18 replies to this topic

[bluelai]

hello all,

i would like a to know the difference between Enzogenol vs Pycnogenol. . .
i read some of the post here comparing Pycnogenol to Grape seed. . . but i would like to know further more about the difference between this two. . .

also. . . does anyone here know about the "Isotonix OPC-3" and the "pHion Indigo, Antioxidant Complex Capsules" ??

actually my father has been taking the OPC-3 for a few years. . .. he feels very good about it. . .

but i just learn a friend saying pHion Indigo is much better than the Isotonix OPC-3. . .
pHion Indigo containing more fruits. . more antioxidants and higher ORAC (Oxygen Radical Absorption Capacity) .. ..

pHion Indigo ~ Certified 8000 orac
OPC-3 ~ 3000 orac

http://www.editgrid....go_vs._Isotonix

but what curious me is .. . the difference between these two products. .
first is the price . . . OPC-3 ($65) is much more expensive than pHion Indigo ($29). . ..
but OPC-3 has less types of antioxidants . . . (how come it is much more expensive. . . ??)
then i study their antioxidants. . .
i found that OPC-3 claims their pine bark extract is "Pycnogenol", while pHion Indigo's pine bark extract is "Enzogenol". . . . ..
here is what I dont understand the difference. . ..
does this make the difference in their price??!!

also. . . OPC-3 is powder. .. while pHion Indigo is capsule. .
does this make any difference in general absorption..?
but pHion Indigo has certified 8000 orac. . . while OPC-3 has only 3000 orac. . . .
so does this also affect the general absorption. . .?

actually, I'm asking my father to try the pHion Indigo .. since it seems has a more reasonable price and better antioxidants . .. . .
but once I tell him pHion Indigo is capsule. . .. he said he prefer the OPC-3. . .because it is "powder". . .
he thinks powder can have a better absorption in general. . .

I'm just a fashion designer. .. I'm not experts in this field. ..
so I hope someone can help me to solve the above doubts .. .

thank you very much~!

[ajnast4r]

pycnogenol and enzogenol are substantially different imo..they are made from different species of pine, are standardized differently, and both contain unique components that the other does not. i have concluded that enzogenol is not a suitable replacement for pycnogenol if youre trying to elicit the observed effects of pycnogenol.

there will be no difference in the absorption of a powder vs a capsule, but imo pycnogenol is the superior product.


there is a discussion on this here:

http://www.imminst.o...p;hl=pycnogenol

I contacted the manufacturer of Enzogenol (New Zealand pine bark) regarding this topic and received some interesting replies. I considered asking Horphag instead, but they can be slow to respond if contacting their scientist/support people. I thought maybe others would find it interesting, and was given permission to post the conversation here.

And there are differences between pine barks regarding OPC content. So generic pine barks may be less effective. For asthma/allergy benefits and differences between pine bark and grapeseed, Taxifolin or Piceatannol (found in pine bark) could play a role, or hydrolysable tannins from grapeseed causing a pro-oxidant effect could be a reason.

Here are the questions I asked:

Q: Can you tell me what the difference is between Enzogenol and Pycnogenol (besides obvious pine bark sourcing differences)?

A: Regarding Enzogenol v’s Pycnogenol, there are differences in both the pine tree type as well as the extraction process. The crude pinus radiata extract does not need as much fractionation to obtain the high antioxidant fractions compared to pinus pinaster.This is a species specific difference.Thus pycnogenol undergoes a chemical fractionation process, by contrast we use a mechanical fractionation process which means we do not discard as much from the bark. This results in Enzogenol having a slightly more diverse range of compounds compared to Pycnogenol and a higher in-vitro antioxidant activity.However there are no side by side in-vivo comparisons to say which is better. In fact both extracts are very good.

Q: And what are the OPC differences between Enzogenol and Grape Seed extract?

A: Grape seed extract ( which we also have manufactured ) has a much more variable raw material source due to different grape varieties, seasonal effects and storage of the seeds prior to processing.It’s therefore more difficult to make the extract consistent on a batch to batch basis. There is a lot of variation in quality between producers.GSE contains hydrolysable tannins as well as condensed tannins ( OPC’s)It’s possible that the hydrolysable tannins cause a pro-oxidant effect in higher doses which may explain the negative results obtained in some clinical trials using GSE.By contrast the pine bark extracts seem to show greater benefits with greater dose. We do not have a full breakdown of theOPC’s- we do not have the reference standards necessary to analyze this in detail.The OPC’s are not absorbed directly, they are first broken down by gut microflora and it is the metabolites that are actually the active compounds.There are also non-OPC actives in both Pycnogenol & Enzogenol.

Health Benefits Pine Bark v’s Grape Seed: Yes there are differences between the different procyanidin rich extracts available in the marketplace but at the moment there is no science to elucidate the reason for these differences. It’s is possible that some compounds in the various extracts become pro-oxidants above a certain dose level .

A study by Kirin (the Japanese beverage company) is the only study I can find which actually does a comparison between a range of high quality procyanidin rich ,commercially available extracts. They used a mouse auto-immune disease model in the study.

In this study they compared Pine Bark extract v’s Jatoba v’s Grape Seed v’s Cranberry v’s Applephenon v’s Cocoa v’s green tea v’s cinnamon. These are all refined extracts and the pine bark extract used was pycnogenol.

In order of effectiveness Pycnogenol came out top and was the only one to completely suppress the disease. Then cranberry , cinnamon, &Jatoba were next with approx equal effects. Then Grape Seed with approx 50% suppression.Interestingly the apple skin extract,cocoa extract and green tea were worse than the controls, and were actually proinflammatory. The Japanese researchers observed that the amount of disease suppression was related to the degree of polymerization of the procyanidins.The higher the better.

Q: I was not aware that hydrosoluble tannins could cause a pro-oxidant affect. I'll assume these do not exist in Enzogenol/Pynogenol?

A: The tannins present in Enzo/Pycno are condensed tannins. All grapeseed will contain gallic acid esters- this is a good compound in low doses but there is some evidence around to show that it can become a prooxidant.

Megagold is one of the best GSE products.Just because a compound can become a pro-oxidant it does not mean it is automatically “bad”. It may mean that it is not good for ameliorating asthma/allergies, but on the otherhand it could be good for fighting cancer.The bottom line is that we do not know what combination is best.

The original idea of taking both PBE &GSE came from Masquellier.His rationale was the that GSE contains compounds not present in PBE (such as Gallic acid esters) and PBE contains compounds not present in GSE ( such as taxifolin & piceatannol-a resveratrol analogue).However a more logical combination would be PBE plus Green Tea since the green tea also has the gallic esters, but also has the more powerful EGCG that is not present in GSE.

Q: Taxifolin perhaps could explain the asthma benefits in pine bark --
http://www.sciencedi...58c388db77bacec
Or maybe even Piceatannol too?
http://www.sciencedi...fe13a849201f8a4
Pine bark only contains a small percentage of either (I think), but it's one of the differentiating factors between grape seen and pine bark extracts.

A: Actually Pycnogenol is quite high in Taxifolin- I think it’s around 3%- (but don’t quote me on that) which is about twice as much as Enzogenol.On the other hand Enzogenol contains the Piceatannol which is not present in Pycnogenol.

Another factor to consider is that these various OPC extracts have varying ratios of catechin to epicatechin. Some recent research shows that catechin has quite a good prebiotic effect whereas epicatechin does not.The catechin appears to selectively stimulate growth of good bacteria & inhibit growth of bad bacteria in your gut.The OPC’s in PBE are primarily composed of catechin and at the other end of the spectrum is coca OPCs which are mostly epicatechin.Since some studies have shown positive benefits for pro/pre- biotics fo asthma & allergies, this could explain some of the positive benefits of pycnogenol compared to grape seed ( which has higher levels of epicatechin)

Edited by ajnast4r, 29 May 2009 - 05:49 PM.

[nameless]

It doesn't really look like either Isotonix OPC-3 or pHion Indigo are very cost effective, from briefly glancing over each. I couldn't find the exact amounts of opcs for either and both are very expensive.

A better option probably would be to just purchase Pycnogenol and a green tea extract separately. Perhaps add a little grapeseed too, if you feel it's necessary, but the green tea probably covers the same opcs (gallic) so not sure there is a need.

Pycnogenol is probably the superior pine bark when comparing to Enzogenol, but I'd base that simply on the number of studies available. We don't really know for certain if one is better than another. And Enzogenol does have some interesting studies too (rodent longevity, telomere length, etc) so perhaps a bit of both isn't a bad idea.

But if someone is going to take pine bark, I'd suggest either pycnogenol or enzogenol, and skip generic pine bark. Who knows where it comes from or what extraction method is used... I expect some comes from China.

Edit: And I just found the label for the Isotonix product -- 25mg grapeseed, 25 mg pycnogenol per serving. At $65/bottle, it's a rip-off. Healthy Origins Pycnogenol ($30) + random green tea extract + grapeseed OPC, purchased at iHerb, will be cheaper for a much higher dosage.

Edited by nameless, 29 May 2009 - 07:00 PM.

[adamh]

I hope people keep in mind that pycnogenol is not the name of a substance, it's a trademark name for the bark extract of the maritime pine. You can get generic pine bark extract from the same species done the same way for far far less money.

[nameless]

I hope people keep in mind that pycnogenol is not the name of a substance, it's a trademark name for the bark extract of the maritime pine. You can get generic pine bark extract from the same species done the same way for far far less money.

If generic, how do you know it's the same species and same extraction method? All pine barks aren't the same, and most of the time supplement makers won't even divulge their sources of non-patented ingredients.

And I just randomly typed 'pine bark supplier' in google and got a bunch of places to get it, including lots from China, and one from India (although plant origin is China). It is cheaper though, you are right there. But there is no way to verify it's the same thing.

Edited by nameless, 29 May 2009 - 10:43 PM.

[niner]

And I just randomly typed 'pine bark supplier' in google and got a bunch of places to get it, including lots from China, and one from India (although plant origin is China). It is cheaper though, you are right there. But there is no way to verify it's the same thing.

Well, there is a way... but it's probably not something that would be cost effective for a single person to do unless you have access to an analytical lab with a liquid chromatograph. If someone were to develop a separation method that was appropriate (try a gradient between acetonitrile and something with a high refractive index), and then compared the chromatograms of the two extracts, we could see how similar they were. If the chromatograms are near identical, then it's case closed; they are close enough. If there are some significant peaks that differ, then you have to figure out what compounds they are and decide if they matter, a murkier situation.

[bluelai]

thank you very much for the professional opinions....
i think in general. .. . Pycnogenol is better than Enzogenol .. .
but Isotonix is still much expensive than it should be . . .

Edited by bluelai, 30 May 2009 - 03:26 AM.

[nameless]

And I just randomly typed 'pine bark supplier' in google and got a bunch of places to get it, including lots from China, and one from India (although plant origin is China). It is cheaper though, you are right there. But there is no way to verify it's the same thing.

Well, there is a way... but it's probably not something that would be cost effective for a single person to do unless you have access to an analytical lab with a liquid chromatograph.

Well, yes, of course if someone had their own analytical lab, they could detect similarities + impurities, etc.

But, I mean realistically, how many people have their own labs? Even sending to 3rd party labs doesn't sound very cost effective for every batch ordered.

[adamh]

How do you know what the name brand is? You take it on faith. Having secured a trademark for a name is no guarantee. There are countless substances that you can get the overpriced name product or a cheaper generic. They have done studies and found that generics give the most bang for the buck. You can buy LEF stuff for twice or three times the price of other stuff. Your choice.

[nameless]

How do you know what the name brand is? You take it on faith. Having secured a trademark for a name is no guarantee. There are countless substances that you can get the overpriced name product or a cheaper generic. They have done studies and found that generics give the most bang for the buck. You can buy LEF stuff for twice or three times the price of other stuff. Your choice.

Yep. And I have greater faith in a patented ingredient, with tons of studies of behind it, than a no-name pine bark from wherever.

And as an example, I could buy NSI pine bark for much less money. But would I feel safe doing so? Nope. And the differing OPC content alone would tell me it's not the same thing as pycnogenol.

Edited by nameless, 31 May 2009 - 01:27 AM.

[ajnast4r]

They have done studies and found that generics give the most bang for the buck. You can buy LEF stuff for twice or three times the price of other stuff. Your choice.

please post your studies.

when youre talking about nutraceuticals... there is no 'generic' for most of the patented substances, because the production methods were developed by the company holding the patent. its been my experience that the efficacy of certain patented substances (shr5 rhodiola vs generic rhodiola, ginkgold vs generic gingko, coldeez vs generic zinc lozenge) always differs in favor of the patented ingredient.

[adamh]

Well folks, I guess it comes down to belief systems. Aj, there have been so many studies on generics vs name brand and generic vs prescription that it would be pointless to post any of them. Do a google search and you will come up with a ton.

http://www.bcbsok.co...nericBrand.html

In rare cases they found that the processing method made a difference. The pharm industry harps on the one or two cases like that was the norm. In one famous case I remember from years ago the pills were pressed too hard and did not dissolve and went through the system without being absorbed. There were one or two others out of millions of cases.

The biggest product tampering case of all time involved a name brand product, namely tylenol. A bunch of people died from taking it.

Registering a name brand product buys you instant credibility from a legion of people. You are now clothed in legitimacy while the others are "no name" from "wherever". It's the golden age of patent medicine all over again.

If the name product was 10% higher in price I might see the benefit. When it's 200% higher or more, I want to see proof that it's better. Prove it and I'll pay the extra. Often the evidence shows the generic is as good or better.

[nameless]

Umm... that's a link to generic drugs, not supplements. The FDA regulates generic drugs so they are usually equivalent to the original version (although there are exceptions where generics aren't exactly equivalent). No such thing exists for supplements.

[adamh]

Nameless, that's true. However, it cuts both ways. It means there are no standards that pycnogenol has to meet that pine bark extract does not have to meet. You are putting your faith in a trademark that was bought and paid for. How much do you know about the company that makes it and their methods? How much do you know about the companies that make a competing product?

[nameless]

How much do you know about the company that makes it and their methods? How much do you know about the companies that make a competing product?

That's it exactly. Horphag has a ton of studies --
http://www.pycnogeno...rch_library.php

And is a well known company. They use ethanol + water as their extraction method.

I know absolutely nothing at all as to where a generic type of pine bark comes from, extraction methods used or species. And no studies at all as to its efficacy.

If you have links to one or more studies comparing a generic pine bark to pycnogenol, showing it is the same substance, and it's from a reputable supplier, then perhaps it's worthwhile. Or even generic pine bark studies replicating the same effects found in pycnogenol studies could do.

To the best of my knowledge, none exist.

[adamh]

That's it exactly. Horphag has a ton of studies --
http://www.pycnogeno...rch_library.php

And is a well known company. They use ethanol + water as their extraction method.

I know absolutely nothing at all as to where a generic type of pine bark comes from, extraction methods used or species. And no studies at all as to its efficacy.

If you have links to one or more studies comparing a generic pine bark to pycnogenol, showing it is the same substance, and it's from a reputable supplier, then perhaps it's worthwhile. Or even generic pine bark studies replicating the same effects found in pycnogenol studies could do.

To the best of my knowledge, none exist.

The studies you link to are on the pycnogenol site and they are the manufacturer of the product in question. That is far from a neutral source. As for finding neutral sources myself, I just don't feel motivated at the moment. Water and ethanol extraction would seem to be a simple and cheap way to do it. I would imagine the other companies do the same thing. What is so special about water and alcohol?

You are impressed by the website and by name brands. That's fine, nothing wrong with that. I will keep using the generic version until evidence comes up showing that it's got something bad in it.

[ajnast4r]

Well folks, I guess it comes down to belief systems. Aj, there have been so many studies on generics vs name brand and generic vs prescription that it would be pointless to post any of them. Do a google search and you will come up with a ton.

you are talking about DRUGS not supplement...these are two different universes. i means there are so many differences that i think ill have to make a list:

1) there are much, MUCH tighter control standards with drugs. there are NO control standards for supplements. cheaper supplements almost always means reduced quality.
2) making generic drugs require the synthesis of a single molecule... nutraceuticals are often very complex and have specific amounts of multiple substances.
3) there is a much larger amount of money invested into generic drug makers... "generic" supplement makers is often the opposite.
4) i know for -fact- that in the supplement industry, 95% of the time you get what you pay for.

The studies you link to are on the pycnogenol site and they are the manufacturer of the product in question. That is far from a neutral source. As for finding neutral sources myself, I just don't feel motivated at the moment.

neutral source studies on drugs and supplements dont exist. there isnt some neutral group investing millions of dollars into testing the truthfulness of manufacturer claims. its up to you to look at the construction of the studies and see if they adhere to proper scientific method.

What is so special about water and alcohol?

what do you think they do just run some water & ethanol through pine bark and VIOLA! ...pycnogenol? it is MUCH, MUCH more complex than youre making it out to be...

Edited by ajnast4r, 01 June 2009 - 05:49 PM.

[nameless]

The studies you link to are on the pycnogenol site and they are the manufacturer of the product in question. That is far from a neutral source. As for finding neutral sources myself, I just don't feel motivated at the moment. Water and ethanol extraction would seem to be a simple and cheap way to do it. I would imagine the other companies do the same thing. What is so special about water and alcohol?

You are impressed by the website and by name brands. That's fine, nothing wrong with that. I will keep using the generic version until evidence comes up showing that it's got something bad in it.

I could have linked to studies on Pubmed if you preferred, but thought it'd be easier to view them all on a single page. The fact that water and ethanol is simple, is the point. Although the extraction methods aren't quite so simple. But what you want are no weird chemicals or dangerous solvents. And you can imagine other companies doing the same thing, but it's not really the same as knowing.

If you feel the Pycnogenol studies are flawed or biased, then why in the world are you even taking a pine bark extract? Pretty much all of the studies on pine bark used Pycnogenol. There are a handful of Enzogenol studies too, and perhaps some old Masquelier's out there somewhere. What studies are you using, if not the Pycnogenol studies, as a reason for taking pine bark?

And what generic pine bark supplement are you even taking? Where is it sourced?

Edited by nameless, 01 June 2009 - 06:16 PM.

[airplanepeanuts]

I want to check enzogenol out, but it bothers me that they combine it with vitamin e and c.

Anyone thinks that enzogenol might do something that pycnogenol doesn't? Thanks.