Fw: HHN Cortef vs Isocort (re Cindi #1450 & #1451)

[Guest guest]

This is from another list -- granted permission to share -- FASCINATING!

Best,

http://www.ChestnutHillDesigns.com

http://www.CurlyRescue.com

~ The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical

invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them.

-- Mark Twain, Notebook, 1935

HHN Cortef vs Isocort (re Cindi #1450 & #1451)

> ... folks will say Isocort is weaker than HC...

>

> even though the word is is that it contains

> 2.5 mg. hydrocortisone.

>

> But recently I read a statement that basically said

> that it was " cortisol " in Isocort and that it doesn't

> last as long in the body as HC.

>

> I'm assuming this is because Isocort is a glandular?

> whereas HC is a slightly different formulation?

>

> So...just looking for the true story on Isocort...

>

> any comments?

>

> Cindi #1450

> _____

>

> Pat here.

>

> To simplify, I'd like to use Dr Jefferies' practice of

> using the terms 'cortisol' and 'hydrocortisone' (HC)

> interchangeably.

>

> To simplify further, I'd like to refer to the brand name

> 'Cortef' by Upjohn rather than the more technical terms

> cortisol and/or hydrocortisone.

>

> Cortef is what most doctors and patients are using in

> these discussions. It was also the basis for comparison

> in the development of Isocort.

>

> Cortef is made from pharmaceutical raw materials.

> It converts into cortisol and is effective at raising

> and/or replacing your body's own cortisol.

>

> Cortef is considered a 'natural' hormone even though

> it is made from pharmaceutical raw material.

>

> The doctor who developed Isocort liked Cortef and

> liked the approach outlined in Jefferies MD's

> THE SAFE USES OF CORTISOL.

>

> However, Isocort's developer was interested in a

> 'more natural' version of Cortef; one made from natural

> sources rather than pharmaceutical raw materials.

>

> As a result Isocort is made from animal adrenal tissue

> in a manufacturing process that standardizes the cortisol

> content.

>

> It is not that Isocort 'contains 2.5-mg of cortisol' but that

> Isocort is manufactured to give the same rise in serum

> cortisol after 60 minutes as 2.5-mg of Cortef.

>

> This is also something that should NOT be discussed

> openly and online.

>

> This kind of open information will only lead the FDA to

> remove Isocort.

>

> I've never gone into this before but people keep making

> a public issue about what is best discussed privately.

>

> Ideally, 2 Isocort (at '2.5-mg cortisol' each) would equal

> one 5-mg Cortef.

>

> The waters are muddied though because Isocort also

> includes echinacea, which I would prefer were not in it.

>

> Subjectively:

> I've known many patients to feel better on one vs

> the other.

>

> I've also seen most patients 'test' better on one

> vs the other if muscle tested or pulse tested.

>

> There's sort of 'Cortef people' and 'Isocort people'.

> I defer to the one the person prefers.

>

> Objectively:

> Both are Very effective at raising corisol levels,

> as measured by saliva.

>

> My experience is this:

> We do a baseline saliva on a person right out of bed.

>

> Next we have them immediately swallow 2 Isocort

> or 5-mg Cortef with plenty of water.

>

> The pills are put in a gell cap the night before the test.

> The gell cap keeps the tablets from touching the tongue

> and mouth and contaminating the saliva sample.

>

> One hour later we retest the saliva. The sharp increase

> in cortisol vs waking/baseline is very and equally striking.

>

> Our next concern is that the dose is not so great as

> to cause an elevated noon cortisol reading.

>

> Cortisol naturally peaks about waking and declines

> over the day, being lowest at bedtime.

>

> In the absence of food overnight cortisol gradually

> rises to keep our blood sugar stable so our hearts

> and brains don't stop in our sleep.

>

> As a result it is highest as we wake.

>

> Once we begin to eat breakfast it gradually declines

> over the day as long as we eat often enough, and absorb

> nutrients enough to maintain stable blood sugar.

>

> Using the ranges from Diagnos-Techs I like saliva

> for cortisol about:

>

> Wake: 20-21.

>

> Noon: 8

>

> 4-5pm: 6

>

> Bed: 2

>

> Notice the declining need over the day.

>

> We only need about 1/3 the cortisol by noon that we

> need upon waking - IF we are eating and absorbing

> properly.

>

> Why is that?

>

> Because the rise in cortisol is triggered by a drop in

> blood sugar.

>

> Cortisol works by triggering the release of protein

> digesting enzymes that cannibalize our lean muscle

> mass.

>

> Muscle protein is broken down into amino acids, into

> simple sugars to be consumed by a hungry body.

>

> Sadly, it does not digest unwanted fat! It takes the

> lean muscle mass we try to build when we work out!

>

> Keep your blood stable during the day and you won't

> need extra cortisol to cannibalize your better tissues.

>

> I mention the decling cortisol need from waking to

> breakfast because I often read of concerns people

> have that Cortef/Isocort don't last long enough.

>

> Cortef does not need to last that long. Many do not

> need it after the waking dose.

>

> Many take too much and go into the afternoon with

> elevated cortisol digesting their muscles and bones.

>

> One problem with the valuable work of Dr Jefferies

> is that it was done before the era of saliva testing.

> It was measuring via blood or 24-hour urine.

>

> My observations (via saliva) of people taking either

> Cortef or Isocort is that both products are far more

> powerful than generally understood, with the result

> that many, perhaps most, take more than needed.

>

> Re: #1451

>

> " ... it's meant to be used sublingually ... and that

> it's about half as effective when swallowed ... "

>

> Pat here.

> The sublingual part I've never heard before. I did

> discuss this at length with the MD who developed

> Isocort and I do not recall sublingual being mentioned.

>

> I agree that it tastes terrible and I suspect sublingual

> dosing would drive it out of business!

>

> It's reasonable that sublingual dosing would be more

> potent but I don't think the added potency is needed

> and the taste is a real problem.

>

> Sublingual dosing also makes saliva monitoring difficult.

>

> You are free to share this in similar discussions

> on other sites. Just keep it intact.

>

> Good luck,

> Pat

> November 7, 2006

> http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/HormonesandHealth-Naturally/

> _____

> _____

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>