Standardized Herbal Remedies

I am frequently asked about using standardized herbal remedies as opposed to using raw herbs.

Most of the current research on herbal remedies uses standardized remedies. This allows researchers to be certain that the dosage and potency are the same throughout a study, making the results more consistent. If you know the brand and dosage used in a particular study, you may expect similar effects. (Different brands of herbs may be standardized for different properties, or to stronger or weaker concentrations.)

This is the primary advantage to using a standardized herbal product.

The primary disadvantage to standardized herbal remedies is the more processed an herb is, the less natural it becomes. Too much processing and the herb becomes more like a pharmaceutical drug, and less like a natural remedy. The standardizing is usually focused on what is believed to be the active part of the particular herb. This may mean that important factors of the herb are ignored, producing a less beneficial result.

The primary disadvantage to using whole, raw herbs lies in the many different factors that affect the potency of any herb. When and where the herb was grown, when and how it was harvested, where and how it was stored, how long it was stored; all these factors will affect the herb’s potency.

The primary advantage to whole raw herbs is that they contain the fullest spectrum of the herbal remedy. (Preparing the herbs, whether as a powder, extract, or infusion, is a form of processing; but the least possible processing allows the most natural remedy.)

My belief is that traditional herbal preparations are more likely to produce deep and lasting effects on the human body, but using standardized preparations sometimes offers a more convenient way to take herbs; and that either is a better choice than pharmaceutical remedies, in many cases.