Talk:Adaptogen

Unused reference
One of the references is unused due to a section being deleted without removing the reference from the reflist as well. This throws errors so I removed it, but I will leave a copy here for anyone who wants to further consult it and/or add it back at a later time.

also here: http://www.scicompdf.se/adaptogener/panossian_3.pdf

StressOverStrain (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Pharmacodynamics section should be removed
The sources are all primary sources, and are all assume that adaptogens are a well defined termed with a well defined effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petergstrom (talk • contribs) 21:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Plagiarism and COI
This edit is the same material previously added by and discussed on his Talk page, here. I reverted the same material added today by an IP user and warn that this might be a WP:SOCK. --Zefr (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Possible COI by user: Anonymous.psy
This section was reverted: the term adaptogen has become more widely recognized by health authorities, for instance, by the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The term is not recognized by health authorities; it is used as an example of a prohibited term when referring to agents with unproven effects that produce a warning letter for false health claims by the FDA. Placing for discussion here. User has a suspected conflict of interest as the surrogate or author, Alexander Panossian WP:COI. Please do not edit war; user is warned. --Zefr (talk) 23:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Anonymous.psy (talk) 23:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)I am an independent researcher (User:Anonymous.psy) and I am new to wikipedia. I do not understand why you are warning me (User:Zefr). I guarantee that there is no conflict of interest and I am not associated with Alexander Panossian. Zefr should first review the evidence in an objective scientific manner. The FDA used the term in the following official document: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1998-04-29/pdf/98-11294.pdf (please see page 23627). This is a fact which is also mentioned in a document published by the European Medicines Agency Evaluation of Medicines for Human Use, see http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500003646.pdf (page 3)
 * Yes the FDA used the term. The Federal Register notice said : "Claiming that a product was in a class that is not recognizable to health care professionals or consumers as intended for use to diagnose, mitigate, treat, cure or prevent disease (e.g., an ‘‘energizer,’’ a ‘‘rejuvenative,’’ a ‘‘revitalizer,’’ or an ‘‘adaptogen’’) would not constitute a disease claim under this criterion."  What the FDA did there was say that the term is as meaningless and snake-oil-ish as "energizer".  The EMA says something similar: "The principle of an adaptogenic action needs further clarification and studies in the pre-clinical and clinical area. As such, the term is not accepted in pharmacological and clinical terminology that is commonly used in the EU. "
 * Both of these sources say, in a nice and formal way, "garbage marketing term that actual science doesn't recognize, used to sell shit." Jytdog (talk) 03:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Useless shit. Real shit actually has some value. My opinion here is that there are nigh on 30 herbal ingredients used in TCM, Ayurvedic medicine and Western herbal medicine that have been loosely classified as 'adaptogens.' Each individually may contain bioactives that can be assessed via clinical trials, but there is no strong evidence for commonality. David notMD (talk) 11:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Poorly sourced list
This is almost entirely unsourced. Moved here per WP:PRESERVE. Per WP:BURDEN pls don't restore without finding reliable sources, checking the content against them, and citing then.


 * Supposed adaptogenic plants

There is dispute in the herbal community regarding what qualifies as an adaptogen. However, the following may qualify:


 * American Ginseng (Panax quinquefolius), root
 * Ashwagandha (Withania somnifera), root
 * Asian Ginseng (Panax ginseng), root
 * Cordyceps (Cordyceps sinensis), mushroom/mycelium
 * Dang Shen (Codonopsis pilosula, C. tangshen), root
 * Eleuthero (Eleutherococcus senticosus), root/stem bark
 * Green Chirayta (Andrographis paniculata), leaves
 * Guduchi (Tinospora cordifolia), root/stem
 * Holy Basil (Ocimum sanctum, O. gratissimum), herb
 * Jiaogulan (Gynostemma pentaphyllum), herb
 * Jujube (Ziziphus jujuba), fruit
 * Licorice (Glycyrrhiza glabra, G. uralensis), root
 * Reishi (Ganoderma ludicum), mushroom/mycelium
 * Rhaponticum (Rhaponticum carthamoides), root
 * Rhodiola (Rhodiola rosea), root
 * Schisandra (Schisandra chinensis), fruit/seed
 * Siberian Ginseng (Eleutherococcus Senticosus), root,
 * Shilajit (Asphaltum bitumen), pitch
 * Shiitake (Lentinula edodes)

-- Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * What is ref name=winston for Shilajit ?
 * Could add Tulsi, and Maca (lepidium meyenii).
 * Presumably a list referencing the original Soviet 1947 publications would be reliable for this article. - Rod57 (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Warnings Removed
I have removed the warnings, as after seven years the issues no longer appear to be present. All of the remaining citations appear to pertain to the text, and there are no unsubstantiated medical references. The term adaptogen as applied to plants, herbs, or even chemicals appears to be an unproven concept. The term is generally defined as "helping the body adapt to stress," but there is no precise definition on just what that means, and the type of stress involved in not always specified. There are very few proposed mechanisms for how adaptogens help in the response to stress. There don't seem to be any well-defined, random controlled, double-blinded studies demonstrating the affect. Both the term itself and just how such substances function need to be better defined before any conclusions about their efficacy can be drawn. JimGibson1 (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Good points.
 * That first sentence looks in-world and perhaps a FRINGE vio. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. The dubious citations have been cleaned up in the intervening years, so the flags are obsolete. And I agree that we could probably do better with the first sentence.  In particular, the use of that 1964 review to provide the current status of use is problematic, both because it is quite dated, and because it was written by a proponent rather than a neutral independent voice. Agricolae (talk) 21:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)