Posted by Larry Hoover on May 24, 2005, at 10:29:20
In reply to Re: Original Limu, posted by Thorp on May 23, 2005, at 13:40:54
> Hey, Lar, I am onto you.
No you're not.
> You already have a bottle of Original Limu from which you are reading the label.
No, it's online.
http://www.thelimucompany.com/pdf/bottlelabel.pdf
> You have some kind of axe to grind. I suspect your axe is just like mine of wanting to expose shams! Believe me, Original Limu ain’t no moonshine!
> I will try to respond like you to your posting.
I only wish you would.
Let's get to my axe.
1. You originally claimed the activity of Limu was related to fucoidan. The Original Limu website also points directly at fucoidan as the special ingredient in Limu (after 15 years of R and D, remember). http://www.thelimucompany.com/index.cfm/go/Product.QnA/
I showed that fucoidan is not exclusive to Limu.
2. You originally claimed that there are over 600 Pubmed references attesting to the potency and efficacy of fucoidan.I showed that none of those references can be applied to Original Limu specifically (the genus and species *are not even mentioned* in the entire Pubmed database). However, a small handful of those references can be applied to kelp (also known as Limu).
All the other articles refer to other members of a vast family of edible brown algae, demonstrating the complete absence of a unique activity confined to Sphaerotrichia divaricata, from which Original Limu is derived. Rather, this is a general property of an entire class of plant life.
3. When confronted with those arguments, you then claim that it is the extraction process, which renders Limu uniquely "bioactive". That drying would perhaps render the fucoidan inactive (a speculative argument).In fact, each serving of Original Limu contains 6.9 grams (a slightly heaped teaspoonful) of a blend of the seaweed extract, *with* the mass of mango and papaya purees included. Okay, that sets the upper bound on the actual Limu content. What proportion of this could possibly be Limu itself? We know, from the lab analysis, that each ounce contains about 35 mg fucoidan. On a wet weight ratio with the content in the original plant, that would limit the Limu content to 1 gram, at most. On a dry weight basis, compared to other brown algae products, one would only need about 50 mg powder to match this content.
We do not know the patented extraction process, as you attest. It is proprietary. However, it is described on the website as starting with frozen Limu, being chemical-free, and involving "predigestion". I could come up with some very simple extractions that fit that model (e.g pressing, maceration with filtration), with endogenous enzymes providing the "predigestion". Moreover, it does not exclude spray-drying of the extract, prior to combining with the fruit purees. We just don't know.
In any case, a simple perusal of Pubmed identifies a number of simple extraction processes for fucoidan. I could perform such extractions at home, using kelp powder, a teacup, and two products I could find in virtually any home. One of those is water. Water alone extracts fucoidan, but I could improve on that with one addition.
(Aside: My erroneous assertion that mango and papaya purees were not labelled is due to the fact that I did not read the finer print. I must admit to not wanting to start having to wear reading glasses. Presbyopia, age-related decline in close-in visual acuity happens to most of us. Presbyopia means "common eye". I shan't let prebyopia interfere with the accuracy of my portrayals of fact again.)
4. Cost. You claim the cost of Original Limu makes it a bargain (based on claims of efficacy).All we have shown is that Original Limu is the, or one of the, most expensive source(s) of fucoidan in existence. Yet, in your last post, you say "Lar, you missed my point of taking whatever is the most economical source of fucoidan and work with it."
Indeed.
5. Purity. You made arguments that competitors' products were adulterated, with e.g. Siberian ginseng, or colostrum.Apart from the lack of any evidence that this combinatorial approach is somehow improper, Original Limu is itself adulterated. It contains spirulina and chlorophyll.
6. You made claims as to the scientific background for the originator of this product, fully 15 years in development.I fail to see how that is a beneficial claim, in any case, as there is nothing published from all this hard work.
Yet, this "scientist" calls benzoic acid a poly-unsaturated fat: "Sodium benzoate is the sodium salt of benzoic acid, an FDA-approved polyunsaturated fat" http://www.thelimucompany.com/index.cfm/go/Product.QnA/
If he is a meticulous scientist, that is an egregious error.
7. Tyrrany, etc. I still don't know what you're talking about, or how I got involved in your perception of same.The dialogue:
> > > letting them make up their own minds and not having a forum moderator exercise tyrannical control through censorship and rude commentary
> > Oh boy. What rude commentary? What tyranny?
> I’m sorry. Are you the moderator? I did not know. I was not referring to you but rather to the moderator of The Naked Scientists Science Discussion Forum at I won’t give a plug to a pathetic forum.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/ ???
Moderator? Am I the moderator? Eh? Moderator of what? Why are you even talking about this? I never heard of that place before you brought it up. Are scientists there also asking for evidence?
8. "As I have said before, I am no physician and make no claims"Eh? That is exactly the issue.
I'm not even going to bother with the claims of nutritive value. If an unfortified fruit-based beverage contains only 3 mg vitamin C per serving, what concentration of those other "70-plus nutrients" claimed by Original Limu could it possibly contain?Anyway. That's my last post on the subject.
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:469333
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/alter/20050510/msgs/502201.html