Visit China » China » Ginseng and Side effects?
Ginseng and Side effects?
Question:
Brian Stein asks about side effects of ginseng. A good amount of the ginseng products sold are adultrated and probably not ginseng. Real ginseng is apparently expensive so this becomes an easy way to make money the wrong way. It may be that impurifications are causing your side effects. Nov 95 issue of Consumers Reports has an article on herb supplements which includes an inbox for ginseng. It reports that no benefits of ginseng could be verified thru clinical trials so far. It also gives a list of products and their contents of six of the ginsenosides (the purported active ingredients). Ginsana does not have the highest concentration of ginsenosides (~3%). It is WalGreen’s Gin-Zin that has the highest concentration (~7.5%), Rite Aid’s has the least. If you ask me, I think ginseng probably has some of the beneficial effects listed for it in traditional chinese medicine, even if mildly, for example as an energy booster. However, in order to avoid financial and impurities related toxicity, it seems like the best bet might be an American company’s product after all (prices are not given in article). I tend to agree there is much less control of a noname product imported directly from China or a lesser known American brand. Good luck. Enis Bengul
Response:
: Brian Stein asks about side effects of ginseng. A good amount of the : ginseng products sold are adultrated and probably not ginseng. Real : ginseng is apparently expensive so this becomes an easy way to make money : the wrong way. It may be that impurifications are causing your side : effects. Nov 95 issue of Consumers Reports has an article on herb : supplements which includes an inbox for ginseng. It reports that no : benefits of ginseng could be verified thru clinical trials so far. Riiiight. There are at least a –dozen– fully demonstrated benefits to ginseng. CR, as usual, can’t read research that doesn’t agree with their ideology. What a bunch of jerks. : It : also gives a list of products and their contents of six of the : ginsenosides (the purported active ingredients). Ginsana does not have : the highest concentration of ginsenosides (~3%). It is WalGreen’s Gin-Zin : that has the highest concentration (~7.5%), Rite Aid’s has the least. Ginseng is a vastly complicated plant, chemically speaking. While I could care less about ’standardization,’ the fact is that there are at least twenty-five ginsenosides, so a blanket statement of highest concentration is basically meaningless. Highest concentration of what? Unless concentration of ginsenosides Rc, Rg1, and Ro are ALL determined, concentration numbers are not meaningful (since the ginsenosides in ginseng are essentially derivatives of these basic structures). This doesn’t even consider the other chemistry in the plant, a range of sesquiterpenes, sugars, acetylenic compounds, pyrazine derivatives, hypoglycemic peptide glycans, etc. : If : you ask me, I think ginseng probably has some of the beneficial effects : listed for it in traditional chinese medicine, even if mildly, for example : as an energy booster. However, in order to avoid financial and impurities : related toxicity, it seems like the best bet might be an American : company’s product after all (prices are not given in article). I tend to : agree there is much less control of a noname product imported directly : from China or a lesser known American brand. Good luck. Enis Bengul Ginseng is serious business. If you buy Korean ginseng, you get the Korean government’s stamp of purity–and that is a lot more reliable than CR, or Walgreen’s. Chinese ginseng, bought from reputable sources, is also of very high quality. Whole roots, which are available in any Chinatown, are a reliable form of ginseng, and the prices are fairly well standardized in those markets. Toxicity from ginseng adulterants has never been an issue as far as I know. —
Response:
Ginsana does not have =the highest concentration of ginsenosides (~3%). It is WalGreen’s Gin-Zin =that has the highest concentration (~7.5%) Two capsules of Ginsana per day has had no effect on me, side or otherwise. As to Gin-Zin, it appears to be based on a standartize extract other then Ginsana’s G115. If so, the percentages may not be comparable.
Response:
To prepare, boil gently about one-half ounce of ginseng root in about three cups of water. Continue boiling until the liquid is reduced by one-half to two-thirds. It is not necessary to drink this tea daily; two to three times a week is sufficient. –Bill Koehnlein
Response:
: Paul Iannone: : >Riiiight. There are at least a –dozen– fully demonstrated : >benefits to ginseng. CR, as usual, can’t read research that : >doesn’t agree with their ideology. What a bunch of jerks. : : No, Paul. The research doesn’t agree with YOUR ideology! These studies : which you offer in rebuttal to the nay-saying CR, were likely all RTC : studies using isolated ingredients on the people or animals tested. : Individualized diagnoses characteristic of TCM were NOT made and the : "fully demonstrated benefits" to which you refer, were NOT due to : individually designed ‘complicated’ formulae meant to address unique : pathological constellations. It is you who appears as a jerk here, I’m : afraid, for offering as support, the very studies and methods which : are a reflection of everything you criticize as "reductionistic" : medicine, in support of *your* (Vitalistic) ideology. Or didn’t you : notice? Why do I bother, John? You are almost unreadable. Do you spit on your keyboard as you slather this stuff out? I refer you to Tang, Eisenbrand –Chinese Drugs of Plant Origin–. There you will find plenty of references for the many, many tests that have been done on animals with ginseng, demonstrating its effects. This is not new science, nor is it strictly Asian in origin. [snip] : JB. Don’t call me doctor. —
Response:
Paul Iannone: >Riiiight. There are at least a –dozen– fully demonstrated >benefits to ginseng. CR, as usual, can’t read research that >doesn’t agree with their ideology. What a bunch of jerks. /* No, Paul. The research doesn’t agree with YOUR ideology! These * studies which you offer in rebuttal to the nay-saying CR, were * likely all RCT’s using isolated ingredients on the people * or animals tested. Individualized diagnoses characteristic of * TCM were NOT made and the "fully demonstrated benefits" to which * you refer, were NOT due to individually designed ‘complicated’ * formulae meant to address unique pathological constellations. It * is you who appears as a jerk here, I’m afraid, for offering as * support, the very studies and methods which are a reflection of * everything you criticize as "reductionistic" medicine, in support * of *your* (Vitalistic) ideology. Or didn’t you notice? */ >Why do I bother, John? You are almost unreadable. Well, to begin with, Paul, you _"bother"_ because when you’re caught with your pants down, you can either try to pull them up, as you’ve lamely attempted here…or you can ignore it by saying nothing, hoping that no one noticed your nakedness attempting to wield areas of science with which you have little familiarity…as you did with the rest of my post. I love it when you ‘attempt’ chemistry and western medicine. You’re so bad at it. You can’t even copy it right sometimes. >I refer you to Tang, Eisenbrand Chinese Drugs of Plant Origin–. >There you will find plenty of references for the many, many tests >that have been done on animals with ginseng, demonstrating its >effects. Poor Paul…reading problem, or just your usual denial? I never said that there weren’t studies done on ginseng’s action and effects. There are lots of them. I only pointed out that you have habitually dismissed any study and medical science that dares to draw meaningful conclusions from herbal isolates tested or used out of the context of individualized patient care, or herbals which weren’t incorporated into a "Balanced" and unique formula designed for the particular pathologic constellation of the individual patient. Yet, you unabashedly and naively invoke these very scientific studies to support your ideological Vitalistic ‘Argument.’ READ-IT again, Brickhead. I know you claim that what I said above is "unreadable," but my e-mail indicates that at least some people not _only_ understood what I said, but also got a good chuckle from seeing your hypocrisy so clearly delineated. -"The cheaper the crook, the gaudier the patter." -SS. JB.
Response:
Paul Iannone, on ginseng: >This doesn’t even consider the other chemistry in the >plant, a range of sesquiterpenes, sugars, acetylenic compounds, >pyrazine derivatives, hypoglycemic peptide glycans, etc. * The question is, Paul, why would YOU even consider these other * chemical components pharmacodynamically, pharmacokinetically, or * otherwise? You don’t even know what they are, never mind give * any credence to what they would do physiologically or medically. * You long ago dismissed dose/response, molecule/receptor, * structure/function with a Vitalistic sweep of your EAT Healing * Wand. That’s fine. But don’t start up with chemistry unless you * ‘mean it.’ You’d just be committing ‘ginsenoside.’ BTW, what’s * a ‘"hypoglycemic" peptide glycan?’ I admit, ya got me there, * Doctor. * >Don’t call me doctor. GOOD answer, Paul. hehehe. But, Maestro, what _IS_ a ‘"*hypoglycemic*" peptide glycan’ and why WOULD you consider the molecular components of ginseng, or any other herbal for that matter, when you have hysterically..uh..historically asserted either directly or indirectly, that their presence in any amount or proportion has nothing to do with EITHER their therapeutic action or toxicity? Come-on, Paul. You’ve blustered Vitalistically for over a year now and suddenly you are using words to this poster like ‘pyrazine derivatives’ and ‘"hypoglycemic" peptide glycans’ as though they meant something to you. JB. JB.
Response:
John Badanes: :Poor Paul…reading problem, or just your usual denial? I never :said that there weren’t studies done on ginseng’s action and :effects. There are lots of them. Buck Iannone: >Fine. Consumer Reports was unable to locate ANY. That was my >point, bucko. Sorry, Buck. Consumer Reports’ latest issue (Nov 95, from p. 699): "Many studies show that ginseng, often in big doses, affects small animals in interesting ways, but there’s little human research–and most is not well-controlled." See, Paul. CR found "_many_ studies." So if your point was, as you say above, that they were "unable to locate ANY," then you simply HAVE no point, now do you. -"The cheaper the crook, the gaudier the patter." -SS. JB.