(18-06-2012, 02:30 PM)flamesabers Wrote: Thank you for the links.
I'm not a biology or chemistry major so some of the information in the report went over my head, but I got the point that pm may need to be metabolized for it to produce estrogenic activity. Seeing as the report is nearly ten years old, I wonder if there was any follow-up research done to determine the accuracy of its results?
A lot goes over my head too - I generally just look at the abstract or conclusions.
It looks like quite a lot of work was done about that time. There's another reference here
http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/20...223598.php
from 2000 which reaffirms the idea that miroestrol is a "wild goose":
"The growth-promoting effect of them on MCF-7 human breast cancer cells showed the strongest activity with (+)-deoxymiroestrol. Interestingly, it was easily converted into (+)-miroestrol and (+)-isomiroestrol by aerial oxidation, suggesting that (+)-deoxymiroestrol may be the actual phytoestrogen of P. mirifica"
In other words, initial analyses most saw miroestrol in this highly estrogenic plant and assumed that it was the major player. However, further testing showed that the activity was strongest with dexoymiroestrol, but as this readily converts to miroestrol in air, that's where the confusion occurred.
Since cream by its very nature is exposed to air, you are pretty much guaranteed to get the weakest effect.
Couple that with the tests that show that metabolisation is needed also, I reckon cream is just the vendor's way of making more money.
I think they tend to recommend it as a supplement to the pills, so you grow anyway, and rubbing it on ensures you massage, which is generally held to be a Good Thing. But in terms of efficacy, I doubt whether it will do more than Wild Yam or your favourite brand of cold cream.
That said, I'm no expert, feel free to disregard!
B.