(12-03-2016, 03:29 AM)MarcyAno Wrote: [ -> ]Here is the converter showing that the date on that Siam Natural HPLC report converts to 1/27/2015, not 1958 of 2502. I do believe that report is current:
http://bangkokhasyou.com/thai-to-christi...er-online/
Marcy,
Thanks for the info, we're you able to find any info on the Miroestrol content?. I did some digging about verifying Miroestrol content, this is what came up. Btw, I have no interest in any brand of PM, my interest is being able to verify and answer the PM question I've had for the past few years.........why can't we verify current Miroestrol content from PM suppliers?.
P. mirifica containing food supplements sold as herbal medicines have been available to the general public in Thailand without prescription for over fifty years.
Currently, only one company in Thailand does taxonomic field studies using experienced harvesters certified by the Thai Ministry of Forestry, combined with a HPLC fingerprint of the root to insure that genuine P. mirifica is used to make their standardized P. mirifica extract for world-wide distribution (Smith Naturals, Co., Ltd., Bangkok, Thailand). Standardization is determined by the following markers: miroestrol, diadzin, puerarin, genistin, daidzein and genestein. Further, the company has conducted extensive field investigations to learn when to harvest the plant and in what region at what time of the year and under climatic conditions. For example, immediately after a rain, the level of miroestrol/deoxymiroestrol drops significantly. The problem of substitution (mislabeling) is being addressed by the Ministry of Public Health in Thailand because the use of P. mirifica as an over-the-counter food supplement, regulated by the Thai FDA, involves more than 20 companies selling the product within Thailand.
Of some thirteen sub-species claimed to be Thai “Pueraria mirifica” only two commercial sources have been found to be genuine, the rest include P. mirifica containing little or no miroestrol, probably owing to substitution in whole or part with Pueraria candollei Graph. Ex. Benth or Pueraria lobata (Kudzu). Pueraria candollei Graph. Ex. Benth does contain miroestrol but little of the other phytoestrogens found in P. mirifica by HPLC. For this reason,
a standardized P. mirifica root extract should be used supported by an HPLC fingerprint provided by the supplier along with a certificate of analysis for each lot.
http://puresterol.com/wp-content/uploads...ations.pdf
∗∗ 100 g of P. mirifica contains an average of 15mg of Miroestrol:
1mg of crude P. mirifica = o.5 μg Ethyl Estradiol
1g of crude P. mirifica = (0.5)(1000 μg Ethyl Estradiol)
Therefore:
100 g of crude P. mirifia = (0.5)(1000)(100 μg Ethyl Estradiol)
100 g of crude P. mirifica = 50,000 μg Ethyl Estradiol
100 g of crude P. mirifica has 15 mg of Miroestrol.
15 mg of Miroestrol = 50,000 μg Ethyl Estradiol
1 mg of Miroestrol = (50,000)/(15 μg Ethyl Estradiol)
1 mg of Miroestrol = 3333.33 μg Ethyl Estradiol
(Same pdf)
__________________________
Quote:P. mirifica was reported in the literature to have estrogenic-like properties as early as 1940.(Schoeller, W., Dohrn, M. ned Hohlweg, Naturwiss., 1940; 28: 532; and, Butenandt, A. Naturwiss., 1940; 28: 533; and, Bradbury, R.B. and White, D.E. Estrogens and related substances in plants. Vitamins Hormones, 1954; 12: 207-233.)
References for compounds characterized in P. mirifica: Murakami, T., Nishikawa, Y. and Ando, T. Studies on the Constituents of Japanese and Chinese Crude Drugs. IV. On the constituents of Pueraria root. Chem Pharm Bull Tokyo., 1960;
• P. mirifica of different sub-species, different locations*, and different harvesting period (e.g. Pueraria candollei Graph. Ex. Benth vs. Pueraria candollie var. mirifica) have different fingerprints and peak heights. This suggests that the level of actives and ratio are different.
From this information, it is possible that P. mirifica from one supplier could be more effective or less effective than P. mirifica from another supplier by a factor of 10 fold. For this reason, a standardized extract of P. mirifica root is recommended rather than the crude.
In 2000, it was reported that miroestrol may actually be deoxymiroestrol, the former possibly being an artifact of the combination of miroestrol and isomiroestrol during isolation work.(Chansakaow, S., Ishikawa, T., Seki, H., Sekine, K., Okada, M. and Chaichantipyuth, C. Identification of deoxymiroestrol as the actual rejuvenating principle of “Kwao Keur”, Pueraria mirifica. The known miroestrol may be an artifact. J Natural Products, 2000; 63: 173-175.) Work is on-going to confirm this finding.
(Linked pdf).
Take a look at page 14-15 titled
Pharmacologic Studies of its Estrogenic-like Properties.
http://puresterol.com/wp-content/uploads...ations.pdf
If one compares the potency of various phytoestrogens, including genistein and miroestorol (from standardized P. mirifica root extract) to estradiol, according to the work of Murkies and colleagues (Murkies, A.L., Wilcox, G. and Davis, S.R. Clinical reviews: Phytoestrogens. J Clin Endocrinol Metabol., 1998; 83: 297-303.)
the relative potencies would look as follows, with estradiol arbitrarily ranked 100:
Estradiol = 100
Miroestrol∗∗ = 3.3
My God Lotus, the information you come up with never ceases to amaze me.
If I remember correctly you have pretty much used the Ainterol brand correct?
TBH, sometimes I think their potency varies bottle to bottle.....or maybe just me.
I for one, would just like to know which is the most potent, consistent brand of manufacturer out there.... I am not inclined to follow every high brow scientific study put out by Paul, John, Ringo etc. Just site an opinion and point to supporting docs if there is any.
Just like other unregulated things out there... Too many 3rd party brands that could cut product with God knows what!
My frickin head is swimming! ! !
(14-03-2016, 01:48 PM)elainecd Wrote: [ -> ]If I remember correctly you have pretty much used the Ainterol brand correct?
TBH, sometimes I think their potency varies bottle to bottle.....or maybe just me.
Lol, thanks. Yes, I used ainterol. Sammie would say the same thing about the potency.
(14-03-2016, 04:51 PM)iaboy Wrote: [ -> ]I for one, would just like to know which is the most potent, consistent brand of manufacturer out there.... I am not inclined to follow every high brow scientific study put out by Paul, John, Ringo etc. Just site an opinion and point to supporting docs if there is any.
Just like other unregulated things out there... Too many 3rd party brands that could cut product with God knows what!
My frickin head is swimming! ! !
That's the whole point isn't it?, not knowing who offers the best (most potent) product. Personally, I used ainterol, and I did get growth from it, but I also used a half dozen other Phytoestrogens, PC, massage, etc. I went through the similar questions about whether PM was working as stated (consistency). I know of at least a dozen (if not more) that started with PM, became disenfranchised with it, and switched to BO (no help there) and then in frustration, went to E2. Currently, many BN members aren't seeing results...........why is that?. I'm not throwing PM under the bus, it works if it's authentic, and to verify it, a small volume (typically microliters) is needed for HPLC.
I hate to say, but it does seem possible that little to no miroesrol in PM is out there, based on the difficulty obtaining a current certificate of analysis of Miroestrol. Again, puerarin is not Miroestrol. I would think (expect) you should be able to see at least 2 cups of growth if things are done properly.
Quote:For example, immediately after a rain, the level of miroestrol/deoxymiroestrol drops significantly. The problem of substitution (mislabeling) is being addressed by the Ministry of Public Health (2002) in Thailand because the use of P. mirifica as an over-the-counter food supplement, regulated by the Thai FDA, involves more than 20 companies selling the product within Thailand.