Guest guest Posted July 14, 2003 Report Share Posted July 14, 2003 Mills and Bone do allude to the difference between traditional herbal and conventional pharmacological theory near the beginning but do not develop it and then go on to effectively ignore it for the rest of the book. This, I think, people may sometimes find confusing. I suggest the 'strength' of a preparation is not any sort of herbal measure; isn't 'efficacy' preferable?. Many of the responses to herbal medicine are not dose dependant within the ranges you are talking about.Nor would they even be so in much conventional pharmacy. What is different about herbal medicine is the gently synergistic activity of 'co-actives' - a multitude of component properties which Nature produces within plants to 'aid and abet' pharmacological activity. For example, experiments have shown that Silybin (hepato-protective flavano-lignan found in Milk Thistle) is taken up in hepatocytes at a rate approx 1000 times greater when naturally complexed with phosphatidycholine, a synergistic co-active, which by itself is completely medicinally inactive. So I think that what matters is the wholeness and complete quality of your extract - not the 'strength'. This is why fresh extracts are so succesful. They have the highest levels of co-actives (may we call them 'synergites' - you heard it first here) and certainly the correct balance of synergites to the so called pharmacological actives. An evolutionary rationale for this is already quite well developed. (NB Different components of a plants spectrum will extract at varying rates at different strengths, so there will never be a complete answer anyway. All part of the wonderflower mystery) Chenery Rutland Biodynamics Ltd 3 IN 1 TINCTURES > > > > Does anyone have any experience of using 3 to 1 tinctures (e.g. as > supplied > > by Cotswold Health Products), and are typical dosages 3 times less than a > > 1:1? > > > > best wishes, > > Isobel > > > > > > > > List Owner > > > > > > > > Graham White, MNIMH > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2003 Report Share Posted July 15, 2003 Tony I agree that the old BP method is traditional, I think that we need to be careful when changing from one concnetration to another that we are aware of the differences. I am concerned that (for example) a 20:1 concnetrated powdered extract can be sold over the counter using the safety evidence of a 1:1 preparation. Whitton Phyto-Research Ltd Suite 1 Innovations Centre Epinal Way Loughborough LE11 3EH Tel: 01509 228707 Fax: 01509 228705 email: peter.whitton@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2003 Report Share Posted July 15, 2003 Am in complete agreement with everything says. I also think that the phytochemists (is this rising to the bait?) need to consider the complexity of synergy. This is no small thing and will probably take the next hundred years....... but that shouldn't stop us from starting. The point I was suggesting about fresh and dried extracts is of course a generalisation and should be treated as such, but has much to do with the mysteries of mistress synergy. Chenery Rutland Biodynamics Ltd Re: 3 in 1 questions ! > > Although I agree with your main points I think that the main argument is not > over Fresh versus Dried herbs but over the idea of dose. The idea of > increasing the strength of a tincture or fluid extract above that that has been > traditionally used seems to me to be a flawed argument. How can we suggest that by > increasing the strength of the dose we increase efficacy when our whole point > has been to rely on traditional evidence. > The problems we have seen with standardised extracts (sorry for the hobby > horse) have merely been an extrapolation of this fact that more seems to equate > with better. If we have traditionally used a 1:1 or a 1:3 then using these > preparations in larger doses is not as questionable as using more concentrated > extracts. > The reason for this is that as we approach a saturated solution then the > nature of the solution changes with some compounds precipitating out rather than > others. This is only true if the tincture is concentrated by mechanical means > (i.e. vacuum drying). > If we approach the idea of a more concentrated tincture by the process of > serial maceration then we encounter the problem of concentration gradients. As is > seen with basic chemistry (sorry I had to use the word) the > concentration of the compounds within the solution can never be greater than that in the > marque. Using classical techniques and also some of the most up to date > analytical equipment I have found very little difference in the amount of dissolved > matter in a 1:3 or a 1:1. This would suggest that there is not a magnitude of 3 > change in the required dosage. The same can be extrapolated to more > concentrated extracts. > Both Fresh herb tinctures and Dried herbs tinctures have an evidence base of > efficacy if produced correctly. However concentrating an extract can change > the nature of it and could possibly (in my opinion) have unforseen adverse > events. > So to be brief I must agree that the wholeness of the extract is important > and not the strength. > Best Wishes > Whitton > Phyto-Research Ltd > Innovation Centre > Epinal Way > Loughborough > LE11 3EH > Tel 01509 228707 > Fax 01509228705 > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2003 Report Share Posted July 15, 2003 In a message dated 15/07/2003 17:40:30 GMT Standard Time, herbalist@... writes: > Am in complete agreement with everything says. > I also think that the phytochemists (is this rising to the bait?) need to > consider the complexity of synergy. > , As a phytochemist I can assure you that I am and we have several projects underway to investigate this action. Whitton Phyto-Research Ltd Suite 1 Innovations Centre Epinal Way Loughborough LE11 3EH Tel: 01509 228707 Fax: 01509 228705 email: peter.whitton@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2003 Report Share Posted July 16, 2003 Benn First point I do not manufacture. Phyto-Research specialises in R & D of natural products in order to replace many synthetic products with natural components which is better for the environment and far less toxic in th production process. Secondly the difference in the strengths of the extracts, taking into account synergy, is based on more than just the herb: liquid ratio. The nature of the liquid is also important as 60% ethanol will remove different constituents from the herb than 45% ethanol which will also be different to 25% ethanol. Glycerin and other liquids will also have their own parameters. When carrying out and extraction the concentration of the soluble components in the herb will always try to find equilibrium between the herb and the liquid. Therefore if we have a 1:3 extraction 25% of the total soluble components will stay in the herb and 75% will transfer to the liquid (in theory). so if we start with 100g of soluble components in 300ml of liquid theoretically we can acheive a finished product with 75g in 300ml or 0.25g of soluble matter per ml. In a 1:1 using 100g of soluble components and 100ml of liquid then theoretically 50g will disolve in the liquid leaving 50g in the herb. This leads to a product containing 50g in 100ml or 0.5g per ml. This shows that a 1:1 can only be twice as strong as a 1:3. The complicated part comes as there will be theoretical limits on the solubility of a particular component in a particular ratio of ethanol:water. for example hypericin is barely soluble in 25% ethanol but extremely soluble in 60% ethanol. However sugars, starches and proteins are usually more soluble in 25% ethanol than 60% ethanol. This means that as the solvent is change (i.e. the alcohol is increased) the nature of the extract changes. Most traditional tinctures have been made in spirits as this was the most convienient and available form of alcohol. The strength of the spirits has changed over the years but has usually been between 30 and 40% alcohol (100 degrees proof equates to 50% alcohol). This range allows a good mixture of the water soluble components and the alcohol soluble components to be extracted and so allows for synergistic action between components to occur. The more pure the liquid (i.e. the closer to 100% alcohol or water) then the narrower the range of components that will be removed from the plant. However these components are removed in far higher concentrations. A " true " sediment in a tincture bottle is where the extraction is at the limits of the theoretically possible for the solvent and some of the dissolved components start to precipitate out. However another reason for sedimentation to occur is if the alcohol:water mix is made with hard water. As the alcohol is added to the water the water can no longer hold in solution the calcium and magnesium ions or the carbonate ions and these can precipitate out as limescale. I hope this helps. If you have any further queries please contact me. Regards Whitton Phyto-Research Ltd Suite 1 Innovations Centre Epinal Way Loughborough LE11 3EH Tel: 01509 228707 Fax: 01509 228705 email: peter.whitton@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2003 Report Share Posted July 16, 2003 Dear Learned (manufacturing) Colleagues, >We find the same thing, there is not a three fold increase in solids in >a 1:1 vs a 1:3, when produced with multiple maceration. I am enjoying this exchange and find... I am curious, given the above and taking into account synergy, what is the benefit of a 1:3 over a 1:5 or a 1:1 over a 1:3? Regards, Benn -- Benn Abdy- MCPP Medical Herbalist Windsor, Newquay and London Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2003 Report Share Posted July 21, 2003 In a message dated 21/07/2003 10:24:56 GMT Standard Time, benn@... writes: > If there aren't more solids, is there the expected gram per ml of > actives in a fluid extract or are we just as well using a 1:3? I.E. what > is the advantage of the FE given the not as (textbook) expected ratio of > solids? > > Benn The quick answer is that I do not know. It is quite possible that this is the case but equally this could vary considerably from herb to herb. The only way to find out for sure would be to try it. It could form the basis of an interesting study. Sorry to have been as useful as a chocolate teapot but I would be interested in hearing about other peoples experiences with this. Best regards Whitton Phyto-Research Ltd Suite 1 Innovations Centre Epinal Way Loughborough LE11 3EH Tel: 01509 228707 Fax: 01509 228705 email: peter.whitton@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2003 Report Share Posted July 21, 2003 Dear , Thank you for your explanation - the ratios were as I expected from college, the precipitation info was new... My original enquiry, perhaps not well expressed came from comments from Tony , as below ... ....there is not a three fold increase in solids in a 1:1 vs a 1:3, when produced with multiple maceration. The increase does get larger when using a percolator bank, but is still not three fold... My intended enquiry is as follows - If there aren't more solids, is there the expected gram per ml of actives in a fluid extract or are we just as well using a 1:3? I.E. what is the advantage of the FE given the not as (textbook) expected ratio of solids? Best regards, Benn -- Benn Abdy- MCPP Medical Herbalist Windsor, Newquay and London Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.