[Sep 09, 97 - 18:11] Ketira of 1:3615/82 wrote to Jerry Schwartz:
JS>> The usual argument I've heard in favor of herbal supplements is that
JS>> in addition to the main ingredient (the vitamin C in rose hips, for
JS>> example) they include other compounds which do things the chemically
JS>> pure vitamins do not.  You seem to be saying that the more complex
JS>> natural compounds would have fewer, rather than more, side effects and
JS>> I don't understand that. 
K> Think of it this way:  Before we had supplements, people ate the vitamin
K> at its source --and to continue your example:  Sailors would keep oranges
K> on their ships to fight scurvy, which is a *defiency* of Vitamin C.
Before we had fire, we ate meat raw.  Before we had chemically-produced 
dietary additives, goiter was common.  Before we had modern medicine, people 
died of things we can easily cure today.  It would seem that you are arguing 
that pharmaceuticals are inferior to prepared supplements, which in turn are 
inferior to the raw leaves and roots.
If you think preparation is ipso-facto bad, look up where tapioca comes from.
K> MHO:  Herbal remedies are easier on the body's biosystem than 
armacutical
Only if the bioavailability is lower, I would think.  I suppose that 
something which required digestion to release its active ingredient would 
have a "timed release" effect.
K> (sp) supplements would be.  I was looking for an alternate to dexedrine 
K> that wouldn't raise my BP so much the way dexedrine does.  I *need* either
K> of them to help me focus; I just don't want some of the nasty side 
fects.
Lower doses might do it, but probably a different medication is in order 
(whether or not it grows on trees).
K> Hope this helps you understand.....
I am unpersuaded, so we should probably just drop it.  I didn't mean to 
tease, I just like to hear differing opinions when I find someone who can 
express one without starting a rant.
Jerry Schwartz
--- Msged/386 4.00
---------------