1 reply to this topic

[jroseland]

 

I purchased this on Kindle after finishing The Rhodiola Revolution.

 

After reading the previous book, perusing at least a couple hundred studies on Pubmed along with digesting the bad grammar numerous self reporters posting in forums there was just a few things this book enlightened me about.

 

The Adaptogens are Hepatoprotective

Schisandra is the most beneficial adaptogen for the liver. It is hepatoprotective and helps regenerate liver cells and increases the presence of hepatic glutathione, an essential liver nutrient. In animal studies, it has been shown to significantly protect against chemical- and drug-induced liver damage and promote the healing of existing damage.(p. 108) This is particularly important to Biohackers that are throwing a bunch of strange molecules at our neurobiology that are likely stressing our livers.

 

There's a couple of things that add an air of mystery to the Adaptogens...

The autonomic nervous system It consists of two physiologically and anatomically distinct, mutually antagonistic components: the sympathetic nervous system and the parasympathetic nervous system. The two subdivisions function in a dynamic balance aiming at homeostasis.(pp. 68-69)

 

Irreducible Mechanism of Action

The belief that each herb has a single active constituent is usually false. (p. 127) There was an interesting case study where they thought they had isolated the individual Gensenoside that was the active ingredient and when they used it alone it had zero effect. When this substance was isolated and extracted, it was found to have no activity. Interestingly, when researchers tried giving the herb minus this specific chemical to animals, it no longer worked either. The active constituent of hawthorn turned out to be the herb itself.(p. 30) The mechanisms of the Adaptogens don't quite fit squarely into our logical cause and effect scientific models.

 

'Bad Science'

Part of the book makes the (debatable) point that published scientific research is an unreliable source of information. To quote a John Ioannidis, PhD “The great majority of published research is so deeply flawed that it should be considered essentially worthless.”(p. 54) Ioannidis singled out the following types of studies as being particularly likely to lead to a worthless result: Studies with a small sample size; Studies that consider a small number of possible effects; Studies whose outcomes are poorly or subjectively defined; Studies in which financial conflict of interest is a factor; Studies in which the researchers are prejudiced by being unduly wedded to a particular outcome; and Studies of a topic that is currently “hot.”(p. 55) For example: Dr. Ronald Siegel’s theoretical “ginseng abuse syndrome” continues to be mentioned even after being discredited more than twenty years ago. In Siegel’s study, all subjects who had the “syndrome” consumed ginseng together with caffeinated beverages and developed symptoms of elevated blood pressure, anxiety, and insomnia. What he described had little to do with ginseng and everything to do with excessive caffeine consumption—it was actually “caffeine abuse” not “ginseng abuse.”(p. 57) The conclusion the book reaches is that medicinal traditions and consensus of anecdotal reports about a drug or herb should be weighed at least equally with what the studies on Pubmed are saying. Which is kind of interesting, I'm starting to organize an article with a methodology for spotting bad science.

 

The book itself is a quiet dry read, pretty boring, it put me to sleep on more than a few nights.

[aconita]

The problem is that we are quite good at looking for one substance effects but we have a very poor understanding of synergies between many different substances, in the case of plants compounds there is always a complex synergy of which we understand very little.

 

Experience, usually many centuries old, is often a more precise evaluation method over strictly scientific research which because its own limits is forced to consider one substance at a time missing the whole picture.

 

I think that a major breakthrough in science would happen as soon as we'll get more knowledge about synergistic interactions, the real limit nowadays.