<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
 <!-- Generated by Ektron CMS400.NET -->
 <channel>
  <title>Forum : Nutrition, Metabolism and Body Composition : What to look for in botanical related research studies - a checklist.</title>
  <description></description>
 <item>
  <title></title>
  <description><![CDATA[<p>Not all botanicals are created equal although it may appear that way on the 	surface.  Botanicals are completely different from essential micro and 	macronutrients, which are defined chemical entities and are well 	characterized. For example, Vitamin C is vitamin C, regardless of its source. 	Not so for Echinacea or other botanicals.  The following checklist provides 	some information to help the consumer of botanical related research be more 	educated about the research process and what should be included in any 	scientific publication that investigates botanicals.</p>
<ol>
<li>What is the genus and species of the plant (as you know, different species of 	the same genus can have very different effects)?</li>
<li>What plant part was used (even within the same plant genus and species, the 	root can have different effects from the aerial parts)?</li>
<li>How was the specific plant part and genus and species identified (did the 	researcher just accept the material to be tested at face value? What assurance 	did they obtain or seek to confirm that they tested what they set out to test)?</li>
<li>How was the material prepared? Was a dried plant powder? An extract? If so, 	how was the material extracted? With what solvent(s) in what amounts (how 	a plant is processed impacts the presence and amount of constituents; some 	are removed while others are concentrated; this in turn affects the potency of 	the extract)?</li>
<li>Did the material that was tested correspond to an established Compendial	monograph, such as the USP, AHP, etc…? These monographs include a host of 	important standards, including identification and acceptable ranges of 	constituents, including contaminants</li>
<li>If the material did not correspond to an established monograph, what were 	the specifications of the material (i.e. ranges of specific constituents or 	marker compounds and limits on contaminants, such as heavy metals, 	pesticides, residual solvents)?</li>
<li>Related to above, what were the ACTUAL levels of the ACTUAL material that 	was tested? This information would be found on a Certificate of Analysis 	from the ingredient manufacturer, and the ACTUAL batch number of the 	material that was tested in the study should be provided.The agricultural practices (i.e. where the plants were grown, under what 	conditions, how they were harvested, etc…) can also be useful, but it is well 	known these can contribute significant variability in the constituent profile of 	plants. As long as the ingredient manufacturer has established reasonable 	ranges for specifications, AND has shown that these have been met, the 	concern over this kind of variation is not that great.</li>
</ol>
<br />Remember, a high-quality research study that is published will discuss each of the aforementioned points in relation to the botanical under investigation.  If you have any questions or comments about this topic, please post!<br /><br />Posted on behalf of the NMBC Executive Council<p> </p>
<br />]]></description>
  <pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 2012 14:25:51 GMT</pubDate>
 </item>
 </channel>
</rss>
