Comment · Tue, October 15, 2019 · Natrium Health & Nootropics Depot
Bacopa Monnieri - Standardised extracts (e.g Synapsa) and HPLC measurements
Original post in this thread
throw_my_username · 9 points
Hello,
I was wondering the following. Most studies on Bacopa use the Synapsa variant and state a dose of ~300mg with 50-55% bacosides.
Now, considering that that bacoside percentage is derived NOT through the accurate HPLC measurement but through UV-spectrophotometry, one can easily demonstrate that e.g Synapsa is, in fact, NOT 50-55% Bacosides but more like ~8% (for an example, see here).
Due to this, if one were to buy a product that claims 50% bacosides by HPLC, would it be reasonable to lower the bacopa recommended dosage by 5 times? So, instead of 300mg used in studies, the HPLC-measured variant would only be 60mg.
A second question I have is this: considering it's the same herb, how is it possible that some people have experienced problems with the non-Synapsa version of Bacopa? What could the Synapsa version have that the "generic" bacopa doesn't that could cause different reactions in the same person?
What they were answering
throw_my_username · 2 points
Thanks again for the replies. I live in Ireland.
Edit: Here is the COA of the 50% bacosides by HPLC.
I'd be willing to send you some samples to test if you have the time / willingness :).
u/MisterYouAreSoDumb · Natrium Health & Nootropics Depot
Yeah, that's SGS in India. This is one of the labs we were fighting with on their numbers. They kept getting over 50% and we kept getting 24%. They sent us huge packets with testing data, and their methods and documentation was actually very good. So we went back and forth with them, and they sent us some of their reference standard they were using. I believe we sent them some of the Sigma standard we were using. After a while they came back and admitted that it must have been their reference standard that was degraded, which was artificially inflating the numbers.
I can't say for sure if that specific lot is the same as ours, though. There is no date on that COA, which is a bit weird. There is a report number, but you would have to contact SGS to get the details on it. It makes me think this was a test ordered by the manufacturer of the bacopa, not the vendor in question you got it from. You see it says page number 2 of 2. Where is page one? That probably says the supplier name, so they left it off. I am 99% sure I know exactly which supplier it is, though. We just went through this whole thing there. I will say that we have gotten a LOT of samples of bacopa through our doors, and none of them have tested higher than 24%. I mean, this 24% is DOUBLE the concentration of Bacognize, which is our most popular extract; even over Synapsa. The best thing is that the 24% we are about to release is CHEAPER than the half as potent Bacognize, and MUCH CHEAPER than Synapsa. Going direct to India allowed us to make the pricing better for everyone, while making the actual actives more potent. It just took us like half a year of testing and work to figure out the data.
We are dealing with a very similar thing right now with magnolia bark, but just in China. We have had like 3 University labs in China trying to verify why their numbers are all inflated to ours, and we think China is all using a degraded magnolia bark reference standard as well. We have their standard coming to us to do some work on it in our lab. We will compare the standard everyone in China is using to the Sigma Aldrich one we are, and know for certain if that is the cause. Going forward, we are putting a system in place that requires our suppliers to use reference standards that we deem acceptable, and we are even supplying some of them with our Sigma standards so we know for sure. I am meeting with a few of the labs in Vegas at Supply Side West in a couple days to personally hand them reference standards! LOL