Talk:Adaptogen

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles 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.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.