Talk:Pueraria mirifica

Plants Mid‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Hello - always nice to find herbal information at Wikipedia - however, this page gives me concern: all the external link citations on this page are to commercial sites that market this herb. This is not appropriate "encyclopedia" reference quality though it probably drives some sales traffic. I hope a responsible pro or amateur botanist or herbalist could please replace those links with anything credible and neutral. Thanks for the page. - G.W.

Oh, please feel free to delete ads of this nature yourself. I will take this as what you are asking, and thank you for the alert to this problem. KP Botany 16:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few possible sources

Circeus (talk · contribs) posted these to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants: [1], [2], [3], [4]. He also pointed out that GRIN lists this as a variety of Pueraria candollei: [5] , although [6] takes care to distinguish between the two (which could be true even if they are varieties rather than species). Also see [7] concerning names (especially common names). Kingdon 12:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would bet a small fortune on this page being the product of spammers trying to sell a product. apart from the fact that it's not very coherant it's also referenced in spam (http://www.perfect-curve.info/wilmington-breast-augmentation) check the bottom of the link i've just provided, especially the line "don't take our words, wikipedia got it!". --Paul** (talk) 11:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some general comments

This article is, of course, terrible. On the other hand, the subject really does deserve further description and consideration. Unfortunately, there is little or no information on the web about pueraria and miroestrol aside from commercial sites marketing the herb primarily for breast enhancement. There are references available in the scientific literature; however, it is unlikely anyone other than a specialist with access to a research library would be able to dig them up or consult them. The following information is based on personal research and experience and is offered here in an attempt to inspire a more qualified author to work up some real, Wikipedia quality information on pueraria.

First, miroestrol, when actually present in a sample of pueraria mirifica, is a very powerful phytoestrogen with a very complex semi-steroidal structure. Miroestrol has the basic 6-6-6-5 ring structure of a steroid, with the substitution of an oxygen in the B ring. The side groups and double bonds vary from common steroids, but the big difference seems to be the addition of a fifth ring of 6, making the nuclear structure 6-6-6-5-6. In addition, the E ring is not a simple adjacent carbon add-on, but spans three carbons in the D ring, giving the molecule a marked twist out of the plane at the variant end. While many steroids have a long chain dangling off the D ring, miroestrol folds this over and links back to the D ring. Perhaps this unusual conformation has something to do with miroestrol activity in vivo.

Pueraria is a well known herbal supplement in traditional Thai folk medicine. Its best known characteristic is highly specific breast enlargement. Anecdotally, it seems that miroestrol (believed to be the active ingredient of pueraria) is extremely estrogenic in human breast tissue, whether male or female. It has also been alleged to have characteristics that would be associated with long-term binding to estrogenic receptors in vivo and a highly variable pattern of activation. It is unlikely that the molecule activates a receptor MORE than an estrogen, so its effect most likely comes from the duration of activation. That is, the molecule may bind strongly to the receptor and prevent other molecules from interacting. During this long receptor binding, the actual degree of activation seems to depend on the specific receptor. Thus, it might be appropriate to classify miroestrol as a selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM), of which tamoxifen is the best known example.

Unlike tamoxifen, which inhibits receptor signal transduction, miroestrol seems to activate transduction fully in breast tissue, whether XX or XY. Its effects on other tissues are less well documented, seem less significant, and in some tissues it may actually function as an anti-estrogen.

Japanese cosmetics firms have been alleged to have led the use of pueraria in feminine cosmetics, primarily for observed softening and smoothing effects on female skin. On the other hand, a web-based market is developing for pueraria products to be ingested or applied to the breasts for the purpose of increased feminization. Topical application to the human breast of pueraria products that actually contain miroestrol results in rapid and significant growth in both women and men. These products are popular with women who wish more substantial breast development and with men who wish to grow "naturally feminine" breasts for various sexual, sensual, visual, or fetishistic purposes.

The significant thing about the marketing of pueraria extracts on the web is that, unlike a host of herbal treatments claiming to enlarge breasts but having little or no effect (e.g. fenugreek, saw palmetto) or others having serious toxicities (e.g., black cohosh), pueraria actually works as claimed (when the product is genuine) and has not been shown to have significant toxicities. Of course, serious controlled "scientific" studies of this are few and far apart, if even believable.

This information is provided here in Talk because it does not meet Wikipedia standards (of course, neither does the main article). On the other hand, this information is correct TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, which is at least partially based on personal experience and investigation. This subject may grow in importance if the OTC use of pueraria extracts becomes more common. If so, it would be nice for someone who knows the subject from a disinterested (non-commercial, non-personal) viewpoint to contribute some concrete information to improve the main article. If a real Wikipedia editor thinks any of the information above would be permissible to add to clarify the main article, in spite of its anecdotal character, feel free to use or rewrite it. Ldmjr (talk) 03:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

((No idea about wikipedia standards, so please don't hate me. Adding this in on 11/26/2013)) Someone should really read the "FDA HAS TAKEN ACTION" thing. It refers to a specific, singular case in which a generalized 'herbal' pill+cream+other stuff with a mass of ingredients (only the cream had Peuraria Mirifica in it). The legal action also wasn't about the 'bust increase' but primarily due to a number of of other false testimonials. I.E. A full cup size in a month is average. or "No side effects have ever been reported", etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.53.78.181 (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will add a simple and uncontroversial etymology. TW

Cleanup

In order to improve the quality of this article, please rewrite the entire page as possible so that the article adheres to the manual of style guidelines. The sections of this article are incoherently written and does not cite any references or sources. nh.jg (talk) 03:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the following due to its probable insertion by unscrupulous marketers of sham breast enlargement products, and the lack of a reliable source or citation: "Scientific research and studies have shown the root to hold unique female hormone properties which when consumed results in a natural breast enhancing effect." Feel free to reinsert it if evidence of this supposed scientific research is provided. Dragonbones (talk) 03:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Info moved from article

The following was moved from the article. It needs to be checked out and properly formatted before being reintroduced. Rkitko ^(talk) 00:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In 2001, facts in the Matchicon Newspaper stated: "The National Cancer Institute stated that Pueraria Mirifica does not cause cancer. Many scientific researchers found evidence that White Kwao Krua(Pueraria Mirifica) demonstrated clinical efficacy as a female hormone replacement in menopausal women. It tends to increase breast size, may possibly treat Alzheimer's disease, from research using extract form of White Kwao Krua, has been shown to restore brain cells."

[8]