-Animated.gif)
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
.jpg "Research Chemical Sciences")
.png "Research Chemical Sciences")
Is they're really a difference? I've read a couple articles challenging the notion that "LJ100" brand tongkat is just low dose 100:1 extract. {Advertising tricks}. Meaniing Regular 50:1 extract [at higer doses], 100:1 extract, and 200:1 extract would be as good or better..
link to the articles
http://www.tongkatali-ingredients.com/index.htm
http://www.tongkatali-ingredients.com/eurypeptides-bogus.htm
or you can read here..
"What are the active ingredients of tongkat ali
I understand that in recent months, a Malaysian producer of tongkat ali extract has heavily promoted their product with claims of a scientific standardization.
As if this were of scientific relevance, they stated that their product is composed of 40% glycosaponins, 22% eurypeptides and 30% polysaccharides.
Judging from the wide circulation of their product, it seems to be easy indeed to fool people by using scientific-sounding terms.
The active components of tongkat ali (Eurycoma longifolia Jack) have of course been scientifically established.
There is an excellent, impartial, not product-oriented scientific source on the Internet:
http://content.nhiondemand.com/moh/media/monoHerb.asp?objID=101048&ctype=herb&mtyp=1
You can debunk yourself the pseudoscience of “40% glycosaponins, 22% eurypeptides and 30% polysaccharides”.
To start with, do the following:
On your browser, load the page:
http://content.nhiondemand.com/moh/media/monoHerb.asp?objID=101048&ctype=herb&mtyp=1
Using Internet Explorer, click Edit / Find and run a search for the following terms, one by one: glycosaponins, saponins, eurypeptides, peptides, polysaccharide.
Only the term “polysaccharide” is found on the page, listing the active components of Eurycoma longifolia Jack (tongkat ali), but NOT as an active chemical. A polysaccharide has been used to induce fever in lab animals on which the fever-lowering effect of tongkat ali was tested.
So what are “40% glycosaponins, 22% eurypeptides and 30% polysaccharides”?
Let’s start with “eurypeptides” because that was the term I didn’t know when I first red the claims made by the Malaysian tongkat ali producer. It was also the term that made me suspicious in the first place.
When you run a general Google search for “eurypeptides”, thousands of pages are offered. However, they all seem to refer only to the LJ 100 extract.
Google also offers a search engine specific for scientific publications.
The URL is:
http://scholar.google.com/
Try a search for “eurypeptides” and you will find that the term doesn’t exist in the scientific publications searched by Google.
You can also try your search on Medline, the huge website of the US National Library of Medicine. The Medline website is:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi
The result is the same: no reference to “eurypeptides”.
It’s obvious that “eurypeptides” is a made-up word. Sounds good, though. Reminds of neuropeptides, which indeed have a very important biochemical functions in the human body.
But eurypeptides?
OK, how about glycosaponins? “Glyco-“ basically means sugar, and indeed, many chemical substances can be combined with sugars, and they are then referred to as glyco-somethings.
Saponins are found in many plants. The term, however, isn’t very specific. Basically, it means that the substance is somehow soapy. If you want to know more about saponins in general, look at this page on Google:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define:saponin&btnG=Google+Search
Now, is the Sugar-Soap which the promoters of LJ100 tout as doing the LJ100 magic more real than the eurypeptides?
Try to search on Medline and Google Scholar.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi
http://scholar.google.com/
It’s 0 hits on Medline, and just 1 hit on Google Scholar (though the referred to page does not contain the term).
But even if glycosaponins is an existing, albeit rare, term, I doubt its relevance in the evaluation of active components of tongkat ali extract, simply because it contains no specific reference to tongkat ali.
You can check again the following page for how chemical names sound that are specific to an active ingredient found in a single plant:
http://content.nhiondemand.com/moh/media/monoHerb.asp?objID=101048&ctype=herb&mtyp=1
And now for the third scientific term that has been used in connection with the marketing of LJ100:
“30% polysaccharides”
You know what polysaccharides are: sugars that are too heavy to be sweet: starch, cellulose, and the like.
If you want to know it more precisely, check this Google link:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=define:polysaccharide&btnG=Search
If the claim is serious, does it mean that their extract is 30 percent cellulose?
The manufacturers probably realized that the “30% polysaccharides” reference didn’t really support their claim to have a superior standardized extract. I didn’t see it when I checked their site while writing this article. However, a Google search for LJ100 brings up many marketing sites that still list the “30% polysaccharides”.
In spite of, or probably because of, the pseudoscience applied in its marketing, LJ100 today seems to be the most widely distributed tongkat ali product. It’s amazing that even a physician with a generally good knowledge of herbal medicines, Ray Sahelian, MD, has fallen for their tricks.
Please note: I do not find anything wrong with genuine tongkat ali. It definitely is the closest, nature has come to develop an aphrodisiac, as well as a supplement to increase muscle mass in men. Both effects have been established in genuine science.
However, the above-described case has added to my doubts on Malaysia as a source country for tongkat ali. Not only is tongkat ali a protected plant in Malaysia, and not only has Malaysian tongkat ali been found to have been contaminated with heavy metals. Malaysian companies have also been on record for spiking tongkat ali with bootleg pharmaceuticals. Compared to that, sales techniques like the one described in this article are still a minor issue.
_________________________________________________________________
Eurypeptides and bogus science
I have been writing about tongkat ali long before it was popular, for some 10 years, and I do feel some responsibility for the reputation of this marvelous herb.
In the past few years, more and more distributors of dietary supplements have jumped on the tongkat ali bandwagon, and competition between distributors has become fierce.
Tongkat ali (Eurycoma longifolia Jack by its Latin, scientific name) is, of course, one of the most expensive herbals around, for a good reason. Tongkat ali roots take some 20 years to reach a stage of full potency. Because the shrub is difficult to cultivate, there is no tongkat ali plantation anywhere in the world. The tree only grows on well-drained jungle slopes, partially protected by a canopy. There may be other yet to be discovered requirements for the habitat, which explains why all attempts to grow the plant for commercial purposes have so far failed. All genuine tongkat ali is harvested in the wild.
Where?
The plant’s traditional geographic distribution is in the rainforests of Southeast Asia, and it still only grows in this part of the world. It once was common in all countries of Southeast Asia, from Vietnam to Indonesia, and in all of them, it is valued, and therefore was heavily harvested, for the medicinal properties of its roots. It’s unlikely indeed that wherever humans encroach on rainforests, tongkat ali shrubs will be left alone.
The only country where still now, there are areas with a natural prevalence of tongkat ali is Indonesia. Not that tongkat ali would still be common in Indonesia. But Indonesia indeed still is one of a very small number of countries with considerable stretches of virgin rainforests, and only this is where tongkat ali grows naturally. Not that the further existence of these virgin rainforests would be guaranteed. They are burned down at an alarming rate.
Indonesia smoke blankets region
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5415944.stm
Forest fires rage across Indonesia and Brazil
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/going-up-in-smoke-120906
Entire Rainforests Set to Disappear in Next Decade
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0705-06.htm
Indonesia has been under considerable international pressure not only to control the forest fires that are causing haze problems even thousands of kilometers away, but also to do more to protect the country’s rainforests which are of crucial value to the global environment. And indeed, the Indonesian president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY), who has previously heeded international advice on the civil war in Aceh and other topics, has indicated that the preservation of rainforests is one of his political concerns.
SBY Orders Arrest of Illegal Logging Bosses
http://www.bkpm.go.id/bkpm/news.php?mode=baca&info_id=979
Quite possibly, if the tongkat ali supply from Indonesia dries up because of rainforest protection measures, or if at least there are supply bottlenecks, the price for tongkat ali root and extract may still increase substantially.
Substantial price increases are also a distinct possibility because China is becoming ever richer ever faster. And no other nation on earth is as ardent a user of natural medicines as are the Chinese. In China, herbal medicine is not fringe health care; it is on par with Western medicine.
Traditional Chinese medicine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Chinese_medicine
Because China is so big, whatever is in demand in China is bound to become scarce. And the rarer an ingredient used in traditional medicine, the more expensive it is bound to become. This has already happened with another Indonesia-exported natural product, the price for which (even though it is of dubious efficacy) has already skyrocketed because it is sought after in newly rich China. The talk is of bird’s nests, which now fetch thousands of US dollars per kg.
Swifts and Trade
http://american.edu/ted/SWIFT.HTM
Bird nests at around 2000 US dollars per kg
http://www.naturalnest.com/
Bird nests at around 3000 US dollars per kg
http://www.ipmart.com/main/page.php?page=hm_hthl_food
&cat=577&ref=adwords&gclid=CN_u-KrL6IcCFSerYAodvU6wfA
In comparison, tongkat ali root (not extract) still trades at less than 50 dollars per kg.
Retail tongkat ali chipped root and root powder
http://www.tongkatali.org/retailroots.htm
However, unlike bird’s nests, tongkat ali is not suited for direct consumption. It should either be boiled as a tea, with the roots discarded, or consumed as an extract.
It is no surprise that when a rare and expensive substance, such as tongkat ali, is traded in a highly competitive market, there will be cheats. A number products sold as tongkat ali have been found spiked with bootleg pharmaceuticals. They all originated in Malaysia.
Health Canada recalls sex enhancer Libidus due to potential risks
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=a2804f9a-4e99-4a98
-8864-d0b97af1f18f&k=74857
Press release by the Chairman of the Drug Control Authority relating to traditional medicines found to contain Tadafil
http://www.bpfk.gov.my/pdfworddownload/MARCH_04.pdf#search="Shitek
Tongkat%20Ali%20400%20mg%E2%80%99%20and%20%E2%80%98Longeria%20Capsule%22
Tongkat ali extract, as opposed to tongkat ali root powder, is particularly expensive (more expensive than bootleg sildenafil citrate) because the active components are present only in small quantities.
Characterization of the Water Soluble Fraction from the Root Extract of Eurycoma Longifolia
http://www.ceps.com.tw/ec/ecjnlarticleView.aspx?atliid=59888&issueiid=5463&jnliid=474
Furthermore, there is an enormous multitude of active components that all contribute to the unique testosterone-raising capability of this herbal. The best neutral scientific source for checking the active components of tongkat ali (Eurycoma longifolia Jack) is:
Global Information Hub for Integrated Medicine
http://content.nhiondemand.com/moh/media/monoHerb.asp?objID=101048&ctype=herb&mtyp=1
While the chemical spectrum of Eurycoma longifolia Jack (tongkat ali) is well documented in the scientific literature, the scientific studies into the sexuality-enhancing and testosterone-raising effects of the roots of this plant have not been conducted with specific active components (such as eurycomanone or eurycomalactone) but with whole tongkat ali extract, that was not standardized for any single specific active ingredient.
When I say “scientific studies”, then I mean studies that have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. I have little trust in alleged “unpublished” scientific studies that are quoted on commercial websites, selling specific brand products.
If an alleged scientific study indeed was conducted in accordance to the accepted standards of the scientific community, and if it produced stunning results, then I wonder why it wasn’t published in a scientific journal. That doesn’t make sense. So, if the study wasn’t plainly invented, it must have been scientifically flawed.
Furthermore, neutral, genuine science would aim to study a generic chemical for its pharmaceutical value. Studies that instead use brand name extracts of an unknown competition and standardization are most probably bogus science. Apart from that, the idea of selling pharmaceuticals and dietary supplements of secret or undisclosed ingredients and standardization totally contradicts established standards of consumer protection.
On the other hand, “standardized extract” is a catch phrase that many supplement buyers associate with superior quality.
Indeed, yohimbe bark extract that is standardized for yohimbine is superior to yohimbe bark extract that is not standardized for yohimbine. For yohimbine is the most potent of a very limited range of active components that account for the effect of yohimbe.
Yohimbe standardized for 2 % yohimbine
http://www.vitacost.com/Twinlab-Yohimbe-Fuel-100-Capsules
Indeed, too, St. John’s wort that is standardized for hypericin is superior to St. John’s wort extract that is not standardized for hypericin.
St. John’s wort recommended to be standardized to 0.3% hypericin
http://www.umm.edu/altmed/ConsHerbs/StJohnsWortch.html
If any of the major tongkat ali extract distributing companies were to come up with an extract standardized for what indeed is or are the active components, this would be a progress. But so far, there is no clear picture which of the numerous active components listed on the above referred-to page of the Global Information Hub for Integrated Medicine is to what extend responsible for which effect.
But the lure is there, for commercial reasons, to claim standardization for active ingredients.
For example for eurypeptides? At a whooping 22 %.
Peptides what? The word eurypeptides suggests that we here deal with the peptides of Eurycoma longifolia Jack.
I have found no scientific source that would refer to eurypeptides. So, the product that is claimed to be standardized to 22 % eurypeptides is standardized to something unknown in the scientific literature.
It’s also not explained at websites that sell tongkat ali extract, standardized to 22 % eurypeptides, what these peptides are supposed to be.
Of course, I know what peptides are: short chains of amino acids, held together by peptide bonds. When the chains of amino acids become longer (let’s say: more than 50), then we no longer talk of peptides but of proteins.
Now, if those websites that claim to sell standardized tongkat ali extract would give some indication for which chemical substances they allegedly standardize their extract (if all that standardization talk is based on reality in the first place) that would be a step forward.
The Global Information Hub for Integrated Medicine, on the above-cited page states:
“Eurycoma longifolia is usually standardized to eurycomanone, 13alpha(21)-epoxyeurycomanone, eurycomalactone, and 14,15beta-dihydroxyklaineanone as reference markers for its organic extract whereas the more polar quassinoids and glycoproteins are used as standards for the aqueous extract.”
http://content.nhiondemand.com/moh/media/monoHerb.asp?objID=101048&ctype=herb&mtyp=1
I have never seen a commercial product standardized to any of these chemical substances. I would not exclude the possibility that any of the large chemical suppliers, e.g. Sigma Aldrich, sells an eurycoma longifolia extract standardized for eurycomanone or eurycomalactone, but they would likely only do so to chemical laboratories.
And I am sure that in any country, no eurycoma longifolia extract standardized to any of the above-listed chemicals would be allowed to go on sale as a health supplement without first going through the same kind of clinical trials that were required for sildenafil citrate or apomorphine.
Whole tongkat ali root, or tongkat ali extract that has been produced in a traditional manner by soaking and boiling chipped root, discarding the roots, and evaporating the water, has a known risk profile. In this form, tongkat ali has been consumed for centuries.
But standardizing tongkat ali extract for certain chemicals, the effect of which on humans has not been established in peer-reviewed clinical trials, is something else. And if the standardization is for chemicals that are given a fancy name which is not reflected in the scientific literature, it is something else again. Something of which I would not want to be part.
Or could it be that the whole eurypeptices story, too, is just bogus science?
_________________________________________________________________
opinion welcome
link to the articles
http://www.tongkatali-ingredients.com/index.htm
http://www.tongkatali-ingredients.com/eurypeptides-bogus.htm
or you can read here..
"What are the active ingredients of tongkat ali
I understand that in recent months, a Malaysian producer of tongkat ali extract has heavily promoted their product with claims of a scientific standardization.
As if this were of scientific relevance, they stated that their product is composed of 40% glycosaponins, 22% eurypeptides and 30% polysaccharides.
Judging from the wide circulation of their product, it seems to be easy indeed to fool people by using scientific-sounding terms.
The active components of tongkat ali (Eurycoma longifolia Jack) have of course been scientifically established.
There is an excellent, impartial, not product-oriented scientific source on the Internet:
http://content.nhiondemand.com/moh/media/monoHerb.asp?objID=101048&ctype=herb&mtyp=1
You can debunk yourself the pseudoscience of “40% glycosaponins, 22% eurypeptides and 30% polysaccharides”.
To start with, do the following:
On your browser, load the page:
http://content.nhiondemand.com/moh/media/monoHerb.asp?objID=101048&ctype=herb&mtyp=1
Using Internet Explorer, click Edit / Find and run a search for the following terms, one by one: glycosaponins, saponins, eurypeptides, peptides, polysaccharide.
Only the term “polysaccharide” is found on the page, listing the active components of Eurycoma longifolia Jack (tongkat ali), but NOT as an active chemical. A polysaccharide has been used to induce fever in lab animals on which the fever-lowering effect of tongkat ali was tested.
So what are “40% glycosaponins, 22% eurypeptides and 30% polysaccharides”?
Let’s start with “eurypeptides” because that was the term I didn’t know when I first red the claims made by the Malaysian tongkat ali producer. It was also the term that made me suspicious in the first place.
When you run a general Google search for “eurypeptides”, thousands of pages are offered. However, they all seem to refer only to the LJ 100 extract.
Google also offers a search engine specific for scientific publications.
The URL is:
http://scholar.google.com/
Try a search for “eurypeptides” and you will find that the term doesn’t exist in the scientific publications searched by Google.
You can also try your search on Medline, the huge website of the US National Library of Medicine. The Medline website is:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi
The result is the same: no reference to “eurypeptides”.
It’s obvious that “eurypeptides” is a made-up word. Sounds good, though. Reminds of neuropeptides, which indeed have a very important biochemical functions in the human body.
But eurypeptides?
OK, how about glycosaponins? “Glyco-“ basically means sugar, and indeed, many chemical substances can be combined with sugars, and they are then referred to as glyco-somethings.
Saponins are found in many plants. The term, however, isn’t very specific. Basically, it means that the substance is somehow soapy. If you want to know more about saponins in general, look at this page on Google:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define:saponin&btnG=Google+Search
Now, is the Sugar-Soap which the promoters of LJ100 tout as doing the LJ100 magic more real than the eurypeptides?
Try to search on Medline and Google Scholar.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi
http://scholar.google.com/
It’s 0 hits on Medline, and just 1 hit on Google Scholar (though the referred to page does not contain the term).
But even if glycosaponins is an existing, albeit rare, term, I doubt its relevance in the evaluation of active components of tongkat ali extract, simply because it contains no specific reference to tongkat ali.
You can check again the following page for how chemical names sound that are specific to an active ingredient found in a single plant:
http://content.nhiondemand.com/moh/media/monoHerb.asp?objID=101048&ctype=herb&mtyp=1
And now for the third scientific term that has been used in connection with the marketing of LJ100:
“30% polysaccharides”
You know what polysaccharides are: sugars that are too heavy to be sweet: starch, cellulose, and the like.
If you want to know it more precisely, check this Google link:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=define:polysaccharide&btnG=Search
If the claim is serious, does it mean that their extract is 30 percent cellulose?
The manufacturers probably realized that the “30% polysaccharides” reference didn’t really support their claim to have a superior standardized extract. I didn’t see it when I checked their site while writing this article. However, a Google search for LJ100 brings up many marketing sites that still list the “30% polysaccharides”.
In spite of, or probably because of, the pseudoscience applied in its marketing, LJ100 today seems to be the most widely distributed tongkat ali product. It’s amazing that even a physician with a generally good knowledge of herbal medicines, Ray Sahelian, MD, has fallen for their tricks.
Please note: I do not find anything wrong with genuine tongkat ali. It definitely is the closest, nature has come to develop an aphrodisiac, as well as a supplement to increase muscle mass in men. Both effects have been established in genuine science.
However, the above-described case has added to my doubts on Malaysia as a source country for tongkat ali. Not only is tongkat ali a protected plant in Malaysia, and not only has Malaysian tongkat ali been found to have been contaminated with heavy metals. Malaysian companies have also been on record for spiking tongkat ali with bootleg pharmaceuticals. Compared to that, sales techniques like the one described in this article are still a minor issue.
_________________________________________________________________
Eurypeptides and bogus science
I have been writing about tongkat ali long before it was popular, for some 10 years, and I do feel some responsibility for the reputation of this marvelous herb.
In the past few years, more and more distributors of dietary supplements have jumped on the tongkat ali bandwagon, and competition between distributors has become fierce.
Tongkat ali (Eurycoma longifolia Jack by its Latin, scientific name) is, of course, one of the most expensive herbals around, for a good reason. Tongkat ali roots take some 20 years to reach a stage of full potency. Because the shrub is difficult to cultivate, there is no tongkat ali plantation anywhere in the world. The tree only grows on well-drained jungle slopes, partially protected by a canopy. There may be other yet to be discovered requirements for the habitat, which explains why all attempts to grow the plant for commercial purposes have so far failed. All genuine tongkat ali is harvested in the wild.
Where?
The plant’s traditional geographic distribution is in the rainforests of Southeast Asia, and it still only grows in this part of the world. It once was common in all countries of Southeast Asia, from Vietnam to Indonesia, and in all of them, it is valued, and therefore was heavily harvested, for the medicinal properties of its roots. It’s unlikely indeed that wherever humans encroach on rainforests, tongkat ali shrubs will be left alone.
The only country where still now, there are areas with a natural prevalence of tongkat ali is Indonesia. Not that tongkat ali would still be common in Indonesia. But Indonesia indeed still is one of a very small number of countries with considerable stretches of virgin rainforests, and only this is where tongkat ali grows naturally. Not that the further existence of these virgin rainforests would be guaranteed. They are burned down at an alarming rate.
Indonesia smoke blankets region
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5415944.stm
Forest fires rage across Indonesia and Brazil
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/going-up-in-smoke-120906
Entire Rainforests Set to Disappear in Next Decade
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0705-06.htm
Indonesia has been under considerable international pressure not only to control the forest fires that are causing haze problems even thousands of kilometers away, but also to do more to protect the country’s rainforests which are of crucial value to the global environment. And indeed, the Indonesian president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY), who has previously heeded international advice on the civil war in Aceh and other topics, has indicated that the preservation of rainforests is one of his political concerns.
SBY Orders Arrest of Illegal Logging Bosses
http://www.bkpm.go.id/bkpm/news.php?mode=baca&info_id=979
Quite possibly, if the tongkat ali supply from Indonesia dries up because of rainforest protection measures, or if at least there are supply bottlenecks, the price for tongkat ali root and extract may still increase substantially.
Substantial price increases are also a distinct possibility because China is becoming ever richer ever faster. And no other nation on earth is as ardent a user of natural medicines as are the Chinese. In China, herbal medicine is not fringe health care; it is on par with Western medicine.
Traditional Chinese medicine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Chinese_medicine
Because China is so big, whatever is in demand in China is bound to become scarce. And the rarer an ingredient used in traditional medicine, the more expensive it is bound to become. This has already happened with another Indonesia-exported natural product, the price for which (even though it is of dubious efficacy) has already skyrocketed because it is sought after in newly rich China. The talk is of bird’s nests, which now fetch thousands of US dollars per kg.
Swifts and Trade
http://american.edu/ted/SWIFT.HTM
Bird nests at around 2000 US dollars per kg
http://www.naturalnest.com/
Bird nests at around 3000 US dollars per kg
http://www.ipmart.com/main/page.php?page=hm_hthl_food
&cat=577&ref=adwords&gclid=CN_u-KrL6IcCFSerYAodvU6wfA
In comparison, tongkat ali root (not extract) still trades at less than 50 dollars per kg.
Retail tongkat ali chipped root and root powder
http://www.tongkatali.org/retailroots.htm
However, unlike bird’s nests, tongkat ali is not suited for direct consumption. It should either be boiled as a tea, with the roots discarded, or consumed as an extract.
It is no surprise that when a rare and expensive substance, such as tongkat ali, is traded in a highly competitive market, there will be cheats. A number products sold as tongkat ali have been found spiked with bootleg pharmaceuticals. They all originated in Malaysia.
Health Canada recalls sex enhancer Libidus due to potential risks
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=a2804f9a-4e99-4a98
-8864-d0b97af1f18f&k=74857
Press release by the Chairman of the Drug Control Authority relating to traditional medicines found to contain Tadafil
http://www.bpfk.gov.my/pdfworddownload/MARCH_04.pdf#search="Shitek
Tongkat%20Ali%20400%20mg%E2%80%99%20and%20%E2%80%98Longeria%20Capsule%22
Tongkat ali extract, as opposed to tongkat ali root powder, is particularly expensive (more expensive than bootleg sildenafil citrate) because the active components are present only in small quantities.
Characterization of the Water Soluble Fraction from the Root Extract of Eurycoma Longifolia
http://www.ceps.com.tw/ec/ecjnlarticleView.aspx?atliid=59888&issueiid=5463&jnliid=474
Furthermore, there is an enormous multitude of active components that all contribute to the unique testosterone-raising capability of this herbal. The best neutral scientific source for checking the active components of tongkat ali (Eurycoma longifolia Jack) is:
Global Information Hub for Integrated Medicine
http://content.nhiondemand.com/moh/media/monoHerb.asp?objID=101048&ctype=herb&mtyp=1
While the chemical spectrum of Eurycoma longifolia Jack (tongkat ali) is well documented in the scientific literature, the scientific studies into the sexuality-enhancing and testosterone-raising effects of the roots of this plant have not been conducted with specific active components (such as eurycomanone or eurycomalactone) but with whole tongkat ali extract, that was not standardized for any single specific active ingredient.
When I say “scientific studies”, then I mean studies that have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. I have little trust in alleged “unpublished” scientific studies that are quoted on commercial websites, selling specific brand products.
If an alleged scientific study indeed was conducted in accordance to the accepted standards of the scientific community, and if it produced stunning results, then I wonder why it wasn’t published in a scientific journal. That doesn’t make sense. So, if the study wasn’t plainly invented, it must have been scientifically flawed.
Furthermore, neutral, genuine science would aim to study a generic chemical for its pharmaceutical value. Studies that instead use brand name extracts of an unknown competition and standardization are most probably bogus science. Apart from that, the idea of selling pharmaceuticals and dietary supplements of secret or undisclosed ingredients and standardization totally contradicts established standards of consumer protection.
On the other hand, “standardized extract” is a catch phrase that many supplement buyers associate with superior quality.
Indeed, yohimbe bark extract that is standardized for yohimbine is superior to yohimbe bark extract that is not standardized for yohimbine. For yohimbine is the most potent of a very limited range of active components that account for the effect of yohimbe.
Yohimbe standardized for 2 % yohimbine
http://www.vitacost.com/Twinlab-Yohimbe-Fuel-100-Capsules
Indeed, too, St. John’s wort that is standardized for hypericin is superior to St. John’s wort extract that is not standardized for hypericin.
St. John’s wort recommended to be standardized to 0.3% hypericin
http://www.umm.edu/altmed/ConsHerbs/StJohnsWortch.html
If any of the major tongkat ali extract distributing companies were to come up with an extract standardized for what indeed is or are the active components, this would be a progress. But so far, there is no clear picture which of the numerous active components listed on the above referred-to page of the Global Information Hub for Integrated Medicine is to what extend responsible for which effect.
But the lure is there, for commercial reasons, to claim standardization for active ingredients.
For example for eurypeptides? At a whooping 22 %.
Peptides what? The word eurypeptides suggests that we here deal with the peptides of Eurycoma longifolia Jack.
I have found no scientific source that would refer to eurypeptides. So, the product that is claimed to be standardized to 22 % eurypeptides is standardized to something unknown in the scientific literature.
It’s also not explained at websites that sell tongkat ali extract, standardized to 22 % eurypeptides, what these peptides are supposed to be.
Of course, I know what peptides are: short chains of amino acids, held together by peptide bonds. When the chains of amino acids become longer (let’s say: more than 50), then we no longer talk of peptides but of proteins.
Now, if those websites that claim to sell standardized tongkat ali extract would give some indication for which chemical substances they allegedly standardize their extract (if all that standardization talk is based on reality in the first place) that would be a step forward.
The Global Information Hub for Integrated Medicine, on the above-cited page states:
“Eurycoma longifolia is usually standardized to eurycomanone, 13alpha(21)-epoxyeurycomanone, eurycomalactone, and 14,15beta-dihydroxyklaineanone as reference markers for its organic extract whereas the more polar quassinoids and glycoproteins are used as standards for the aqueous extract.”
http://content.nhiondemand.com/moh/media/monoHerb.asp?objID=101048&ctype=herb&mtyp=1
I have never seen a commercial product standardized to any of these chemical substances. I would not exclude the possibility that any of the large chemical suppliers, e.g. Sigma Aldrich, sells an eurycoma longifolia extract standardized for eurycomanone or eurycomalactone, but they would likely only do so to chemical laboratories.
And I am sure that in any country, no eurycoma longifolia extract standardized to any of the above-listed chemicals would be allowed to go on sale as a health supplement without first going through the same kind of clinical trials that were required for sildenafil citrate or apomorphine.
Whole tongkat ali root, or tongkat ali extract that has been produced in a traditional manner by soaking and boiling chipped root, discarding the roots, and evaporating the water, has a known risk profile. In this form, tongkat ali has been consumed for centuries.
But standardizing tongkat ali extract for certain chemicals, the effect of which on humans has not been established in peer-reviewed clinical trials, is something else. And if the standardization is for chemicals that are given a fancy name which is not reflected in the scientific literature, it is something else again. Something of which I would not want to be part.
Or could it be that the whole eurypeptices story, too, is just bogus science?
_________________________________________________________________
opinion welcome
