Talk:Performance-enhancing substance

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Marissaviqueira.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JVClass1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Endocrine society statement
10.1210/er.2013-1058 - should be included. JFW &#124; T@lk  07:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Athletic bias
There was way too much athletic bias in this article. Technically speaking, athletics and performance enhancement are separate issues. The fact that they are observed to co-occur doesn't mean that they must be totally merged in the article. As such, I have edited the article to remove this bias to the extent possible. --IO Device (talk) 08:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

In addition to the athletic bias- the usage in sports only talks about the world anti-doping agency. Using PEDS in sports is very controversial, so there are two sides. It would be good to add why people may want it and disapprove of it. Marissaviqueira (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)Marissaviqueira

Removed classes
The following types of drugs have been removed from the article because they're not really performance enhancing, and so they don't belong in the article:


 * Diuretics expel water from the body. They are often used by athletes who need to meet weight restrictions, such as wrestlers.  Many stimulants also have a secondary diuretic effect and are also used as masking drugs.
 * Masking drugs, as a group, do not have any specific type of pharmacodynamic action; a masking drug is simply any drug used to prevent the detection of other classes of drugs. The chemical compositions and administration regimens of masking drugs change as quickly as testing methods do. A common example of a masking drug is epitestosterone, which possesses no performance-enhancing effects, but restores the testosterone/epitestosterone ratio (a common criterion in steroid testing) to normal levels after anabolic steroid supplementation.

The fact that they may be used together with PEDs doesn't make them qualify for presence in the article.

--IO Device (talk) 08:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Nov 2 edits
This article is not specifically about athletic performance enhancers; there is an article on that topic called doping in sport. This article is about a much more general class of compounds for a much broader set of uses, like cognitive enhancers for example. A symptoms section isn't appropriate here because these compounds have distinct side effect profiles. If you want to improve this article, you need to keep that in mind. Alternatively, you may wish to work on the doping article since that's directly related to the content that you've added here.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 01:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Doping in sport
Sports and doping have been along for ages, can also address the history of doping in sports. Possible addition: "Doping in sports has been around since the ancient Greek and olympic games.[6] Roman gladiators were known to take stimulants from plants to increase performance and prevent fatigue in games. Stimulants from plants include bufotein, fly-garic, cola acuminita, or cola nitida. The ancient Greeks discovered the use of testosterone by observing the effects of castration in animals; by eating the testes of animals, testosterone became the first hormone used to enhance performance. In the nineteenth century, with the advancement in pharmacology and medicine, stimulants became the primary aid to increase energy and muscular activity. Athletes began mixtures of strychnine and cocaine in their caffeinated drinks, so they had more energy and could compete for longer times. In the twentieth century, scientist synthesized testosterone, which increased the use among athletes especially weightlifters. Anabolic steroids, human growth hormone, and cortisone were the main drugs used in the late twentieth century among athletes. The use of other methods such as blood transfusion and erythropoietin also began to be used to increase athletic performance." -other additions made in my sandbox Marissaviqueira (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The following text was removed from the section on "Doping in sport".

--IO Device (talk) 02:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 4 May 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved by. Please follow the closing instructions next time. wbm1058 (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Performance enhancing agent → Performance-enhancing substance – Discussion has already taken place below/On article talk page Sizeofint (talk) 03:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any prior discussion regarding todays name change for the article. While the term Performance-enhancing agent is more encompassing, it is not nearly as commonly used as Performance-enhancing drugs. I would say I have never heard the term with ""agents" used previously, its almost like wikipedia is making up the term.  Trackinfo (talk) 05:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Happy to discuss. People will still quickly find this if they look for PED, if that is what you concerns you. Most of this article is not about drugs, btw. Jytdog (talk) 05:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Is performance-enhancing agent a generally accepted term? A basic Google Scholar search didn't give many hits. I do agree that blood doping didn't fit under the prior title. Sizeofint (talk) 05:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I will gladly admit that i made it up looking for a more general term that didn't include the word "drug". :)  "agent" seemed apt.  It is analogous to "ergogenic agent" which one does see a lot of. Jytdog (talk) 05:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The concern is the made up part. Certainly there should be a section of other techniques to (POV) cheat.  I understand the redirect will let users find this and keep existing wikilinks in tact.  We do make up disambiguation titles with some advice from wikiprojects and MoS, but making up a complete title to broaden the topic seems a stretch. Trackinfo (talk) 06:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What about just performance enhancers? Doping agent would also cover a lot, but not all, or the substances here. Sizeofint (talk) 07:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * → ←  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 07:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That would work Sizeofint (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * works for me. no drama.  Jytdog (talk) 08:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't move this article. Unless one of you can we'll have to put in a request. Sizeofint (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ moved to Performance enhancers as per above--Moxy (talk) 22:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oops, I think we wanted it at Performance-enhancing substance . Sorry it wasn't clear. Sizeofint (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Shit I did...should i now?--Moxy (talk) 01:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure everyone here was okay with it so I think it'd be fine to go ahead with the move. Sizeofint (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

It is wholly immature to have executed a name change without a meaningful discussion preceding it. This means a discussion lasting more than one day, possibly at least a whole week. The current name "Performance enhancers" is ridiculous as it can also include psychological and physiological practices which have no relation with the contents of the article. Performance-enhancing agents or Performance-enhancing substances is a somewhat more suitable name. "Doping" is a non-neutral term with negative connotations, and absolutely should not be used. --Hyperforin (talk) 22:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * no need for drama, we will continue to talk and will arrive at a good answer. Jytdog (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Are we not going with performance-enhancing substance? Sizeofint (talk) 23:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't mind either name, i.e. Performance enhancing agent or Performance enhancing substance. The word "substance" seems to offer an adequate level of specificity. In the case of blood doping, the agents or substances in question are either blood itself or others such as erythropoietin. In contrast, the word "drug" was too specific. --Hyperforin (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Figured it's worth noting for future cases: works a lot faster than.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 15:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If the move is not controversial and doesn't require discussion. Otherwise, should be about as fast, if not faster. wbm1058 (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support move to Performance-enhancing substance, though it seems to be there already for some reason. "Agent" has more than one meaning in sports, the most common one being the same it has in acting, modeling, writing, and other performance career management, so using it to refer to substances here will be confusing and fail WP:PRECiSE and WP:RECOGNIZABLE.  Not all performance-enhancing substances are classified as drugs, so using "drugs" in the title is misleading and inaccurate.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Adaptogen" content
The following content is being edit-warred over.


 * Phytoadaptogens are a pharmacological group of herbal preparations that increase tolerance to mental exhaustion and enhance attention and mental endurance in situations of decreased performance. The beneficial stress-protective effect of adaptogens is related to regulation of homeostasis via several mechanisms of action associated with the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis and the control of key mediators of stress response such as molecular chaperons. Adaptogens such as rhodiola rosea, schizandra chinensis and eleutherococcus senticosus increase mental performance and physical working capacity in humans.

Both the references here are reviews (one kind of recent, one very much not recent) and both are from the same lab. Their being from the same lab is a red flag that this is not mainstream science. pubmed search for reviews shows a bunch of low quality sources. Not sure this should be here.... But let's discuss, eh? Jytdog (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It's been discussed a bit at . BTW, to date, Pubmed search has at least 105 review references on adaptogens and at least 570 in all. If I understand correctly, Petergstrom alleged the use of Russian primary studies. Of the two review references that are used, the main one, i.e. PMID 19500070 cites 123 references and has been cited by 136 articles to date. The allegation by Petergstrom is not only xenophobic; it is also meaningless because a good many of the 123 references are not Russian and are recent. Some examples are numbers 11, 15, 18, 19, and 20. I could go on. As far as I'm concerned, Petergstrom has lost credibility. --Hyperforin (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It is clear that you support this edit - you added it. Thanks for explaining further why you believe this is a valid addition.  There are other people who watch this page; let's get more input.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, as an aside, the recent review reference PMID 24456264 makes it clear that adaptogenic effects on performance are not the same as ergogenic effects. It says, "the prevalent effect is adaptogenic rather than ergogenic." This is what merits a bullet point on (plant based) adaptogens. --Hyperforin (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The claims in the content you wrote are extraordinary. They would need very, very strong sourcing and right now I am not seeing that.  If what you wrote is really mainstream accepted knowledge, this is NEJM stuff.  Where are those sources? Jytdog (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I consider this a garbage argument, an attempt at keeping oneself and others in the dark. That it's not published by NEJM is their problem, not mine. I assert that the US does not perform much research into non-pharmaceutical options because they typically won't make big bucks. Moreover, it's possible that some of the underlying primary sources have "stronger sourcing". --Hyperforin (talk) 09:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at the sources, but the concept seems a bit fringe to me based upon the definitions of this class that I've read so far. The definition of adaptogens according to the adaptogen article, which defines it as compounds that promote homeostasis (this should technically say allostasis - not homeostasis), is vague because it encompasses an excessively broad range of mechanisms and biological processes which may deviate from their homeostatic equilibrium (e.g., on a global level: acid–base homeostasis, thermoregulation, energy balance, osmoregulation, etc.; on a local/cellular level: ion homeostasis [the regulation of ion concentrations in/around cells], cell surface protein homeostasis (i.e., downregulation and upregulation) in response to changes in receptor/ion channel/transporter/etc activity, the homeostatic regulation of activity along cellular signaling pathways, etc.). The way that adaptogens are defined in this article (substances that increase tolerance to mental exhaustion and enhance attention and mental endurance in situations of decreased performance) is essentially the same as the definition of a psychostimulant. If adaptogens are compounds that simply inhibit activity of the HPA axis as suggested in the following sentence, it should be defined as such; they should not be defined as compounds which "promote homeostasis" without further qualification though, because no compound could possibly facilitate allostasis for all physiological processes. It's worth pointing out that the release of cortisol IS sometimes an allostatic response to certain physical states (e.g., negative energy balance / low plasma glucose during fasting, starvation, or prolonged exercise) which helps restore a homeostatic equilibrium (normalize plasma glucose).  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 00:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't debate or dispute any possible inconsistency in the definition of an adaptogen. Very possibly its understanding has refined over the years. I don't think that this is relevant for inclusion of adaptogens as a bullet point in this article anyway. I go with what the sources tell me. I don't search for sources with a preconceived notion of what they will tell me. --Hyperforin (talk) 02:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * To rephrase my points from above more succinctly: if adaptogens are defined in a manner that is logically equivalent to the definition of a psychostimulants, lump them into that group. If they're all-purpose "homeostasis promoters", it's a really really fringe concept that doesn't belong here.  If they're substances that merely modify HPA axis function, the bulleted entry should just state that.  The problem here is that "adaptogens" seem to be a very poorly/loosely defined group of substances.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 05:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The authors are from the Swedish Herbal Institute, which developed "Adapt-232", which is the focus of most of the extraordinary claims in the article. There is no conflict of interest disclosure in the paper, which is a sign of a crappy journal. Jytdog (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Acknowledged. I consider this a valid concern at least for the article. I am not quick to generalize about the journal by one example alone. --Hyperforin (talk) 09:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Panossian is also an inventor on the patent application for adapt-232. Also editor in chief of the phytomedicine journal, where the clinical trial he cites a lot in the review was published . Jytdog (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It is duplicitous to bring up patents given how very common they are. If we were to avoid studies with any patent affiliations, we would have to exclude a vast number of them, including many that are presently in use on Wikipedia. It is an impractical distraction and has nothing to do with the selection of studies used as references. --Hyperforin (talk) 09:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I never said anything was wrong with russian studies, but studies from the USSR? The soviet union? That was a long time ago, and they had different research standards. Its just not credible. Not to mention what was said already: The study was funded by the swedish herbal institute, a company(with no accreditation) that makes adaptogen supplements. The stuff just isn't mainstream science. It does not belong on this pagePetergstrom (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Is this why the two reviews have been cited by 136 and 181 studies respectively to date? Are they all fools / sellers? Please follow the discussion in this section more closely. It has already been noted that numerous references cited by the two reviews are recent and are not from the USSR.
 * --Hyperforin (talk) 09:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Take a look at. In its author-posted PDF, it defines what an adaptogen is, and it goes on to speak in detail of many adaptogenic herbs. The article also declares the absence of conflicts of interest. The point though is the same - adaptogens do exist and they do work. Below is a write-up using this PMID. --Hyperforin (talk) 11:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Adaptogens are plants that supports health and prevents disease through nonspecific effects, neutralize various environmental and physical stressors while being relatively safe and free of side effects. Rhodiola rosea root extract has a demonstrated adaptogenic effect, having been shown to improve mood, cognitive performance and attention as well as to relieve fatigue in stress-related conditions.


 * Read the ref, it is better than the first ones - mostly because they present positive as well as negative results. Specifically for Rhodiola rosea they discuss at length the De Bock study which showed no effect on anything cognitive, so the content you have provided is more certain than the source itself (not to mention too close paraphrasing for the part you decided to emphasize) Jytdog (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Here is a rewrite:
 * Adaptogens are plants that support health and prevent disease through nonspecific effects, neutralize various environmental and physical stressors while being relatively safe and free of side effects. The literature is supportive of adaptogenic properties of R. rosea and S. chinensis.


 * very uncomfortable with "prevents disease". That is a drug claim and there needs to be very strong evidence that X actually prevents some disease to say X prevents disease. Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, which diseases? Surely not all of them. Sizeofint (talk) 03:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize this before, but I'm uncomfortable with it myself. I have struck it above. --Hyperforin (talk) 04:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

In reference to this edit, what oversimplification? The source clearly supports that R. rosea and S. chinensis have adaptogenic properties. I picked these two herbs quite selectively. This is getting more and more ridiculous day by day. I am not making this or any further concessions. I have had enough nonsense. The source is MEDRS compliant, and quotes were added to support the statements. Stop harassing Wikipedia editors with your limited worldview. --Hyperforin (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

So the two sides of the argument are pretty much 1. The sources are not-mainstream 2. The sources have conflicts of interest 3. The sources are not published in credible journals 4. The concept of helping "maintain homeostasis" is too poorly defined to add as a concept vs 1. The people who are against adaptogens must be biased and have preconceived notions because adaptogens are fantastic I have tried them myself Petergstrom (talk) 04:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * it is a fuzzy concept, but it is what it is. The source is good enough per MEDRS and there is no COI for it that I have seen or anyone has mentioned here.  You need to let the content stand.Jytdog (talk) 04:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

So uh, hyperforin, you heard about this fantastic new substance that nonspecifically helps the body maintain homeostasis under the stressful condition of dehydration? You should check it out its called dihydrogen monoxide and I have tried it and it really works.Petergstrom (talk) 05:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The ingestion of simple dietary nutrients including water is considered a baseline condition, and so they do not qualify as performance enhancing substances. --Hyperforin (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

But it fits the definition to the word, it "nonspecifically" helps the body "maintain homeostasis" under a "stressful condition"(dehydration) and it has few side effects and really works! trust me I have tried it  Petergstrom (talk) 05:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Well of course it works, but it's not a plant. Adaptogens are mainly plants. The article is not about essential dietary nutrients. --Hyperforin (talk) 05:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

But it fits the definition of adaptogen to the T, it deserves a spot. Petergstrom (talk) 05:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If you go ahead and add it, I won't remove it. While you're at it, why don't you create a whole new specialized article too on the effects of water for performance enhancement? Feel free to include data on its optimal temperature, optimal amount per day per kg of body weight, best time of day, and the dozens of other possible attributes that help maximize its alleged effects. More seriously, as with pharmaceutical drugs, each performance enhancing agent dose dependently ultimately reaches a peak beneficial effect, after which its side effects start to manifest. This is true with everything, including adaptogens, water, etc. The point of course is to use multiple agents that enhance performance in complementary ways while keeping the side effect profile at a minimum. --Hyperforin (talk) 06:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Dated EMA position
Let me get this right - if the EMA doesn't update it's position for ten years, but the general science continues to evolve, does this mean Wikipedia will continue to bury its head in the sand and show the dated EMA position indefinitely? Eight years have already passed. --Hyperforin (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * sure, all regulatory agencies do this all the time. If you have a more current statement of their position would be great to have this. Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Editing Goals
Hello! As part of my undergraduate thesis project, I am aiming to improve the quality of this article by adding information cited from various research papers. The main contributions that I am looking to make include sections on the history of performance-enhancing substances, risk factors, a brief epidemiology, and adding to the types of supplements (while including their mechanism of action and if they are currently banned substances by the world anti-doping agency). Any comments and feedback pertaining to my edits are welcomed and would be greatly appreciated in my goal of improving this article! NoThisIsPatrick3000 (talk) 12:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello Everyone! I was able to add a risk factors and history section, along with expanding the section on types of drugs. I was unable to add sections epidemiology and would encourage other editors to consider incorporating this content as it would be beneficial to the article's growth! Other helpful information to add could include the sociocultural implications of using performance-enhancing substances and adding images/graphs to improve the readability of the page. This could include adding images of the molecular structure of the different types of drugs or graphics which illustrate an overview of the mechanisms of action. NoThisIsPatrick3000 (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

SARMs
We should add SARMs because they stimulate anabolism and strength equaling in some cases steroids. Class of drugs born for cancer and osteoporosis treatment they also increase strength and bone trophism and lead to HPG axis suppression beside other collateral side effects on liver. Currently considered ad doping worldwide. Xrmc (talk) 02:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: English 102 Section 4
— Assignment last updated by DoctorBeee (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)