Talk:Adaptogen/Archive 1

Archive 1

Pseudoscience

It'd be nice if someone would throw in some information obtained from double-blind controlled scientific studies, instead of the claims of herbalists. 72.82.214.183 05:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Are there any studies? David D. (Talk) 05:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this page should be flagged as pseudoscience more clearly. The claims of some herbalists do not belong in scientifically written articles.91.153.126.47 (talk) 08:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to second this. I think all references to Ayurvedic "medicine" or herbs that bring your body in to "balance" should be VERY clearly marked as, in fact, false. There is no scientific basis, and even having the chemical constituents of "some" herbs is very misleading - 90% of plants contain one of those chemicals. As an encyclopedia entry this should be more clear - many people are fooled by these treatments, and this misinformation can be downright harmful to the gullible. Personally, I believe this article should be flagged for deletion. 210.7.14.122 (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I third this. The huge lack of necessary citations alone makes this article almost entirely worthless. Skidoo (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

There have been many clinical studies on adaptogens, mostly in Russia. A good overview of this research, although now somewhat dated, is in the book:

• Fulder, Stephen (1982) [1980]. The Tao of medicine: Ginseng, Oriental remedies, and the Pharmacology of Harmony (First American ed.). New York: Destiny Books. ISBN 0-89281-027-0. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help)

Fulder also conducted his own clinical studies in London. (I will add this reference to the article.) So, adaptogens are clearly not pseudoscience. However, the concept does not fit easily into the Western model of medicine; Fulder describes this in detail in his book. I don't understand the comment about "huge lack of necessary citations". At the moment, I see no {{Citation needed}} tags at all, and I see a good number of references. HairyWombat 20:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not so sure about the flagging of this page as pseudoscience. I came to this talk page to find if anyone had suggested including a list of common adaptogens. Perhaps it would be best to descibe what an adaptogen is conceptually on this page (including the fact that it is not a completely agreed upon concept), and leave the arguments of science versus pseudoscience on the pages of the adaptogens themselves.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Informedbanker (talk • contribs) 17:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but the problem is that there are few non-psuedoscience sources explaining what an adaptogen is without resorting to "miracle herbs". And the Book The Tao of medicine while claimed by some here to be sound science is not available to buy anywhere, and I'm not getting hits anywhere pertaining to its' credability.CFCF (talk) 10:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Most well-known adaptogens

Having some familiarity with adaptogens, I was confused to see Siberian Chaga listed first among the 'most well-known adaptogens', since it was the only one listed that I had never heard of. I did a Google search to see if I was mistaken. Google searches aren't scientific, but they do show that Siberian Chaga is the LEAST known of all listed here. I believe it was added, along with the promotional copy about 'Wildcrafted' Siberian Chaga, by someone who sells the product as a 'distributor'. I removed the copy touting 'Wildcrafted' Siberian Chaga until there is a citation and reference for the scientific study, a list of all the other adaptogens and their ORAC and SOD levels from that study, and an explanation as to why those levels are the gold standard for adaptogens.

Unscientific survey of 'well-known-ness' of adaptogens:

• ginseng adaptogen = 145,000 hits on Google
• Rhodiola rosea adaptogen = 41,200
• Licorice adaptogen = 33,000
• ashwagandha adaptogen = 28,800
• noni adaptogen = 18,400
• Suma adaptogen = 15,200
• carthamoides adaptogen = 1,510 (2006-09-26)
• gingko adaptogen = 907
• tulsi adaptogen = 752
• mandshurica adaptogen = 695 (2006-09-26)
• jiaogulan adaptogen = 667
• Pfaffia paniculata adaptogen = 573
• siberian chaga adaptogen = 184

ॐ Priyanath 02:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

User:KSVaughan2 4 April 2007. Chaga is well researched and you could go to a medical paper summary to reference it. I wrote an article on chaga and restored the listing to this page.Ksvaughan2 18:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Karen Vaughan

Jergas (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC). Thanks for the list, btw, the wikipedia page for this plant references this (adaptogens) page:

• lagochilus inebrians (intoxicating mint)

Herbs with possible negative effects

Some of the herbs that allegedly has the most research backing them up don't fulfill the first criteria. Cordyceps inhibits steroidogenesis in the Leydig cells, Guduchi inhibits spermatogenesis and reduces testosterone levels, licorice causes hypertension, schisandra induces hypertriglyceridemia, and shilajit is toxic. I'll remove them in a week unless someone can show me evidence of the contrary. Jack Daw 00:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is your evidence for the above claims? If you view the history of guduchi, licorice, schisandra, cordyceps and shilajit -- then you will see hundreds of years of positive non-toxic use. Toxicity depends on dosage. Show me your references in herbal texts written by herbalists. The following texts can be consulted for the above Ayurvedic herbs: "Major Herbs of Ayurveda" (Williamson, 2002), "Ayurvedic Medicine" (Pole, 2006), "Handbook of Ayurvedic Medicinal Plants" (Kapoor, 1990); and for the Chinese herbs, "The Way of Chinese Herbs" (Tierra, 1998) - etc. User:1salam1 19 March 2007.

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=10773616
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16624278&query_hl=18&itool=pubmed_docsum
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=8658544&query_hl=21&itool=pubmed_docsum

Jack Daw 00:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Response to above:

I reviewed the pub med references above. You provided only superficial references to 3 of the herbs. It is very important to note that all of these herbs in question have a long track record of safety and one can always find an isolated animal study reference or a few cases where some people had minor reactions. This is not enough evidence to discount the fact that these herbs are adaptogens.

In response to your references above:

(1) Schisandra: Mice were intragastrically treated with single doses (0.05-0.8 g/kg) of schisandrin B (a dibenzocyclooctadiene derivative isolated from the fruit of Schisandra chinensis). Our results suggest that schisandrin B treatment can be used to establish a mouse model of acute hypertrigylceridemia [an elevated level of triglycerides (fatty acid compounds) in the blood]. . (PMID 16624278)

RESPONSE: One study on mice that used a derivative isolate product is not conclusive that Schisandra is toxic and not an adaptogen. The study also did not use a whole herb extract of Schisandra.

(2) Shilajit or bitumen: The subchronic toxicity following dermal exposure to a synthetic fuel, heavy gas oil No. 2 fraction of bitumen upgrading product (B-HGO II) was studied in the rat... B-HGO II was considered to be toxic at a subchronic dermal exposure level as low as 8 mg/kg/day. (PMID 8658544)

RESPONSE: This one study evaluated one product (isolate) on rats. It is not conclusive that Shilajit is toxic and not an adaptogen.

(3) Licorice: Prolonged ingestion of liquorice is a well-known cause of hypertension due to hypermineralocorticoidism. It is proposed that some people could be susceptible to low doses of glycyrrhizic acid because of a 11beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase deficiency. (PMID 10773616)

RESPONSE: One study measuring prolonged ingestion of licorice indicated hypertension. This is correct for some people. That is why herbalists use licorice in combination with other herbs and also use a licorice product that has the glycyrrhizic acid removed and sold as deglycyrrhizic licorice.

Please put this matter to rest. I am not sure why you are out to discount the safety of these herbs - they have been proven to be safe.

User:1salam1, 21 March 2007.

• Guduchi - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15248490&query_hl=16&itool=pubmed_DocSum

It was never my intention to list ALL research that would discredit the herbs I mentioned as adaptogens, I merely provided research that indicated that many of them have - in one way or another - toxic effects. You have yet to provide any research; recommending books does not count, that's the oldest trick in the world when you don't actually have anything to back your claims up with, "buy this book", of course no one's going to do that. I'm sure the authors of the books you mentioned have quoted serious scientific papers - right? - which should certainly be able to locate on pubmed or some other serious research library. I have reviewed the other adaptogens and the research in favor of their adaptogenic abilities is sufficient, while there seems to be very little research for those I mentioned, and that says a lot. Three days remaining. Don't ask me to put this matter to rest, do so with useful, accessible references that support your assertions. Jack Daw 02:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

In Summary:

Jack Daw (JD) claims that the following herbs are not adaptogens because they do not meet the requirement that adaptogens are nontoxic to the recipient. The herbs in question are: herbs used in Ayurvedic medicine - guduchi, licorice, shilajit and herbs used in traditional Chinese medicine - cordyceps, licorice, schisandra. JD wants to remove these herbs from the article unless someone can show evidence of the contrary. He sites references in PubMed that reflect small studies done on rats and he believes that this proves his point that the listed herbs are not nontoxic to recipients. He does not cite any clinical data except mentioning that licorice may cause hypertension (which is discussed in the response above). His sources also refer to derivatives and isolates of the whole herb and therefore not the qualities of the whole herb.

Because JD refers to animal studies and derivatives of the herbs in question, I believe he has no right to remove mention of the herbs in the article. He does not prove that these herbs are toxic to humans. In addition, toxicity depends on dosage.

JD questions using books as references because he believes that books do not discuss “serious” research or provide references to research – this is false. The books cited above all provide reference to research. Just because someone did herbal research on rats and got it published and listed in PubMed does not make it credible and definitive. Animal studies do not have the same credibility as observational studies on humans that have existed for hundreds of years. In regard to Ayurvedic and TCM herbs – most of the research has been done in India and China, is observational and is not listed in PubMed.

Furthermore, to spend the necessary time to prove to JD that the herbs in question are nontoxic is not possible from this user. There is a definitive book on Adaptogens (see further reading in article) that JD can read for further rebuttal and information.

User:1salam1 24 March 2007.

What is your problem? Referring to me in third person is extremely nonchalant behavior, learn to manage your attitude.

I don't question using books as references (read again, get it right); my point is that the books you mentioned would cite research that has been published elsewhere, if they are credible, that is. It's more often the case than not that animal studies apply for humans; that's what the vast majority of biomedical research relies on. Research that applies the scientific method, which mere observation is not, is more credible than the kind of "research" you mention (anecdotal). That the research is done is China or India is no excuse for its absence from pubmed or other internet libraries; pubmed has countless of papers originally from those countries. Indeed, the supporting research for the other adaptogens are often from China and India as well, and they are available at pubmed. What goes for the credibility of pubmed, it is, to the extent of my knowledge, peer-reviewed. In any case I'm certain they have some sort of election process for what to publish; they certainly won't accept random material without checking it first. pubmed is also credible because people within the scientific community uses it to great extent. What do you mean by "toxicity depends on dosage"? It's completely irrelevant to this discussion, as anything is toxic in high enough amounts. Read your books again, and give me the name and issue of the peer-reviewed journals in which the research they cite was originally published in. If those books cite research that has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal, they offer no credible research. Jack Daw 13:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Jack Daw, I changed nontoxic to "nontoxic in normal doses" which is true. The effects of isolates are quite different from the effects of whole herbs, aqueous extracts or methanol extracts. Frankly, I rarely see a medline article that assays the herb to make certain that it is the herb studied. As for the reliability of medline, pubmed et. al. may I refer you to Jonathan Treasure's article "Medline and the Mainstream Manufacture of Misinformation." http://www.herbological.com/images/downloads/HH2.pdf User:ksvaughan2 4 April 2007

Thank you ksvaughan2 for clarifying the above discussion and adding the above comment.

User:1salam1 6 April 2007

Eremophila alternifolia

Eremophila alternifolia is a adaptogen of the indiginous australians. Include in list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.243.190.151 (talk) 12:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Listing # of PubMed Publications

I have a number of problems with the two tables that list the number of "Research papers on PubMed through 2007". I would like to remove this material, and rework the article to remove the weight that this is given in the listing and discussion, on these grounds:

• Pubmed is a citation index and it is designed to help people locate articles and it is maintained for this purpose, it is not designed or intended to be used to assess the degree to which a subject has been studied. It may be a very coarse measure of this, but, I do not think it qualifies as a reliable source for assessing the degree to which something has been studied.

• Merely citing the number of articles says very little because it doesn't take into account the quality or conclusions of the articles. For example, certain herbs may have fewer studies but the studies conclude stronger effects, or there could be many studies but they could be conflicting or have weak conclusions.

• This article is on adaptogens...and yet no distinction is being made to weed out which articles are studying the herbs as adaptogens vs. for studying them for other medical purposes.

I would recommend removing the table, and instead writing prose based on meta-analyses or summaries of the scientific literature. I think the presence of, and conclusions of such meta-analyses would be a better way to judge which things to include in the article--and then we can describe the conclusions of these studies. Herbs without enough research to have such summaries probably don't have enough to say that much is known about their effects scientifically--although I think it would be appropriate to thoroughly describe their use in various types of traditional medicine...so long as this is sourceable. Thoughts? Cazort (talk) 19:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Adaptogens to the World from Miami USA to Puerto Rico- Latin America and Cuba

No other herbal product in the market provides the benefits of these Herbs. My wife has been asthmatic for over 30 years and after drinking all organic coffee with adaptogens for 4 months, her asthma has improved almost 100%. We can argue on scientific and medical terms, but the testimonials are there. Those involved in the marketing and distribution of these products will benefit greatly for years to come. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.144.78.39 (talk) 22:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Complete Pseudoscience

The concept of an "Adaptogen" doesn't even make sense, it's attributed all of these miracle properties like magically making an organism "adapt" to changes in environment (so it's like an Evolution-accelerant, huh) and "adapt" to internal changes (using what mechanism?). This article parades the information like it's been accepted by the scientific community, however only a few studies have been done, much of which can be suspected of being poor-quality to say the least. Most of the sources listed here are unconfirmable, some of which appear to be Alternative Medicine-books ("The Tao of medicine: Ginseng, Oriental remedies, and the Pharmacology of Harmony" seriously?), and hence this article really should at the very least be rewritten to approach the concept of an "Adaptogen" as a theory, not proven fact. LiamSP (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

"The Tao of Medicine" is not an alternative-medicine book; perhaps you should read it before making such a judgement. Its author, Stephen Fulder, is a reputable research scientist who has published numerous scientific studies in mainstream journals. Your association of adaption to the environment with evolution does not make any sense; organisms adapt to the environment continuously. "[O]nly a few studies" includes over 1500 published studies (read Fulder's book for a discussion of these). Whilst the mechanism of how adaptogens work is not yet fully understood, it certainly involves the sympathetic nervous system. Scientists understand well that a high basal level of stress hormones causes long-term damage. Adaptogens seem to reduce this basal level. HairyWombat 16:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC

Regardless of Dr. Fulder's other work, the title of the book in question clearly places it in the alternative medicine genre. What's the problem with admitting that? This wiki page for adaptogens is considered alternative medicine, and indeed is perhaps only still here because of that classification.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.166.85 (talk) 03:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Explain to me how this quote from the main section of the article makes any sense: "An adaptogen is a metabolic regulator which increases the ability of an organism to adapt to environmental factors, and to avoid damage from such factors. Environmental factors can be either physiological (external), such as injury or aging, or psychological (internal), such as anxiety." The article starts off by making a claim that Adaptogen's can not only reduce anxiety (conceivable, perhaps they lower cortisol levels), but when ingested also increase the organisms ability to "adapt" to environmental factors (an obscure claim, define "environmental factors" and through what mechanism do adaptogens allegedly convey this magical ability) and to avoid damage from them (so this substance not only affects physiology, but psychology (as in the organism's intrinsic instincts, or in sentient beings, their thoughts)), and it also apparently is beneficial to aging reversal/slowing. The article then goes on to present a lovely table that actually says things like "Quality of Arousal: Stimulants = Bad, Adaptogens = Good", the table is basically a list of things in which stimulants are presented as having only disadvantages and Adaptogens only having advantages. The whole concept as it is presented here makes no sense, not just because I see no satisfactory evidence for the claims, but because the way they are presented reeks of pseudo-science. They are presented as being miracle chemicals, capable of doing many things extremely well with absolutely no negative effects, whereas the "competition" stimulants are described as being vastly inferior and are presented as having no good sides. As for your claim Stephen Fulder is a reputable scientist, I find no evidence to support this. I don't claim he's a scam artist, but based upon his works, like all alternative-medicine practitioners, he presents circumstantial evidence as scientific fact and sensationalizes genuine studies that find minor positive effects of "natural" substances. LiamSP (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

"Environmental factors" are those things in the environment that affect the sympathetic nervous system, and the sympathetic nervous system is an example of an organism adapting to its environment. The article does not claim that adaptogens help with all psychological factors, just some of them. You even accepted the possibility of it helping in the case of anxiety. Well, anxiety need have no external cause, and is psychological. The article does not claim that adaptogens can reverse aging (wouldn't that be nice); this appears to be a strawman argument. If adaptogens do reduce the basal level of stress hormones (which is not yet proven) then this would help mitigate the effects of aging, and much else besides. The article states that the mechanism is not yet fully understood. However, it is possible that adaptogens increase the responsiveness of the sympathetic nervous system. This would allow the organism to respond to a stressful event more quickly, and to calm down more quickly afterwards. It should be obvious that this would have numerous beneficial effects. The table contrasting adaptogens and conventional stimulants misses out a couple of things. In general, stimulants have strong and immediate effects, while adaptogens have weak effects which are mostly long-term. Adaptogens are not a replacement for conventional stimulants, and the table is not meant to suggest this. The whole concept does not make sense to you because you are trying to fit it into the Western model of medicine. This uses drugs to treat individual conditions. Adaptogens come from the holistic Eastern model where you treat the whole patient. Hope this helps. Read Fulder's book for more information. HairyWombat 16:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I acknowledge the potential for this substance to exist, and that it may have beneficial effects, however, I think we can agree that regardless of whether your or my point is valid, the article presents a much too "enthusiastic" view on the concept. The articles written as if Adaptogens are a proven concept, and that they have all sorts of amazing effects. There appear to be no peer-reviewed, double-blind studies that verify any claims that Adaptogens have any patient-perceivable effects (as in, they have a noticeable effect upon a persons physiology, vs they have an interesting effect on the cellular level), nor is the very concept of such a thing been thoroughly investigated. At this point in time, they are largely hypothetical, something the article makes no mention of. LiamSP (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

No, this is incorrect. There have been an enormous number of scientific studies that have shown real effects. Some of these have been double-blind, and others used mice. Many are peer-reviewed. The effects are not in the least bit hypothetical; adaptogens are a proven concept, and the effects are real. Read Fulder's book for a summary of the huge number of studies carried out in Russia, and of his own work using mice. What are hypothetical are the mechanisms I discuss on this Talk page. That adaptogens act on the sympathetic nervous system is proven, but exactly what that effect is has yet to be uncovered. That they affect so many low level mediators strongly suggests that they act directly on none of them but, instead, act at a higher level in the sympathetic nervous system. But that is also not yet proven. HairyWombat 04:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

This article is too muddled and biased to be useful for serious inquiry. There are so many glowing, unsubstantiated assertions that it reads like promotional copy. HairyWombat, you appear to be deeply invested in this page being taken seriously. You could do a lot to further that goal by adding a citation to at least one peer-reviewed journal article or other reputable source after any sentence that makes an assertion and is currently not supported by such references.174.24.166.85 (talk) 03:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

If you add the {{Citation needed}} tag to such statements then somebody will be better able to address your concerns. HairyWombat 19:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The Adaptogen vs Stimulant Table - Insomnia

I wouldn't say that an adaptogen does not cause insomnia.. If you take an adaptogen that beings you energy, you don't easily fall asleep. That's why you shouldn't take an energy based adaptogen at night.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.205.198.133 (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The point is that an "adaptogen" by definition doesn't cause insomnia. If a substance causes insomnia, then it isn't an adaptogen. The substances are applied to the concept, not the other way around. Charles35 (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't verify some of these sources since they are not online, so can the editor who put in that table please clarify what is cited where with in-line citations? Thanks! (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 06:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Two of the three references are the 1980 New Scientist article and book by Fulder, and these contain an identical table. The former is in Google Books (I have added the URL), so you can compare for yourself the first and last rows of Fulder's table with the table in the Wikipedia article. I did not add the table to the article, however, almost every entry appears to be common to the two tables. I see only two differences. The first is that Fulder's table does not mention the parameter "DNA/RNA and protein synthesis". The second is that Fulder's table contains a single parameter, "Stress", whereas the table in the Wikipedia article contains two separate parameters, "Performance in stress" and "Survival in stress".

Fulder's text does not discuss at all "DNA/RNA and protein synthesis" (neither book nor New Scientist article) but, as he was writing way back in 1980, this is unsurprising. Presumably, the third and more recent 2009 reference (which I have not read) discusses this. Fulder's text (both book and New Scientist article) discusses both "Performance in stress" and "Survival in stress", and is in agreement with the table entries in the Wikipedia article. I have not clarified what is cited where (as you requested) because so much is in the two Fulder references that when I previewed it, it looked silly. HairyWombat 07:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Later. I lied. Fulder's table also does not include the parameter "Recovery process after exhaustive physical load", however, his text (both book and New Scientist article) is in agreement with the table entry in the Wikipedia article. HairyWombat 05:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Questionable source number 2

A lot of claims made on this page sound like a sales pitch which raises a red flag, and many of the claims are dependant on a virtually unidentifiable source (number 2). I know nothing of this publication, it's authors, or how to verify it. Until it can be verified via web-presence sourcing, I think that a lot of this page should be scrapped and redone, and sources more strict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.144.59 (talk) 16:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Source number 2 is currently:

* Samuelsson, G., and Bohlin, L. Drugs of Natural Origin: A Treatise of Pharmacognosy, 6 ed., Swedish Academy of Phramaceutical Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden, 2009. Pp. 226-228.

(Source numbers can change, so you should not refer to numbers.) I also know nothing of this publication, its authors, or how to verify it. However, WP:SOURCEACCESS states, "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries.". This point is also discussed in detail at Wikipedia:Offline sources. So the source is perfectly acceptable. If you are interested in obtaining the source then the people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange may be able to help. HairyWombat 17:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

comparison with stimulants

The adaptogen-stimulant section has problems. All of material might be cited, but I'd be willing to bet that much of the material is not in the sources. Many of them are non-internet sources, so I can't verify it. However, take the first sentence for example (it cites the table). Only one of the 3 sources is internet, so I was able to look at it. While it did talk about stimulants, the word "adaptogen" didn't even appear in it. Thus, all of the material used from that source violates WP:SYNTH.

The article portrays adaptogens as factual while no such evidence for "adaptogenic" properties actually exists. Sure, things like ginseng do exist, but the notion of it being an "adaptogen" is nothing more than a hypothesis. It also makes a false dichotomy between "adaptogens" and stimulants, as if adaptogens are everything stimulants aren't. It fails to recognize the fact that the chemicals deemed "adaptogens" do little, if anything, to the nervous system and do not produce nearly as effective and powerful effects as stimulants. The article even implies that they are more effective than stimulants, which is certainly not true. While in theory they might be (if they actually existed as more than a hypothesis), in reality, they have no noticeable effects and aren't even comparable to the effectiveness of stimulants, which are effective enough to alter conscious perception. The effects of adaptogens are negligible if not nil. They shouldn't even be compared to stimulants. To compare the two is misleading.

There's a reason that ginseng isn't used in medicine but you can find it in energy drinks. Charles35 (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I question the notability of this topic. Charles35 (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Your statements "in reality, they have no noticeable effects" and "The effects of adaptogens are negligible if not nil." are contradicted by a dump-truck full of research. They seem to be WP:OR. Also, stimulants and adaptogens are compared in at least two of the three cited sources (using an identical table). I agree that Fulder does not use the word "adaptogen", however, his entire book is about nothing else. I am sure your local public library will be able to obtain a copy for you; if they do not own a copy then they can obtain one via an inter-library loan. HairyWombat 06:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

A big issue that I have with this section is cherrypicking. It portrays stimulants in a very poor light and fails to mention the fact that adaptogens have never been demonstrated to have any clinical effect. Stimulants have many redeeming qualities that this article pretends do not exist. They have hugely benefited the quality of millions of lives. On the other hand, adaptogens' most widespread use is in energy drinks. Enough said IMO. Charles35 (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Adaptogens, specifically Panax ginseng, have been used as a tonic in Asian countries for 5000 years or so. I do not have numbers, but would expect that that remains their most widespread use. I don't see energy drinks as being particularly relevant to the article. HairyWombat 17:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

...alongside other pseudoscientific Asian home remedies like snake oil, acupuncture, and urine therapy. Regardless, the energy drink is just 1/2 of one sentence. The issue of cherrypicking is still pressing as well as NPOV portrayal of stimulants, and the fact that no "adaptogen" (whatever that even means considering the lack of a common chemical structure) (including ginseng) has ever displayed any clinical effectiveness in any peer-reviewed clinical trial. Charles35 (talk) 18:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The paper cited below, which is cited in the Wikipedia article and is available on-line, reviews many clinical trials which you claim do not exist. Please read the section "Clinical Efficacy of Adaptogens in Fatigue" on Page 2, and the accompanying Tables 1 to 3. I see at least 10 high-quality studies; note that they all seem to be more recent than the 1999 review paper you cite above for ginseng. (The paper also compares adaptogens to stimulants. Many papers on adaptogens seem to do this but, as a comparison with stimulants was part of a 1968 definition of adaptogens, this is unsurprising.)

* Panossian, A.; Wikman, G. (2009). "Evidence-based efficacy of adaptogens in fatigue, and molecular mechanisms related to their stress-protective activity" (PDF). Current Clinical Pharmacology. 4 (3): 198–219. doi:10.2174/157488409789375311. PMID 19500070. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

HairyWombat 07:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that none of the studies are conclusive. They are only suggestive at best and have poor methodology. The scientific consensus is that these herbs don't treat anything. Charles35 (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

From the paper, "The most recently published randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials ...". In terms of methodology, there is no higher standard. Your claim above that "no 'adaptogen' has ever displayed any clinical effectiveness in any peer-reviewed clinical trial" is false. HairyWombat 20:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The scientific community finds the studies conducted in the 1980s in Communist states and Korea (North?) "not very convincing" because of the poor methodology. However, the community does not fully denounce the concept of an "adaptogen", conceding that some of the studies are "suggestive". Please inform me which "adaptogen" has been conclusively proven (not suggestive) to be effective for the treatment of any medical condition in any peer-reviewed clinical trial? A specific example should do the trick. Charles35 (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The review paper I cite above lists papers from the 2000s in peer-reviewed western journals. As the Wikipedia article explained (before it was recently butchered), adaptogens do not fit into the western medicine model of one drug for one condition. Again, from the review paper I cite above (page 19), "In summary, adaptogens may be regarded as a novel pharmacological category of anti-fatigue drugs that ..."; you can read the rest of the quote in the paper. However, seeing as you asked, Rhodiola rosea was used to successively treat stress related fatigue in 2009 (ref [32] in paper), and mild to moderate depression in 2007 (ref [66] in paper). (Both trials used at least one randomized study with control.) Those are two specific examples. There are others; read the paper. HairyWombat 06:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see how adding positive information (ie from sources) about stimulants would benefit this article. Sure, it would help balance out the mainstream view on the effects of stimulants, but it is not in any way relevant to adaptogens. IMO, the entire section is inherently flawed. Charles35 (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

In contrast to conventional stimulants, such as caffeine, nicotine, amphetamine, etc., which have serious possible side effects and a particular potential for abuse, adaptogens by definition and from numerous studies do not exhibit such negative effects.

While I don't doubt that a Soviet source boldly claims that adaptogens have no negative effects, but modern America disagrees:

"High blood pressure, Insomnia, Restlessness, Anxiety, Euphoria, Diarrhea, Vomiting, Headache, Nosebleed, Breast pain, Vaginal bleeding."

headaches, tremors, and can cause manic episodes.

Thus, I am going to delete the sentence, because it would make no sense to say "adaptogens by definition and from numerous studies do not exhibit such negative effects, except mania, high blood pressure, vaginal bleeding, breast pain, insomnia, restlessness, anxiety, diarrhea, vomiting, headache, nosebleed, etc." Charles35 (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

fringe theory

Multiple editors have made sections on this talk page expressing concern for pseudoscience in the article. I agree with some of these concerns, and decided to add a fringe theory template to the article. Regardless of whether or not these concerns are valid, please remember that a template only means that the article might present a fringe theory, not that it actually does.

Anyway, I think that the article presents the concept of an adaptogen as an accepted theory when it is really more of a hypothesis/conjecture. I don't think it lends due weight to skeptical views about the concept of an adaptogen. I speculate that it contains a lot of original research; however, many of the sources are not web sources, so there is little that I can actually check. It makes some pretty out-there claims that I doubt actually occur in the sources and that I think might be original synthesis. For example, the "Adaptogens as stimulants" section is misleading and probably violates WP:SYNTH. I'm sure that the claims about adaptogens and the claims about stimulants are true, but I doubt that the sources compare the two the way that the article does. The simple act of comparing them implies that they are similarly valid things. In reality, adaptogens are not efficacious substances and stimulants are very efficacious. To compare the two is misleading.

Anyway, please discuss fringe theory / pseudoscience / general concerns here. Charles35 (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

To suggest that Adaptogens is "a[n] hypothesis" when there are over 1500 published studies, and when the term has been accepted by the FDA and EFSA, seems strange. The fact that you have not read the sources does not stop them existing; I must suggest that it is inappropriate to make claims about sources that you admit you have not read. (For sources to be unavailable on-line is quite normal. I have not read them all, but accept that other have.) You have misunderstood the section "Adaptogens as stimulants", so this clearly needs rewriting (or perhaps deleting). Adaptogens are not stimulants, and the section is not meant to suggest (and does not say) that they are. (You have added some original research to this section, which I will shortly remove.) HairyWombat 15:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I most certainly do not think adaptogens are stimulants, and I don't understand why you think that. The entire point of the section is to show that adaptogens aren't stimulants. I agree that it needs deleting due to the fact that it is very misleading. To suggest energy drink ingredients are in the same league as stimulants is a joke (besides caffeine).

Like I said from the very beginning, "Regardless of whether or not these concerns are valid, please remember that a template only means that the article might present a fringe theory, not that it actually does." I have only "speculated" about the original research in the article. That was (one of) my purpose(s) for making this section. I can't check the sources for original research. Thus, I am letting people know of my (and others') concerns so that they might check the sources. There's nothing wrong with that. The fact that I haven't checked them has nothing to do with whether or not original research might be there.

The fact that there are 1500 published studies does not mean that there is any evidence for "adaptogens".

Also, I think you missed (or at least didn't respond to) some of the important points of my comment. For instance, "I don't think the article lends due weight to skeptical views about the concept of an adaptogen" and "I'm sure that the claims about adaptogens and the claims about stimulants are true, but I doubt that the sources compare the two the way that the article does." Also, original synthesis and cherrypicking are more relevant concerns than original reseearch.

To add to my concerns, I think the article misses a big point. The entire concept of an "adaptogen" is just that - a concept. There is no empirical evidence to suggest adaptogens are an actual thing. There are no actual adaptogens that exist in real life. There is no shared chemical structure among real adaptogens; there are no examples that exhibit the expected effects (that are scientifically accepted); there are no adaptogens that share a common mechanism of action; etc. "Adaptogen" is a concept, and different substances are studied to fit the concept, not the other way around. See here. Charles35 (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

"Fringe theory" may be upsetting to some people, but the bottom line is that on Wikipedia we cite reliable sources and don't give undue weight. Adaptogens as a concept are certainly not "mainstream" or broadly accepted by the medical community, so we should be sure not to use declarative language implying Truth where no such certainty exists. We don't need another lame edit war over using cautious language. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 06:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Describing adaptogens as a "concept" has merit. However, if User:Charles35 wants to add it to the article then he will need to find a reference that says that. Also, I have renamed the "Efficacy" line he added to the table to "Strength", as that is the term used in two of the three sources. (As far as I can tell his addition was unreferenced, and was contradicted by the cited references.) HairyWombat 06:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

What edit war are you referring to, heroeswithmetaphors? Charles35 (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I mean: we don't need any edit war on this article. It's clear that some editors want to represent adaptogens as a fact, and others think it is kooky fraud science like Bach flower remedies. That's why we build consensus here on the talk page. We should continue to use inline citations, but steering clear of implying that a single source has the monopoly on Truth. With medical-related articles, what is accepted as Fact can change dramatically as a critical mass of new studies are published. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 17:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Examples of Adaptogens

I think a good idea for this article might be a section devoted to the specific substances that people consider "adaptogens". This might help clear up some of the concerns over the fringe theory, and I think it would balance due weight to skeptical views. Of course, it is difficult to express scepticism about the entire concept because sources would not try to discount "adaptogens" in general. Any source that takes the time to write about "adaptogens" will be a positive source. They wouldn't bother to object to the concept because it is potentially endless. All you can really do is show that specific herbs are not accepted by the mainstream scientific community.

So, hairywombat, would you be able to provide a list of the primary herbs that the sources you have consulted consider adaptogens? From the article, I gather the following: ginseng, Rhodiola rosea, Eleutherococcus senticosus (Siberian ginseng), Rhodiola rosea and Schisandra chinensis, and Panax ginseng. Are there other notable ones? Charles35 (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree entirely that references to relevant substances should be given and (since many have their own Wikipedia pages) links be provided to the pages containing those substances. The proper location for the research links on the (proposed/actual) adaptogenic effect of each substances should be on those referenced pages. Should each of 12 substances have five links each, that would make this page cumbersome. The possible exception to this being combined studies of multiple proposed Adaptogens that focus on Adaptogenic effect (or lack of it) in isolation. --Leopardtail (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Dead refs

there are at least 3 ref name= citations without data showing up as errors at the bottom of the page. Presumably those are due to content being copied and pasted from another article. Can whoever did that please provide the full citation in this article? Thanks. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 19:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Heroeswithmetaphors, I have the feeling this is about my recent additions to the page. Please forgive me, I am very ignorant of the way citations work here. I saw that EagerToddler39 fixed them. I would happily do so, but I'm afraid I am just completely illiterate. Is there a command you can use to do that? Or do you have to literally go though and type "{{cite web|url=http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1444-1683.2002.00021.x/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false |title=How popular are folk remedies with Korean diabetic patients? - YOON - 2002 - Asia Pacific Family Medicine - Wiley Online Library |publisher=Onlinelibrary.wiley.com |date=2002-04-26 |accessdate=2013-01-13}}"/? Charles35 (talk) 04:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Needs exlaining

"Adaptogens are a class of therapeutic substances...." and "Adaptogens are plants..."' according to the lead. Ok, so how are the plants harvested/prepared to become a treatment? And then, are they applied to the skin, taken orally, injected etc? There's an awful lot of guff here trying to bolster the claims for adaptogens, but not a lot actually saying about other things that matter. Also, what's with things in the article like this "the official medicine of Russia in the early 1960s (Mashkovskij, M.D.,1978.MedicinalDrugs—Manual on Pharmacotherapy for Doctors. Part II, 8th ed. Meditsina Publishing House, Moscow, pp. 131–132; Mashkovskij, M.D. 2000. Medicinal Drugs—Manual on Pharmacotherapy for Doctors, vol. 1., 14th ed. New Wave Publishing House, Moscow, pp. 134–135). Since 1960,"? Why isn't the bolded stuff inside ref tags? Moriori (talk) 03:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The article is so poorly written that it much of it makes little sense.

I had started a discussion at FTN to get some help on this article. Personally, I think it needs a complete rewrite, with much better scrutiny of the sources and how they are used. --Ronz (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Pseudoscience in the Criticism

A very substantial pre-amble has been added to this article that makes a number of criticisms. That criticism should be as serious and scientific as it asks the main article to be. This added criticism fails to quote any science at all in it's counter-position and falls below the very standards it demands. It indicates 'widespread opinion' but in fact refers to medicine that is both conventional and western. It also quotes no studies disproving the concept or demonstrating that widespread opinion. The main article does at least quote studies supporting the original position the subject.

Asia and the USSR between them represent a very significant body of scientific opinion and it is not appropriate to describe all as invalidate simply because they are not western. The usual practice of both the FDA and (NICE its UK equivalent) is to examine the body of research and perform a 'Meta-Analysis' essentially favouring the most common finding. The criticism cites that large number of studies in Russia have favoured the concept, that would by normal scientific practice indicate that these substances do in fact occur if usually scientific practice is used (as least until a similar number of scientific studies have disproved the concenpt).

The criticism also refers to Adaptogens as 'conceptual' substances but the quoted references do not support that conclusion. They refer to the meaning of Adaptogen but not to the substances being conceptual or otherwise.

I have no opinion as to the validity of lack of it with respect to Adaptogens but the there needs to be a substantial improvement to the quality of this criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leopardtail (talk • contribs) 14:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

You are right in what you claim that there may be quite the body of psuedoscience in the introduction. This was not added recently though, and I have attempted to clarify what already was in the text, and to add references to what information is there and not. I did not want to remove any of the criticism already available, but will try to find references, which were not provided by others.

As you can clearly see I have added reference needed tags to several of the statements concerning whether Western medicine accepts the model. I've attempted to clarify a bit more, but I would be very happy for some help in finding references because they are very hard to come by, or else clearing out parts of the page without making it overly biased towards adaptogens by only citing positive non-scientific sources. CFCF (talk) 18:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I've worked to add some references to the claims and removed others. CFCF (talk) 19:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Article needs overhaul; Represent pharmocological analysis of "Adaptogens"

So I originally made added a section to this Talk page in regards to the article's pseudoscientific approach to adaptogens. My concerns were based on the fact that the article seems to approach adaptogens more in the Indian, Ayurvedic medicine perspective than the emperical pharmocological perspective. I've been doing a lot of research lately and have a fairly thorough understanding of the various herbal supplements. My understanding is this: many herbs classified as adaptogens in Ayurvedic medicine have been found to contain various compounds with pharmocologically active properties. Some have neurological effects (i.e affecting serotonin levels/receptor expression as Bacopa monnieri has been found to, affecting Neuropeptide Y expression as Rhodiola Rosea has been found to, affecting MAO-A levels, etc, etc), some have hormonal effects (i.e ashwagandha), etc. Essentially from an empirical medical perspective, the term "adaptogen" covers a wide variety of agents that interact with bodily processes described in western medical theory. They have the same limitations as any traditional pharmacological agent. I personally think they've been inappropriately lumped into a single category, as some do indeed have stimulatory properties in exactly the same way as western agents such as methylphenidate (albeit with more uncertainty in regards to effective dosages), some effect anxiety in the same way as western agents. Some are very novel, but what should be emphasized is that they aren't magical. They could be replicated with artificially created agents, and perhaps more effectively if the active constituents were specially regulated.

The one benefit (and in many cases, drawback) many of these compounds have over some of the current western drugs is that they often have several modes of action. Bacopa monnieri for example has been found to alter the expression of several serotonin receptors in a complex way (some upregulated, some downregulated). Often times neurological disorders such as depression are the result of multiple dysfunctions in the brain, and the multi-dimensional approach of some adaptogens increase the positive outcome. In bacopa's case, the result is that it essentially re-partitions the various serotonin receptor's expression, favourably as it seems. Now this multi-dimensional approach is also a drawback, as it complicates using them as treatment. Since many apaptogens affect several different biological processes, sometimes even across organ systems (such as affecting neurotransmitter levels, while also affecting hormone levels, and liver enzyme expression), there is a huge chance of drug interactions, as well as causing unneeded side-effects (such as affecting other neurotransmitters when you're only interested in targeting one).

So essentially, this page should be revised to address the herbal supplements classed as "Adaptogens" whose effects have been verified by clinical trials. There is a plethora of information available, but unfortunately it needs to be accessed on a case by case basis (such as searching pubmed for specific herbs), as most western researchers avoid using the term "adaptogen" due to how cluttered it is with agents of entirely different mechanisms. A good reference would be to peruse the site examine.com's coverage of various supplements. Many herbs have already been reviewed in an encyclopedic format with proper citations, etc. I'll try to work on the article myself when I have the time.LiamSP (talk) 02:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the late reply, but I agree with you, the article should focus more on pharmacology, as least when it comes to explaining the subject at hand. When it comes to claimed adaptogens we can use other sources, but we must also specify what, if any medical evidence there is for their use: as per WP:MEDRS. Please fell fre to made any additions that adhere to the WP:MEDRS guidelines. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 09:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Removed list

The text below was removed from the article by an anonymous user due to a lack of references. It is saved below so that references can be found and added. The list is incomplete, however, with many more adaptogens noted here. --IO Device (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

List of plants with purported adaptogenic effects

Note: This is only a list of plants claimed to have adaptogenic effects, it does not constitute a list of substances safe for administration or having no interactions with other medicines.

Plant	Effect from single dose?	Effect from repeated dose?
Eleutherococcus senticosus (Siberian ginseng)
Rhodiola rosea	Yes	Yes
Schisandra chinensis	Yes	Yes
Panax ginseng	No (effect after 1–4 weeks)	Yes
Gynostemma pentaphyllum (Jiao Gu Lan)