Why doesn't Nootropics Depot and Real Mushrooms provide terpene % for lion's mane?

...Continued from above
_________________________________________________

HPLC with UV (DAD) detection is the conventional standard method in the quantitative analysis of various diterpene compounds. In many cases, diterpenes have no good UV detection, which results in relatively high limits of detection and quantitation. Sometimes there can be a real problem, especially when diterpenes occur in plant materials in very low concentrations (for example, taxanes, ginkgolides, and others) in the presence of comparatively high concentrations of compounds from other groups (e.g., flvonoids, polyphenols, etc.). In such cases, a very complicated purifiation as well as preliminary separation procedures seem to be indispensable [24,54,129].

Hmmm, exactly as I was saying? It's like you found a study backing up every point I made, rather than any point you made... Did you even read the study, or did you just see some methods mentioning HPLC and erinacines and link it? It's a good study. It just backs up my position instead of yours. This is especially true when you know how HPLC sample prep works. Did you know that you dilute your samples 10X or more when you run it through an HPLC? So if you are looking for something that is at 4% concentration, your detection limits need to be ten times less than that, or your numbers won't be accurate and/or you won't detect anything at all. This is why my idea of using a UPLC-MS/MS triple quad system makes the most sense. You have the accuracy and sensitivity to detect the things we are looking for. You can't just stop there, though. You need to us orthogonal techniques to get the real validated data. So UPLC-MS/MS paired with NMR and IR to verify.

Testing for total terpenes is a compromise but in my opinion not a bad one in the case of Lion's Mane. Just common sense: Lion's Mane contains no mono- or tri-terpenes, just di-terpenes and a few compounds belonging to the group of sesquiterpenes. HPLC is not suited for determining sesquiterpenes according to the experts. So a total terpene number will include diterpenes but not the sesquiterpenes.

No it is not common sense. It's also subject to spiking, like you mention later down with your reference to dextrin.

No matter what, all compounds included in the total terpene number are bioactive compounds, unlike the widely used old-school mushroom quality marker 'polysaccharides', which included a lot of useless compounds (starch, chitin) and can be spiked easily (dextrin).

Ever think that someone might spike their lion's mane with a cheap terpene to boost that number up? You're not separating and identifying the exact terpenes, so who knows what it is measuring!

So there is no factual reason not to test for terpenes / diterpenes in Lion's Mane. The effect on sales is a plausible reason to test or not to test. High numbers will increase sales, low numbers work the other way. No numbers is better than no numbers at all because of the ignorance of the average consumer.

Yes there is a factual reason. Inaccurate or misleading numbers are NOT better than no numbers at all. That's stupid... People want accurate and validated numbers, not pie in the sky bullshit. ISO 17034 deals with creating your own reference standards. Go read that and tell me how complex, time-consuming, and expensive that is. Then you can understand why this is not an easy problem to solve. There are proper ways to do science. You can't just ignore them to get non-validated and inaccurate data. To then use that inaccurate data to create a new standardization for a product? That's lunacy!

And u/realmushrooms specifically mentioned ergosterol. The quantity of ergosterol in Lion's Mane is low. According to this report the level of ergosterol is significantly lower than 2mg per gram (0.002%). Actually, the level of all sterols is surprisingly low in Lion's Mane according to this analytic report.

That study you linked is showing a lot of compounds in there that can throw off the numbers. The ergosterol might be low, but there are a lot of others in there that will certainly throw off a shitty unverified HPLC-UV method. I think the point /u/realmushrooms was trying to make is there are other compounds in there that can throw the numbers off.

Then there's the point of the AOAC not having validated a standard for this type of testing. I don't know why they don't have a validated standard. Maybe nobody 's been asking for it ? AFAIK there's also no standard for testing triterpenes in Reishi. Yet these tests procedures are available in many labs. The methods researchers use to discover metabolites such as the erinacines in Lion's Mane or ganoderic acids in Reishi (etc. etc. etc.) are also never AOAC validated. That doesn't mean they are wrong or should not be taken serious.

Maybe because they are difficult, time-consuming, expensive, and require a lot of work from a lot of different labs to verify? There's a reason people turn to the AOAC as an authority. They only put up methods that are based in sound science, so you know the numbers you are getting are not just BS.

If MYASD only wants to put AOAC-validated numbers on his labels he 's cutting his customers short IMO. And intentionally keeping things vague, which is of course better for business than specifying low numbers. Just like the old-school "10:1" or "8:1" (etc. etc.) markers he's using. Vague. Such ratio's cannot be validated, can be made-up 100% and are not an indication of quality or potency. Very suitable for marketing though. The majority of customers will assume that e.g. 8 : 1 is 8 times better than 1 : 1. Not something the AOAC would approve of I think.

Yes, I am doing my customers a disservice by upholding scientific rigor in what we do, and ensuring that I am not putting blatantly misleading or false numbers on our products. That's it! I should do my customers a service, and just start randomly running generic HPLC methods for all sorts of things on our products. If there is a peak with a retention time, it has to be something, right? So I should just assume it's what I think it is, and put that number on the jars!

There is a reason we do things the proper way in science. You can use science improperly to tell you all sorts of things you want to hear. In fact, it's one of the most dangerous things about science. People can just write off opinions, but they put more faith in scientific evidence. However, when that scientific evidence is acquired through improper and inaccurate techniques, or worse, by someone acting in bad faith to force the data where they want it to go, you can mislead people immensely. This is why do you things properly and hold yourself to a higher standard. I will not just put random standardizations on our products without valid scientific evidence and validation backing them up. Competitors can make up all the numbers they want, then try to attack us using that bad science if they want to. Hopefully people can see what is really going on, though. If a scientific answer can be gotten, everyone here knows I will do whatever it takes to get there. We are working on the erinacine and hericenone thing. I have some of the smartest people I have ever met working on this, and I have no doubt we will get there. It is just going to take time. If I had an extra million dollars lying around to throw at it, I could get answers sooner. I just try to do things in a sustainable and economically justifiable manner, which usually takes longer.