of

our time suggests that the world is round. At present, there is an

overwhelming amount of data to support the herbal science that guides

extraction and granulation. If you think that a large group of these

companies and scientists have it all wrong, it would be helpful if you

could supply perhaps even a single example or two that shows that some

of these granule technologies produce products that do not reflect the

constituents yielded by a traditional water decoction.

 

Eric Brand

[Guest guest]

Eric,

 

 

 

It is true that I ask regularly for citations. It is an important step. If

someone does not have them, one can qualify the argument anyway they like.

However, I will be the first to say that everything is not decided by

" research. " For me it is only one piece of the puzzle. If someone though,

quotes that XYZ was more successful in 56,000 people then this requires an

immediate citation IMHO. Broad concepts that can be parsed through without a

specific tests/ research are less likely to be decided by papers and

research especially when the companies that market the products are usually

responsible for the research.

 

 

 

In this case, as disappointing as it may be, I do not have time to try to

find these studies, actually I see no need to understand this point. Maybe

you do, and we differ on that and why I do not care that much. I have

already mentioned a probable place to find specifics, as well as cited a

published English article that discussed this issue specifically. I am sure

the author can provide citations for his stats e.g. that there are many

factors that go into changing the ratio of constituents for end product

granulars. So I do not have the excat research, but at least there are

opinions that agree with mine by people much smarter than I. But really is

there anyone saying otherwise? Therefore, if someone really cares they can

pursue the lead I gave. If they just want to say, where's the citation, then

sorry, I don't have it.

 

 

 

However, the mere fact that companies present data that shows that their

product is more 'correct' or 'better' than competitors is important enough

to consider. Meaning, there are differences among companies, period. These

differences are easy enough to prove with one's tongue and clinical

experience! Hence granulars are not guaranteed to be equal to bulk

decoctions, just because they are granulars. Otherwise all companies would

be equal. But the reality is, some are better than others. This fact proves

(IMHO) that as I originally stated, a granular does not guarantee anything

and there " are many factors that determine the ratio of constituents. "

 

 

 

I asked before and I will ask again, to Bill and Eric (and others). Are you

saying that every granular out there has a similar profile as to a water

decoction? If this is the case where is the evidence for this? If it is not

true, then my point is proven. If some companies are better than others

(constituent profiles) then my point is again proven. Otherwise one would be

saying that the only variable between companies is extraction ratio, not

constituent ratios? If this was actually the case I doubt there would be so

much arguing out there. Western herbalism and supplement companies have

oodles of support for this concept! There are different techniques that

produce different profiles, hence producing drastically differing clinical

results. Sorry no citations, this is just from years of exposure and

reading. Again the reason I say that I have seen articles is so that if

someone really cares they can find these things and evaluate them for

themselves.

 

 

 

Since I have the utmost respect for people like Eric who really have a

passion for this topic, if he (or others) were to say clearly that all the

companies out there are producing identical products and they were all

almost identical to bulk, and that the only difference is extraction ratios,

then I would have to consider the flip side. But to date I have not heard

anyone say this, at least anyone with true expertise. Such a stance would

counter what I am suggesting. Otherwise what are we debating?

 

 

 

But my understanding of the topic (reading articles and convo with experts),

my taste, and my clinical experience definitely says there are differences

between companies. That is what I stand on. What these differences are I do

not know. It is my stance that it is not just one has a higher (or lower)

extraction ratios.

 

 

 

But the mere fact that there is differences (between granulars) is evidence

enough for me that says they all can't be equal to a bulk decoction. Simple

logic here. Hence this observation supports my initial statement that there

are many factors that go into making a correct ratio that is equal to a

decoction. I really do not care enough more about the discussion to produce

scientific articles, although I agree that they are needed in general.

 

 

 

But I do await Bill's proof to counter my statement, since it was he who

actually made the initial statement. J

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of Eric Brand

Tuesday, February 03, 2009 4:04 PM

 

Re: Granule conentration ratios

 

 

 

 

<%40> , " bill_schoenbart "

<plantmed2 wrote:

>

> Jason,

>

> If you have seen these articles, could you provide links? Making a

> blanket statement that aqueous dried extracts are different from

> decoctions needs some evidence to back it up. Simply stating that you

> have " seen articles " or that " Andy says so " does not constitute

> evidence. This is an important issue that requires scientific

> evidence, since it is a science issue that is being discussed.

 

I strongly agree with Bill that scientific issues require

investigation and evidence. Jason, you often advocate challenging

ideas and assumptions and are generally keen to request that others

provide citations and supporting evidence to back up their viewpoint.

So it is a bit disappointing that you tell Bill to go dig up the

information himself after you say that you've seen multiple supporting

articles on the topic.

 

You are correct that Andy Ellis has written a nice essay on this

topic, and I would be among the first to point out that Andy is very

knowledgeable on the topic of granules. However, as much as I like

Andy and respect his expertise, one essay published in the product

literature of one commercial granule company is not sufficient

evidence for a mature scientific debate.

 

Andy's article can be found in the Notes from Cinnabar Creek published

by Golden Flower Chinese Herbs, it is a provocative read. Bob Flaws,

another noted expert in the field, has published an article from Blue

Poppy that challenges many of the points implied by Andy's article,

and is another essential article on this topic. The Evergreen catalog

(the product literature of yet another vested interest) displays a

HPLC chart that shows that their products are higher in certain

constituents than some of their competitors. Remarkably, the product

literature of every company tends to suggest that their own products

are the best.

 

The advancement of the discussion requires us to move beyond the level

of " Andy says, Bob says, John says. " Generally a mature academic

debate requires that evidence be presented to challenge the prevailing

scientific opinion. Currently, overwhelming evidence supports the

fact that full-spectrum water extracts as made by granule companies

are chemically similar to (gasp) conventional full-spectrum water

extracts. Sure, you can add different excipients and dilute this

extract to different degrees, but much of this dilution has to do with

business decisions such as delivery style rather than science.

Granules in Taiwan are colloquially known as " ke xue zhong yao, "

(scientific Chinese medicine)- specifically, the science of producing

granules is the effective replication of the traditional water

decoction. You test which constituents come out in ideal lab

conditions, replicate it on a commercial scale, and test to ensure

that the final product conforms.

 

True, different companies use different excipients and achieve

different concentration ratios. But we need to move beyond asking the

salesmen and start actually looking at the issue scientifically. For

this, we need concrete examples and data. It is easy to barrage

someone with questions and demand evidence, but it actually requires

time and effort to collect information that adds to the group's

understanding.

 

If everyone thinks the world is round and I say it is flat, typically

I would be the one that would need to produce evidence that shows that

the world is indeed flat, since the prevailing scientific evidence of

our time suggests that the world is round. At present, there is an

overwhelming amount of data to support the herbal science that guides

extraction and granulation. If you think that a large group of these

companies and scientists have it all wrong, it would be helpful if you

could supply perhaps even a single example or two that shows that some

of these granule technologies produce products that do not reflect the

constituents yielded by a traditional water decoction.

 

Eric Brand