Quote:
|
I kinda disagree with this. it depends on who is doing the testing. If a university is doing the testing on an herb to see they aren't looking for special brands or trying to prove/disprove anything. EVERYTHING is controlled for in a study. If they are giving humans, mice, rats, or hepatocytes an herb, they are giving it the extract to know EXACTLY how much is given, and in the case of mammels its given as mg/kg or something to control for size. I mean, they don't grind up gingko biloba leaves and sprinkle them in the mouths of the elderly and make them do the daily sudoku to test for memory/intelligence. Its much more scientific than that. Also, the herbs that are used are normally of the highest quality available (that can realistically be found).
|
Well, like I said, the information regarding that was provided by Chris Lockwood, saying it's standard practice for conductors of studies regarding herbs not to run control tests to ascertain what was given in the studies that proved positive feedback.
But you hinted on a point, he may have been referencing studies that aren't as idealistic as you say. Most of the studies you hint at in your posts are the ones conducted by major Universities and the like. Unfortunately in the Medical Community and Supplement Industry rarely are THOSE kinds of studies cited to either back or consider "debunked" certain families of herbs. There is a distinct difference, and I think you're aware of that, hence your opening line. But make no mistake, there are tons of labs out there who get paid a lot of money not only to test certain things, but to draw specific conclusions about them. When you go from scholastic studying of these things to Independent Labs and Companies, the pool gets dirty.
For instance:
This isn't an herbal supplement, but it illustrates what I'm talking about. In reference to ZMA, the study co-authered by Victor Conte of BALCO reported that the ZMA group had increases levels of total testosterone, free testosterone, and IGF-1 compared to plateaus or drops in the placebo group. However in arecent study by Dr. Richard Krieger, it was indicated that ZMA supplementation doesn't appear to enhance training adaptations in gym-rats.
Now, the question is who to believe? The co-founder of ZMA in the first-place who makes money selling it, or some Doctor just doing a study? The public is swarmed with both sides of the fence to the degree that it's foggy no matter where they roam unless they know what questions to ask. And who has monetary ties to what.