Comment · Wed, October 16, 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
im_a_lil_bish · 2 points
Thanks so much man. So if it isn't for SGS, which lab would you recommend for a simple consumer like us to contact, to test our supplements?
u/MisterYouAreSoDumb · Natrium Health & Nootropics Depot
Depends on the product. Generally Alkemist errs on the side of caution with plant extracts. So if they say it meets specs, it likely does or exceeds. They also don't test everything, and often times err a little too on the side of caution. So for instance they are only measuring 4 gingerols in ginger, because that is what USP used to do forever. However, there are 6 gingerols that we are interested in. So we have to do our own ginger testing internally, and use Alkemist as a verification of the 4 marker ones. We run into this all the time. Saying X% actives only means something if you define what you consider actives. So gingerols, ginsenosides, withanolides, bacopasides, etc. They are all groupings of things. So what one lab defines as gingerols might differ from another lab.
For synthetics, or newer extracts, it's a crap shoot. We use about half a dozen labs for various products. Even then, there are some we just can't find anyone to do properly. Oleamide is one, for example. No US-based lab out there is properly testing oleamide for the supplement market. It takes GC/MS, NMR, and IR work to verify things, and most oleamide on the market is for industrial use. So very few care about the cis/trans isomers. Supplement customers do, though. So we have to use a few labs, along with our in-house lab, to verify that one. No one lab out there will do it for you. I am about to buy a GC for our lab, though. So we are adding more equipment all the time to increase our capabilities. I think I am adding a triple quad mass spec to our UPLC as well. I am meeting Waters in Vegas tomorrow to discuss it. I was going to add a triple quad GC-MS, but I've decided that Shimadzu are shit to work with. So I am pulling the plug on our relationship. We'll get more use out of a triple quad hooked up to a liquid chromatograph anyway, and Waters are great to work with. I am 99% sure we are going with Thermo Scientific for our new GC. They are our longest lab partner. We have a bunch of Thermo equipment in our lab already. So one day our internal lab will be able to do it all, save for probably NMR, as that is $500,000 and needs a huge shielded room.
For bacopa testing specifically, Alkemist is using the same reference standard we are, and their results are within 1% of our internal lab results. So they are who I would trust for bacopa at the moment, other than our lab. I am building out our lab to eventually take outside work, but that is a large project that needs to be done right. So while it is on the horizon, it's a little ways off. It is something I am going to offer at some point, though.