Talk:Withania somnifera

Numerous credible laboratory studies done have proved the significant stress reduction that ashwagandha root provides

Here is a document from NCBI: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270108/

So "Dietary supplements containing ashwagandha are marketed in the U.S., but there is no evidence they have any effect" is completely invalid.

Content in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine cannot be trusted. It has weak editorial practices and a low impact factor of 1.9. --Zefr (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

And what about the Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, which says it's safe and effective? https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.4103/0253-7176.106022

That journal is not Medline-indexed (does not have enough history to be notable, so is not used on Wikipedia) and has an impact factor of 1 or less, here. It is not useable as a source. Zefr (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

It now has an impact factor of 1.52 https://www.resurchify.com/impact/details/20000195020 Taseck1 (talk) 11:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

It is also an ingredient of Relaxium, a sleep aid. See https://tryrelaxium.com/ingredients.php. Sam Tomato (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Adaptogen

The plant is universally considered an adaptogen in the disciplines that recognize this term. It seems to me that this designation should occur somewhere on the page. Drsruli (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

That would be giving credibility to such "disciplines", which are outside of mainstream science. The adaptogen concept is quackery nonsense, with no notability in science, WP:FRINGE. It has no place being discussed in this article as part of an encyclopedia presenting facts. Zefr (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

We have an entry on adaptogen. Herbalism exists. The concept of what is an adaptogen has existed, well-defined, for decades. The word is associated with ashwagandha inextricably. Additionally, science is not the only world in which a plant exists. There may be references from literature, music, completely fictitious. Not identifying ashwagandha with adaptogen is denial. It's a fact that ashwagandha is identified as an adaptogen. (Even if you are compelled to mention it as a fallacy, not documenting it is absurd.) (If Ashwagandha was historically identified with The Philosopher's Stone or The Holy Grail, then that would also warrant mention.) (Despite concerns of possibly granting plausibility to Alchemy.) Drsruli (talk) 08:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE also applies to this topic to rule out discussing adaptogen. And there are people - over history and currently - who believe the Earth is flat, WP:FLAT. We don't give mainspace attention to lunatic ideas: "Simply stick to the principles: if mainstream science holds that the Earth is round, and there are reliable sources establishing this as a fact, that is sufficient." See Jimmy Wales' statement: "What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of “true scientific discourse”. It isn’t." Zefr (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

We DO "give mainspace attention to lunatic ideas". https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Modern_flat_Earth_beliefs Western Herbalism, and specifically the concept of adaptogens as a class, is no less deserving of space than Flat Earth. (Or Alchemy.) (Or religion.) It exists. It has a history. And Ashwagandha, among other specific items, is a part of it. You can do that, and still maintain your standards. The Vitamin C page has a whole section about Linus Pauling and Orthomolecular medicine. "In the scientifically discredited discipline of Western Herbalism, Ashwagandha root is classified as an adaptogen."

Additionally, this category of herbs has (some) legal significance. In the US, distributors may not generally make claims on the bottles of natural remedies. However, Ginseng, Eleuthero, Ashwagandha etc, CAN be labeled as Adaptogens (but not usually delineate the specific claims that this designation would imply). In the stores that sell these items, such as GNC, Vitamin Shoppe, there are sections for Adaptogens, labeled as such. In Europe, this is also established. https://cohenhealthcarelaw.com/2022/03/adaptogens-and-fda-ftc-compliance/

https://www.healthline.com/health/adaptogenic-herbs#takeaway

https://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Article/2017/12/15/Adaptogens-are-here-to-stay-but-marketing-them-effectively-will-require-creativity-and-innovation-say-experts

Additionally, in the case of certain Ashwagandha products, the claim can legally be made on the label: "clinically proven to reduce cortisol and perceived stress". The basis is this study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6979308/ - Adaptogenic and Anxiolytic Effects of Ashwagandha Root Extract in Healthy Adults: A Double-blind, Randomized, Placebo-controlled Clinical Study Drsruli (talk) 08:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

There are no WP:MEDRS sources supporting the concept or clinical use of ashwagandha or any herbal product supposed to have adaptogen properties. You are in error to state that ashwagandha products have approved label claims for reducing cortisol levels and stress, and you are in error to state that the above study PMC 6979308 would be sufficient for any regulatory authority to assess a clinical effect - that is a primary research project published in a weak journal not even having a Medline index. Further, the FDA has issued numerous warning letters in recent years to US supplement companies illegally marketing ashwagandha products, such as this one in 2022. Attempting to market such unapproved products is "in violation of sections 505(a) and 301(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act." As you seem to have no MEDRS sources, regulatory evidence or editor consensus here to support your views, I will have no further comments. Zefr (talk) 03:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Nevertheless, this is the claim and the reference that it is based on, that is on the Nature Made national brand that is on the shelves at this time. It appears to have met the legal requirements. I was unaware of the more recent warning (although this does not address the Sensoril and Nature Made claims). Nevertheless, the term "adaptogen" has entered common vocabulary, and my initial (and primary) points regarding documenting the use of the term remain. "In the scientifically discredited discipline of Western Herbalism, Ashwagandha root is classified as an adaptogen." There is precedent for weaker things. Drsruli (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Selective Use of Source Material

I noticed that only adverse effects from the meta-analysis by Tandon and Yadav (2020) are cited, while the study also highlights potential positive effects. If the study is MEDRS compliant, and considered reliable enough to cite adverse effects, it should also include its positive findings. Alternatively, if the study is deemed insufficient, both the positive and negative findings should be omitted for neutrality and balance.

Furthermore, this article states, "Because the studies used different extract preparations, durations of use, doses, and types of subjects, it remains undetermined how ashwagandha may have effects in people, as of 2023." If this is true, then the same logic should prevail when publishing the adverse effects. Krackarot (talk) 21:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Adverse effects are clinically observable and have been reported by numerous sources, including four reputable health sources in the article – Drugs.com, MedlinePlus, ODS-NIH, and the MSK Cancer Center. None of those sources would support a conclusive statement about clinical benefits, but rather the research to date is preliminary and of generally poor quality.

This publication and its claims of clinical benefit do not meet the standard of WP:MEDASSESS; the journal is not a clinical publication, and no national clinical association or regulatory authority has adopted the findings, indicating it is not a reliable source for any of the anti-disease claims made. Zefr (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Zefr, I don't disagree that the journal may not meet WP:MEDASSESS standards, which is why I'm raising this on the talk page. My question is regarding why the study's findings were considered worthy of inclusion in this Wikipedia article. If the journal does not meet the standard, then none of its findings should be included. Krackarot (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

In the context of discussing adverse effects, it's a redundant source and could be removed. If you scan the archives, you'll see considerable discussion about "ethno-" and Ayurveda-based sources (as in this example), which are unreliable for encyclopedic medical content Zefr (talk) 04:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Use as a food

The article does not at all mention what is probably the primary use of this item in the lands where it is commonly grown and sold in the markets - as a kind of food. Correctly or not, it is believed to be nourishing and fed to malnourished children and anemic women for this reason. The most well-known recipe is "Moon Milk", the powder added to warm milk and honey and drunk before bed, as many use herbal teas. Apparently, it is commonly an ingredient in the Hilbeh relish of Yemen. The entire plant, leaves, berries etc, is edible, related to tomatoes and may be grown about as easily. Considering how trendy this item has become, some expanded perspective might be reflected in this article. Drsruli (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Endocrinology

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2025 and 21 March 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Roffk (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Okaford (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2025 (UTC)