Why take the 10:1 corcyceps extract?

The 10:1 is better. It's almost universal in people's anecdotes on it, including myself and everyone on my team. I have tested so many cordyceps extracts over the years. Results don't lie. The issue is the analytical testing of the industry is not up to par for mushrooms. It just isn't. The Megazyme methods test for total beta-glucans, but even that has changed over time. The original Megazyme methods back from 2015 used a short sample prep using hydrochloric acid (HCL). They assumed this was good enough to fully acid hydrolyze the beta-glucans in a sample, but that later turned out to not be the case for many of the mushrooms. They have gone through multiple revisions since then, and we now use sulfuric acid (H2SO4) in the sample prep, and for longer. This is now fully acid hydrolyzing the beta-glucans in the sample. In some mushrooms, we have literally found DOUBLE the beta-glucans we did before. However, we set our specs years ago under the original Megazyme methods using HCL.So we are currently understating the beta-glucans in our mushrooms because of that.

Why have we not updated? Well we think the new Megazyme methods are also missing a massive piece of the puzzle, so we are designing and building our own testing methods. These new methods are going to much more accurately reflect what we feel are the beneficial beta-glucans, and calculate out the ones we don't actually want. See, that's what we think is happening. The 1:1 extracts have higher total beta-glucans, but much of them are biologically inactive ones that we don't care about. So while the more potent extracts seem like they have less, they actually have more of the ones we want, and less of the ones we don't want. The Megazyme methods as they are now don't distinguish between them. They measure total beta-glucans, that's it. But why do we care about beta-glucans at all? Well because they are biologically active in the body! However, not all of them are. So it only stands to reason that we design better methods for measuring the ones we want without the ones we don't want. The fact that nobody is talking about this is crazy! We actually just optimized our new modified methods yesterday. I am trying to get an update from my lab director on it, but we are confident they will work. If they do, this will be a massive breakthrough in mushroom testing. All anyone cares about are the biologically active compounds. This means that lab testing methods should focus on that, not some pumped up number that is meaningless to the effects that will be felt. I know I said we are going to be releasing some really breakthrough things with mushrooms soon, but we are finally on the cusp of that. First quarter of 2022 will be a good one!

So how does that all fit with cordyceps specifically? Well that's a tough nut to crack. The conventional wisdom is that cordycepin is the main active, but we have found that to not be the case. We have taken very high cordycepin extracts from the mycelium and felt no real strong effects. We have even tried pure cordycepin and felt nothing. It's either not the active, or it needs other compounds in the mushroom for it to work properly. We are still trying to solve that analytical issue in the lab. However, consensus is that increasing cordycepin levels in an extract is not associated with increased effects. Till we solve that, we can only speculate. Part of the equation are the active beta-glucans, for sure. So those improved methods will shine part of the light on the situation. I feel there are other parts to the equation, though. We are going to be diligently working through all that in the lab starting Jan 1st with our mushroom researcher that is FINALLY able to enter the US and get into the mushroom lab I built back in early 2020. I had hoped to have this all solved by now, but the pandemic threw a wrench in that equation. Now that he can finally enter the US and get to work, we are going to move quickly on it. So stay tuned.

But short answer is that the 10:1 cordyceps is absolutely more potent and effective than the 1:1. Ignore the numbers for now. Try them back to back if you would like. Everyone is different, but I am sure you will come to the same conclusion.