Clusterheadaches.com Message Board


    
      
        Clusterheadaches.com Message Board
        (http://www.clusterheadaches.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi)
      

        New Message Board Archives >> Medications, Treatments, Therapies 2003 >> Hops - Scientific Evidence
        
(Message started by: floridian on May 10^th, 2003, 9:51pm)

Title: Hops - Scientific Evidence
Post by floridian on May 10^th, 2003, 9:51pm

Hi, all.
Just had my first cluster of the season. I usually don't have them until August, so I spent a fair amount of time today thinking about my life and looking for a trigger, and realized that last night I took ginseng. It occurred to me that Ginseng is known to increase Nitric Oxide (NO), which is generally believed to be a trigger... (alcohol increases NO production).

So, I have been on Pub Med trying to find safe and natural ways of damping down my NO. I came across this article, which indicates that hops are loaded with potent compounds that block NO synthase - the enzyme that produces NO. Interestingly but coincedentally, the research was done on nerve cells (can you say "Trigeminal," boys and girls?) Other compounds that are chemically similar to hops include grape seed extract, pine bark extract, and green tea.

Does it mean that I think hops are a cure? Not at all. It means there IS a scientific basis to believe they MIGHT be helpful. As a treatment. For some people. Only time will tell how useful this lead is. And I think that if it does block the headaches (end result), it would not fix everything else that is disrupted in cluster heads.

So it seems that Shellie may have been on to something, and Ueli and others jumped the gun and prematurely dismissed what may be a positive therapy. I guess that rejecting something as unscientific without scientific research is itself unscientific.

Anyway, Here's the abstract:

J Agric Food Chem 2002 Jun 5;50(12):3435-43

Identification and in vitro biological activities of hop proanthocyanidins: inhibition of nNOS activity and scavenging of reactive nitrogen species.

Stevens JF, Miranda CL, Wolthers KR, Schimerlik M, Deinzer ML, Buhler DR. Department of Environmental and Molecular Toxicology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331, USA.

Oligomeric proanthocyanidins constitute a group of water-soluble polyphenolic tannins that are present in the female inflorescences (up to 5% dry wt) of the hop plant (Humulus lupulus). Humans are exposed to hop proanthocyanidins through consumption of beer. Proanthocyanidins from hops were characterized for their chemical structure and their in vitro biological activities. Chemically, they consist mainly of oligomeric catechins ranging from dimers to octamers, with minor amounts of catechin oligomers containing one or two gallocatechin units. The chemical structures of four procyanidin dimers (B1, B2, B3, and B4) and one trimer, epicatechin-(4beta-->8)-catechin-(4alpha-->8)-catechin (TR), were elucidated using mass spectrometry, NMR spectroscopy, and chemical degradation. When tested as a mixture, the hop oligomeric proanthocyanidins (PC) were found to be potent inhibitors of neuronal nitric oxide synthase (nNOS) activity. Among the oligomers tested, procyanidin B2 was most inhibitory against nNOS activity. Procyanidin B3, catechin, and epicatechin were noninhibitory against nNOS activity. PC and the individual oligomers were all strong inhibitors of 3-morpholinosydnonimine (SIN-1)-induced oxidation of LDL, with procyanidin B3 showing the highest antioxidant activity at 0.1 microg/mL. The catechin trimer (TR) exhibited antioxidant activity more than 1 order of magnitude greater than that of alpha-tocopherol or ascorbic acid on a molar basis.

PMID: 12033808 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Title: Re: Hops - Scientific Evidence
Post by Ueli on May 10^th, 2003, 11:54pm

Excuse me floridan,

In no way did I jump the gun at the hops, in the contrary I mentioned it's value as a mild sedative.
What ruffled my feathers was this sorcerer, who believes that something useful for mild sleep problems can terminate, or at least 'dramatically decrease' clusterheadaches within 2 weeks. The cleansing from "spiritual toxins" doesn't deserve another word.

There are counter-examples to your "believe that hops might be helpful" against clusters:
The largest hop consumer on this board is probably jonny. He is chronic since 1926.
In my case: after 40 years of hop use, sometimes to the excess, I developed clusterheadaches.

BTW, I'm glad Shellie left us again, we really don't need somebody recommending treatments predating the dark medieval ages.

BTW2, I found an interesting site discussing scientific proof, in contrast to the 'evidence beyond reasonable doubt' used in court (not to mention the 'proofs' of the snake oil salesmen)
Next time you have a few spare minutes visit http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/index.html instead of a porn site ;D

PFNADs
Ueli

Title: Re: Hops - Scientific Evidence
Post by Mark C on May 11^th, 2003, 12:45am

Title: Re: Hops - Scientific Evidence
Post by Lenny on May 11^th, 2003, 1:35am

Is it just me ? It seems like whenever i read a post from Ueli ( i always hear that voice from that movie ) "Silence of the lamb" the character that Anthony Hopkins played :o :o :o. BTW Ueli - I mean that in a good way :D,saw it 2 or 3 times.

Title: Re: Hops - Scientific Evidence
Post by floridian on May 11^th, 2003, 2:19am

Ok, you acknowledged that hops is a mild sedative. Is it that and only that? Or have you decided that it is only that, therefore no further discussion is needed?

You mention 2 counterexamples - you and Johnny. Is that your idea of a well designed, double blind scientific study with an adequate population size and rigorous statistical analysis. Or just two anecdotes? Aren't you guiding people away from considering a reasonable (albeit unproven) hypothesis based on something that doesn't even qualilfy as flimsy evidence?

Yeah, like you, I am sceptical when people talk about religious/non-rational approaches to medicine. If I should develop appendicitis, I want a good surgeon. But the mind and spirit do affect overall health and healing. And even a witch-doctor might have some moves that we could learn from. Case in point:

If scientists go out and look for plants with a specific medical activity (anti-bacterial, anti-cancer, etc), the sucess rate is usually less than 1 percent. If they start by asking scantily clad superstitious aborigines what plants are good for infection, the success rate shoots way up (30-50 percent, according to the ethnobotany literature I have seen). The witch-doctor's explanitory theories may be pure bunk, but over time, valuable knowledge has been concentrated in their medical system.

----- end of cluster/hops discussion ---- material below to Ueli

I read the article you mentioned, BTW. Thought provoking with a few good points, but some serious logical errors... faulty generalization on what psychology is... Lutus blurs the difference between human (humanistic) psychology and all psychology (cognitive, behavioral, physiological, industrial, etc). It is possible to apply the scientific method to human behavior and advance our understanding of ourselves - something the article does not accept as a central premise. Yeah, psych has quacks and flakes, but so does medicine, law, banking, engineering, .... The article does not recognize that psychology (like many other disciplines) is a broad collection of many approaches to a theme, and that (like medicine) it is both an Art and Science (with some psychs limiting themselves only to art or only to the science.) Most medical doctors are not scientists - they practice the medical arts, and try to incorporate a modicum of scientific principles in their practice. Their decision on which medicine to prescribe is more a function of patient demand, HMO cost directives and pharmaceutical marketing campaigns than of pure science. And medicine has seen plenty of fads in the past few decades - like the "take out their tonsils" fad, the "thalidomide is good for pregnant women" fad and the "eat, drink, and smoke as you wish, and when you have a heart attack, we'll save you." (A friend's brother was told this by his doctor in the 1950s - he died at an early age).

Lutus thinks that the expansion of the DSM is proof that psychology has gone astray, but I think that 3600 mental disorders doesn't even scratch the surface of the human condition. The number of physical diseases has expanded rapidly with an increase in our knowledge of the body - I think a study of the mind/brain should result in similar growth - especially if one accepts that the brain affects the mind (at minimum) or that the mind is a function of the brain (more daring, but plausible). Mathematics disorder sounds reasonable to me. I have taught students with ASDD - Alphabetic Symbol Deciphering Disorder (dsylexia) and it isn't an attitude problem. It is as real as clusters and chocolate. I have no doubt that numeracy, spatial reasoning, emotion, logic, memory and other types of thought rely on different parts of the brain, and that these parts of the brain can be impaired, leading to thousands of distinct diseases. An alternative is that people choose to be dsylexic or retarded, or (being a glass-is-half-full member of the PC movement) that these are not disabilities or diseases, they are differential abilities! Lutus seems to think that psychology is merely providing a crutch to people who made poor decisions, and don't want to change. With money or a little luck, you can find a credentialed fool to play his violin for you, but that is not a reflection of where the discipline is, or where its going. It is a testimony to the fact that money has power, and that some people are stupid.

Also, the whole mind/body, humans vs animals tone of his work reflects a medieval Christian theology. Lutus spends too much time trying to define rationality and science as that which makes humans distinct from the animals (Which doesn't tell us what science is, only what his philosophical world view is.) I have done cognitive research on 3 species of monkeys, and I have owned dogs and cats. I know for a fact that non-human animals can form abstract thoughts and reason, although the experiments and observations suggest its on a much lower level than humans.

Good sparring with you, time to attempt sleep.

Title: Re: Hops - Scientific Evidence
Post by JDH on May 12^th, 2003, 10:20am

on 05/11/03 at 01:35:33, Lenny wrote:

Funny, I always hear the voice of James Earl Jones when I read a post from Ueli...but that's just me. ;)

Jim