Talk:Withania somnifera/Archive 1

Archive 1

Effects of Withania somnifera on the growth and virulence properties of Streptococcus mutans and Streptococcus sobrinus at sub-MIC levels

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1075996412001485?via%

Obviously any research that reduces dentist work won't be published.. oh wait. I mean not hyped at the dentist office where they rather recommended fluoride which has been shown to calcify the pineal gland which is essential for spying what the psychos at big pharma/big four/fossil fuel lobby are working on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.155.19.195 (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

add accurate rat experiment data

Traditional medicinal uses are not enough! Please add accurate rat experiment data! We need official data and links with the actual Universities that performed the experiments! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.216.225 (talk) 11:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Research in rats show reduction of gouty arthritis attacks https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0009279706002602?via%3Dihub — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:1600:3170:F915:7CB8:6468:5E2D (talk) 04:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

exceptional source to be incorporated

hi, im not a wiki editor but the entry in this book, most of which you can see on the google book limited preview, contains alot of info which must be included here for this exceptional plant http://books.google.com/books?id=463ERB3VeUoC&lpg=PP1&dq=indian%20herbal%20remedies&pg=PA481#v=onepage&q=withania&f=false —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.218.20.179 (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the suggestion. We are currently working very hard to improve this article. While the book you mentioned does contain lots of useful information, much of which appears accurate after a quick read, I don't think it quite reaches the level of an ideal reference for the following reasons: first, lack of author technical expertise (the author is not trained in medicine or the sciences); second, author conflicts of interest (the author is a media and herbal medicine industry entrepreneur); third, lack of verifiable references (the entries were not referenced and were therefore difficult to cross check for accuracy). BSW-RMH (talk) 00:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Arthritis remedy?

FYI ... The Ethiopian culture section of the "Lucy" exhibit (showing the ancient fossils of Australopithecus afarensis), currently touring the USA, states that Ethiopians use Withania somnifera for arthritis. I know nothing about whether or not that's true, if it's effective, or how it is used. Since I suffer from arthritis, I was searching the internet for info. Someone knowledgeable might want to amplify on this point in the main entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.79.235 (talk) 06:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Delisted GA

I delisted this article from GA status because:

• First off, it appears to be a self-nomination, by User:BorgQueen
• Lack of inline citations, which aren't a requirement, but still would be useful
• Needs copyediting:

Ashwagandha (Withania somnifera), also known as Indian ginseng, Winter cherry, Ajagandha, Kanaje Hindi and Samm Al Ferakh, is a plant in Solanaceae or nightshade family. - needs the word "the" There are other instances of poor writing

• Weak lead; one sentence paragraph?
• poor 2-sentence history
• weak, not thorough

AndyZ 20:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this article needs research citations, better references to herbal use and better editing. This is an important herb in the Ayurvedic materia medica, and is important as an herbal adaptogen that can readily grown as an annual (unlike ginseng or eleutherococcus).

Karen S Vaughan 18:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Constituents

I find no mention of pyralizodine alkaloids (saturated or unsaturated?- it makes a huge difference) in Duke's USDA database under Withania somnifera. There are no restrictions on use which would be found on an herb with dangerous PAs, as this is a well-researched rasayana herb. It is possible that the leaf or stem, which are not used medicinally, have toxic chemicals as this is a solanaceae, but the herb is considered safe for small children and the elderly in traditional Ayurvedic medicine. The article needs a substantial rewrite. Karen S Vaughan 16:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Photo

So, Image:With_somn.jpg is a nice photo apparently from the "Indian Institute of Science collection" (which I was unable to find information about from google, probably because "collection" and "Indian Institute of Science" are common terms). But there are too many things about it which I don't know how to handle, including whether the right permission is on file (commons:Template:no permission since) and the presence of a credit in the image (commons:Template:Watermark).

I note from commons:User_talk:Madhav_Gadgil that the uploader has had issues with other images more-or-less similarly uploaded, but I can't really tell what the resolution, if any, of all those other situations was.

If this image isn't suitable, we should add needs-photo=yes to the Plants box on this page. Kingdon (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Bad english?

What on earth?

Side effects

   * Slight nausea affect
   * impaired sight
   * chronic diahorreoa
   * misconfiguration of limbs
   * erosion of body parts

1: Ok, 2: What? Because of the sedative effects?, 3: I was given Withania Somnifera AGAINST stomach problems, 4 & 5: These two sound like fetal damage or something. I've read quite a few articles on Ashwaganda and none mention these. What does erosion and misconfiguration mean here? Somebody should fix these. :P

88.91.228.135 (talk) 08:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Saleeby reference does not meet WP:RS

The reference Saleeby, J. P. "Wonder Herbs: A Guide to Three Adaptogens", Xlibris, 2006 does not appear to meet WP:RS, specifically the requirements for self-published sources. The publisher is Xlibris, and a search on WorldCat and Google does not show the author as having published any other WP:RS works in the field of herbs. The reference should be removed.--papageno (talk) 02:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done The reference has been removed.--papageno (talk) 04:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Consolidate Active constituents sub-section

I think the second two paragraphs in the Active constituents sub-section could be consolidated, but I don't have enough knowledge of botany to do so accurately.--papageno (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

External Review Comments

The following comments are from an external reviewer BSW-RMH as part of the new joint Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Google Project.

Hello, Withania sominifera article writers and editors. This article currently has 'start class' status and is a priority article for the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Google Project. The goal of this project to is provide a useful list of suggested revisions to help promote the expansion and improvement of this article.

BSW-RMH (talk) 05:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Description

This description seems to be inaccurate and is unreferenced. The reference I have describes Withania somnifera as a short shrub (35-75 cm) with a central stem from which branch extend radially in a star pattern (stellate) and covered with a dense matte of wooly hairs (tomentose). The flowers are small and green, while the ripe fruit is orange-red and has milk-coagulating properties. The plant also has long brown tuberous roots that are used for medicinal purposes. It is cultivated in many of the drier regions of India such as Manasa, Neemuch, and Jawad tehsils of the Mandsaur District of Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Sind. and Rajastan.

-Mirjalili MH, Moyano E, Bonfill M, Cusido RM, Palazón J. Steroidal Lactones from Withania somnifera, an Ancient Plant for Novel Medicine Molecules. (2009);14(7):2373-93. PMID: 19633611

YI have incorporated the above material BSW-RMH (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The statement, “Although the herb Ashwagandha referred to in the ancient texts is now associated with Withania somnifera, the Himalayan Ayurvedic tradition equates Ashwagandha with Field Bindweed (Convovulus arvensis).” Is an inaccurate restatement of the cited website. This website actually says that Field Bindweed was used as a substitute for W. somnifera in this context. Either way, the cited website is an unreliable source (commercial, no reference to primary material). I removed both the statement and reference.

BSW-RMH (talk) 05:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Medicinal use

This section needs to be rewritten completely. It consists entirely of unreferenced and unconnected statements.

A short paragraph about how the roots of W. somnifera are used as Ashwagandha by Ayurvedic medicine practitioners would be useful. These references have extensive discussion of these uses:

-Mirjalili MH, Moyano E, Bonfill M, Cusido RM, Palazón J. Steroidal Lactones from Withania somnifera, an Ancient Plant for Novel Medicine Molecules. (2009);14(7):2373-93. PMID: 19633611

-Scartezzini P, Speroni E. Review on some plants of Indian traditional medicine with antioxidant activity. J Ethnopharmacol. (2000);71(1-2):23-43. Review. PMID: 10904144

This should be followed by a clear statement that while many health benefits are claimed, there have been few clinical trials to test these claims. Studies completed so far support that W. somnifera is beneficial for:

-easing drug withdrawal symptoms (Lu L, Liu Y, Zhu W, Shi J, Liu Y, Ling W, Kosten TR. Traditional medicine in the treatment of drug addiction. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. (2009);35(1):1-11. PMID: 19152199)

-reducing anxiety (Cooley K, Szczurko O, Perri D, Mills EJ, Bernhardt B, Zhou Q, Seely D. Naturopathic care for anxiety: a randomized controlled trial ISRCTN78958974. PLoS One. (2009);4(8):e6628.PMID: 19718255)

-reducing arthritis pain in the knee (Chopra A, Lavin P, Patwardhan B, Chitre D. A 32-week randomized, placebo-controlled clinical evaluation of RA-11, an Ayurvedic drug, on osteoarthritis of the knees. J Clin Rheumatol. (2004);10(5):236-45.PMID: 17043520)( Kulkarni RR, Patki PS, Jog VP, Gandage SG, Patwardhan B. Treatment of osteoarthritis with a herbomineral formulation: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study. J Ethnopharmacol. (1991);33(1-2):91-5. PMID: 1943180)

There are currently registered clinical trials to test the potential of W. sominifera to treat:

-Tuberculosis (India, World Health Organization International Clinical Registry Program, CTRI/2008/091/000089, http://www.ctri.in/Clinicaltrials/ViewTrial.jsp?trialno=175)

-Parkinsons Disease (Pakistan, World Health Organization International Clinical Registry Program, ISRCTN31871098, http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/Trial.aspx?TrialID=ISRCTN31871098)

-Bone Cancer (India, World Health Organization International Clinical Registry Program, NCT00689195, http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/Trial.aspx?TrialID=NCT00689195)

-Bipolar disorder (USA, World Health Organization International Clinical Registry Program, NCT00761761, http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/Trial.aspx?TrialID=NCT00761761)

-Diabetes (India, World Health Organization International Clinical Registry Program, CTRI/2008/091/000053, http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/Trial.aspx?TrialID=CTRI/2008/091/000053), (India, World Health Organization International Clinical Registry Program, CTRI/2008/091/000054, http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/Trial.aspx?TrialID=CTRI/2008/091/000053)

-and improve the well-being of the elderly and breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy (India, World Health Organization International Clinical Registry Program, CTRI/2008/091/000052, http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/Trial.aspx?TrialID=CTRI/2008/091/000052)(India, World Health Organization International Clinical Registry Program, CTRI/2008/091/000047, http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/Trial.aspx?TrialID=CTRI/2008/091/000047)

BSW-RMH (talk) 05:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

YI incorporated all the suggested material. BSW-RMH (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The page on Yahoo health mentions limited results showing lowering of blood sugar in type 2 diabetes (and other health information) with references. I am not experienced with Wikipedia, but seems like it would fit here. http://health.yahoo.net/natstandardcontent/ashwagandha/3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.245.69.116 (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Active constituents

This should be made more accurate and expanded. Everything you ever wanted to know on this subject is here:

Mirjalili MH, Moyano E, Bonfill M, Cusido RM, Palazón J. Steroidal Lactones from Withania somnifera, an Ancient Plant for Novel Medicine Molecules. (2009);14(7):2373-93. PMID: 19633611

BSW-RMH (talk) 05:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Pharmacological effects

This section needs summarize all the pharmacological effects and therefore needs much expansion. A useful reference is: Mishra LC, Singh BB, Dagenais S. Scientific basis for the therapeutic use of Withania somnifera (ashwagandha): a review. Altern Med Rev. (2000);5(4):334-46. PMID: 10956379.

“Studies indicate [that] ashwagandha possesses anti-inflammatory, antitumor, antistress, antioxidant, immunomodulatory, hemopoetic, and rejuvenating properties. It also appears to exert a positive influence on the endocrine, cardiopulmonary, and central nervous systems.” (Mishra 2000)

Also of note: “Historically, W. somnifera has been used as an antioxidant, adaptogen, aphrodisiac, liver tonic, antiinflamatory agent and astringent and more recently as an antibacterial, antihyperplycemic and antitumoral, as well as to treat ulcers and senile dementia.”

Mirjalili MH, Moyano E, Bonfill M, Cusido RM, Palazón J. Steroidal Lactones from Withania somnifera, an Ancient Plant for Novel Medicine Molecules. (2009);14(7):2373-93. PMID: 19633611

See also: Gupta, GL, Rana, AC Withania somnifera (Ashwagandha): A Review. Pharmacog. (2007);1, 129-136.

BSW-RMH (talk) 05:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Side effects

Information about effects on rats and anecdotal evidence of perceived side effects are not relevant. Instead, it could be clearly stated that in at least two published clinical trials of Withania somnifera, the side effects experienced by W. somnifera treated individuals were not significantly different than the side effects experienced by placebo treated individuals. This can be expanded in the future.

Cooley K, Szczurko O, Perri D, Mills EJ, Bernhardt B, Zhou Q, Seely D. Naturopathic care for anxiety: a randomized controlled trial ISRCTN78958974. PLoS One. (2009);4(8):e6628.PMID: 19718255

Chopra A, Lavin P, Patwardhan B, Chitre D. A 32-week randomized, placebo-controlled clinical evaluation of RA-11, an Ayurvedic drug, on osteoarthritis of the knees. J Clin Rheumatol. (2004);10(5):236-45.PMID: 17043520

BSW-RMH (talk) 05:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

YThis information was added to the article BSW-RMH (talk) 03:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Other species

There are currently 23 known species of Withania. (Mirjalili 2009)

BSW-RMH (talk) 05:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

YThis citation was added. BSW-RMH (talk) 03:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Subspecies

I did not find a reliable reference for the existence of subpecies of this plant.

BSW-RMH (talk) 05:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

YThis section was removed. BSW-RMH (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Research

The current information in this section is selective. I recommend removal of this section in light of the discussions of ongoing clinical trials in the medicinal effects section or perhaps move the ongoing clinical trials information to this section.

BSW-RMH (talk) 05:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

YThis section was removed.BSW-RMH (talk) 03:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

References

Unreliable references have been removed.

YBSW-RMH (talk) 05:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Study vs Alzheimer's

A reputable blog https://luysii.wordpress.com/2012/03/04/could-le-chateliers-principle-be-the-answer-to-alzheimers-disease/ cites [ Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. vol. 109 pp. 3199 - 3200, 3510 - 3515 '12 ] saying: it found a way to dissolve the senile plaques in a mouse model of Alzheimer’s disease. ... Mice were created with mutations known to cause Alzheimer’s disease in man. They developed senile plaques and were then given Ashwagandha extract. The plaques got smaller.

It's the cover article. The title is "Withania somnifera reverses Alzheimer's disease pathology by enhancing low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein in liver". The abstract (free) is at http://www.pnas.org/content/109/9/3510.abstract

I haven't read the paper, nor am I a qualified expert, but I hope someone can follow this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.162.228.245 (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The blog is not reputable (cf WP:MEDRS). Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

But the article in PNAS is reputable. Nadiatalent (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

What caught my attention was that the comment opened with the curious statement that the blog is reputable when it in fact it is strikingly not so. While it is true that PNAS is a reputable journal, the article in question was a pre-clinical mouse study (and therefore not directly relevant to humans) and its a primary source (see WP:MEDRS); so limited value. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The PNAS article, as noted above, was featured on the cover of the journal. There is also a commentary about the significance of the study: Dries, D.R.; Yu, G.; Herz, J. (2012). "Extracting β-amyloid from Alzheimer's disease". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 109 (9): 3199–3200.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) In other words, this is a very promising avenue for further investigation, in a field where previous promising avenues have been strikingly unsuccessful (dangerous, in fact), but it is very new, and so far doesn't provide a therapy for humans. As for the blog, it is a blog written by a well-educated person; as such, it is better formulated than blogs by ignoramuses; there's no call to describe it as "strikingly not reputable". Of course, all blogs (and all news media) are suspect, but this one deserves no further aspersions. Nadiatalent (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Unproven claim about anxiety?

The study "Naturopathic Care for Anxiety: A Randomized Controlled Trial" looks at a naturopathic treatment with dietary counselling, multivitamins and breathing exercises combined with Withania somnifera NOT Withania somnifera in isolation, it is therefore impossible to conclude that Withania somnifera itself is effective against anxiety. It may well be the case, but someone needs to dig up a better study. --85.24.133.33 (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the text as written in the article is not supported by the cited reference. Per WP:MEDRS, this content should be removed until a reliable source that does support it can be found. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

"various symptoms and conditions"

Why would I bother using an encylopedia that tells me "various symptoms and conditions". How about a rewrite of WP so each article just reads, "Stuff"? Unimpressed. 49.182.150.111 (talk) 07:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Why is Wikipedia so much anti-herbs?

I think it's intentional discouragement from using herbs that's present on Wikipedia. Why just say things like "there is no high-quality clinical evidence that it has any biological effect"... which can be read as "ashwagandha is bullshit"... instead of talking more about its effects and the level of evidence for each of them. Examine.com does much better job at objectively and impartially reviewing various supplements, herbs, etc. And according to them there are notable effects of ashwaghanda on 6 different things, like anxiety, power output, cortisol, etc...

https://examine.com/supplements/ashwagandha/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.91.85.18 (talk) 11:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Is it possible that the herbs do not work in the same way on most western people as they do on many eastern origin people. Also, Ayurvedic medicine is not always a cure for ailments, but is mostly preventive medicine. Western researchers (when they use the Western methodology) may misunderstand the way Ayurvedic medicines work. Polytope4D (talk) 03:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

examine.com is a very nice website. But if you read the human studies examine.com refers, all the relevant studies (relevant = only aswagandha, not combined with other treatments like multivitamin etc) have been done in INDIA. This does not prove there is anything wrong with the studies, but I would like to see some studies done in Europe or USA also! https://examine.com/supplements/ashwagandha/

Do we even know does the herb work for non-Indian people? For example genes, diet, lot of pollution and poverty in India... could affect things.

https://medlineplus.gov/druginfo/natural/953.html "Possibly effective for... Stress. Taking a specific ashwagandha root extract (KSM66, Ixoreal Biomed) 300 mg twice daily after food for 60 days appears to improve symptoms of stress".

https://www.consumerlab.com/reviews/ashwagandha_supplements/ashwagandha/ "Does it work? Preliminary studies suggest that ashwagandha may help reduce anxiety, improve physical and cognitive performance, and have other benefits. However, larger studies are needed for confirmation". All of the KSM-66 human studies ConsumerLab mentions were were done in INDIA. So we don't know does it work for people living in Europe or USA.--ee1518 (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't anti-herb for medicinal topics, but rather is based on the best available scientific and clinical evidence, as critiqued on the Herbalism page. Ashwagandha (supposed) medicinal uses and Ayurveda in general are not founded in science or clinical evidence, so the Traditional medicine section is appropriately succinct and dismissive of any evidence for effect. Sources addressing human health on Wikipedia need to be of a high standard, discussed in WP:MEDREV and WP:MEDASSESS.

Further, commenting on the websites mentioned above, Examine.com is not a medical expert site, and does not pass minimum standards of WP:MEDRS. As a site of the US National Institutes of Health, MedlinePlus is a reliable source, but only summarizes information which is available in systematic reviews in high-quality journals, when published -- there are no such sources for Ashwagandha or Ayurveda, as summarized on the Medline site. Third, Consumerlab.com reports on assays, and is not a MEDRS source. Bottom line: no reliable medical sources support using ashwagandha for any clinical condition. Lastly, there is no good reason to believe -- certainly no reliable source to support -- that ashwagandha has different effects on people in India compared to people in another country. This is just nonsense. --Zefr (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

People in India and people in USA or Europe are far, far more alike than different, so I agree with Zefr that it is nonsense to talk about "non-Indian" people. But the article does state or imply too conclusively that there is no evidence. There is certainly some evidence. The studies may not meet the (excellent) standards of Western medicine, but we surely have learned that Western medicine is not the be-all and end-all of medicine. Why does Kaiser Permanente pay for acupuncture? Western medicine cannot explain how it works, but knows that it does work. (My doctor noted that the same is true for acetomenophin.) People who do not dig into this talk page might be misled into completely dismissing the potential benefits of ashwagandha. The statement that it has no medicinal benefits is too broad, too definite. Gnurps (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)Gnurps; 1/6/18 (First time contributing to a talk page.)

“The studies may not meet the (excellent) standards of Western medicine, but we surely have learned that Western medicine is not the be-all and end-all of medicine."

There’s no such thing as “Western medicine” per se. There is scientific evidence-based medicine -- which is practiced all over the “east”, same as the “west” – and then there’s everything else.

"Why does Kaiser Permanente pay for acupuncture?"

That’s not germane to this discussion.

"People who do not dig into this talk page might be misled into completely dismissing the potential benefits of ashwagandha."

Literally everything has “potential” benefits. However, the scientific approach is to assume that nothing has actual benefits until proven otherwise. That (i.e., the burden of proof) is the gist of the scientific approach and evidence-based medicine. It’s also the basis of WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDASSESS, which is what really matters for WP purposes. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm as anti-quackery as anyone but that doesn't change the fact that this is a poorly written article. The Traditional Medicine section needs to at least say why people take Ashwagandha- lack of high quality research doesn't mean lack of any research. There are trials that have been done, there is research that exists. It is disingenuous to use drugs.com as a source but then claim the information it provides is not good enough to be in the actual Wikipedia entry. Either drugs.com references legitimate studies and those studies' results should be included or it's more unreliable quackery that doesn't meet Wikipedia's high standards, and that site shouldn't be used as a source. Because otherwise, this does seem like bias. IMO, the drugs.com page simply presents all the studies and adds the caveat that clinical trials are lacking (among other disclaimers). When I read it I understand what the plant is, what it does, and why people might want to use it but also what the limitations are on the facts it's presenting. The Wikipedia entry acts like the reader shouldn't worry its pretty little head with those details. Treating readers like stupid children is not the way to protect them from bad medicine. Do we want people to open themselves up to critical thinking or immediately become defensive? Because currently it looks like the writers of this entry only want to achieve the latter. Basil989 (talk) 08:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Basil989. You seem to want a discussion of traditional medicine practices vs. rigorous clinical research, but that presents two problems: traditional medicine is not based on scientific rigor - so is quackery represented by poor, unencyclopedic sources - and high-quality clinical research on ashwagandha does not exist. The Drugs.com and MedlinePlus sources say primary research exists, possibly indicating biological effects that remain unconfirmed, but no reliable clinical research is available. WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, #6-7, guides us to write in the encyclopedia what is factual, not what is preliminary, unproven, practiced by quacks, or may be shown. There are no good sources to support a change in how the section on Traditional medicine is worded. --Zefr (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

High quality studies of benefits, to be incorporated into the article

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3573577/ http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2156587216641830 https://jissn.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12970-015-0104-9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.159.54 (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Be wary of using the phrase "high quality" lightly. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, Journal of Evidence-Based Integrative Medicine, and Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition are at the polar opposite end of the quality spectrum. A good meta-analysis in a high quality journal, per WP:MEDRS, would be more like it. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

These are not high-quality studies or journals. The research is preliminary, and the quality needed fails WP:MEDASSESS: unacceptable. --Zefr (talk) 01:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Miscarriage risk, "adaptogens"

@Zefr: Why is Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center not RS for the risk of miscarriages in pregnant women? Why is Huffington Post not RS for the trendiness of this supplement and its place among other supplements with supposed anti-anxiety effects? --Psiĥedelisto (talk) 04:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

1) The MSKCC source is ok as a general reference, so I agree to reinstate it, but not for miscarriages, as there is no reliable published literature on that use; see the MSKCC site under "purported uses" for healthcare professionals and here; 2) Huff Post is not an expert medical source per WP:MEDRS; 3) as explained in the Adaptogen article, the term has no science-based meaning and is not accepted in a discussion of health or disease. There are no MEDRS-quality reviews supporting the clinical use of ashwagandha for treating anxiety or stress. --Zefr (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

There is insufficient evidence that it has any medicinal effects.

How is this a fair statement that represents the nature of this topic? There may be insufficient evidence to unequivocally demonstrate that it has medicinal effects relative to say aspirin but relative to homeopathic remedies there is more evidence to support that it does indeed have some medicinal effects, there actually is some small body of evidence.

You could put the line "There is insufficient evidence that it has any medicinal effects" in an article about a homeopathic remedy and it would ring true. This is not the case with Withania somnifera, a distinction needs to be made, perhaps the statement should read "There is some preliminary research that suggests Withania somnifera may have medicinal effects, however, more research is needed to determine conclusively whether or not this is the case" or something to that effect..

Also, what exactly is meant by "medicinal", for example, large doses apparently cause diarrhoea, can't then one argue that it has a laxative effect which could be "medicinal". Seems like the term is a little subjective.

Maybe framing this in terms of psychoactive or pharmacological effect would be more appropriate seeing as people are using this herb as one would a therapeutic drug. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.17.137.115 (talk) 05:47, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Cureus

I'm not expert enough to edit the article directly, but would like to point out that Cureus (which seems to have an impact factor of 1.9) published a study reporting a decrease in reported levels of stress and in serum cortisol levels when subjects took 250mg or 600mg of ashwagandha daily vs. placebo: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6979308/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonas42 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

"Ayurvedic Journals"

I would like to know exactly which sources are considered to be "quackery" associated with "Ayurvedic journals". This herb has been extensively researched, and it is a disservice to the community not to publish some of this research. While it is appropriate to include the limitations of this research, it is not appropriate to refuse to allow legitimate secondary sources and the conclusions of their authors.

It has been previously agreed on this thread that MSK is a reliable source, and yet there appears to be a continued issue with publishing the content of their analysis.

What evidence is there that the Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine is not a reliable source? Wikipedia should be strictly about evidence, not who has the most degrees. Digeridoodle (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

References

The IJPM - as with all Ayruveda journals - does not publish the quality of research, especially high-quality reviews of completed clinical trials to meet the standard of WP:MEDRS. We are writing for an encyclopedia, not for an herbalism research article or folk medicine publication. The impact factor for IJPM falls far below the minimum standard typically accepted for medical content on Wikipedia (2.0 or higher). Accordingly, none of these sources is reliable or acceptable. --Zefr (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Using this metric, some of the existing sources which you have cited would not pass muster. "Indian Journal of Microbiology" scores only a 0.988 and yet it stands. I replaced that IJPM citation with a review published in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine with an impact factor of 1.398 making it more reliable by these metrics than existing cited source materials. Yet you once again rolled it back and accused me of edit warring. This hardly constitutes a reasonable dialogue with equitable standards. Digeridoodle (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

JACM is not a reliable source for encyclopedic medical content; it publishes quackery and low-quality herbalism research. When you take some time to read WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDHOW, it will be clearer for you. Another explanation about source quality is here. --Zefr (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The problem with that argument is that none of the existing citations meet your criteria, hence the clear bias. The JACM score is over 2-3x the score of other journals already cited in this article. In addition to the one I have already mentioned, the cited World Applied Sciences Journal has an equally abysmal score. This is a clear bias against a substantial body of research. Digeridoodle (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The only sources used to support content in the traditional medicine section are Drugs.com and MedlinePlus, both of which are acceptable as reliable medical references. The problem with expanding medical content is that reviews on high-quality clinical research have not been published, so there is nothing to add. --Zefr (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

At minimum, the MSK analysis should be allowed along with the conclusions of its authors. Also this review exceeds the MEDRS standards and should be similarly allowed. Digeridoodle (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what more could be said from the MSK source because it is already used to refer to the potential for drug interactions and absence of high-quality clinical trials; nothing more meets the MEDRS standard. As for the 2016 review, it could be used - but adds little - for history, methods of extraction, and phytochemicals. Nothing can be said about in vivo or clinical effects because the research reviewed was all primary, and mostly of low quality. --Zefr (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Me! Me!! ME!!! I am the one with the most degrees!!!! (PhD Nutritional Biochemistry from MIT, post-doctoral fellowship at - MSK!!!!!) But that is beside the point. The proper approach is to look through MSK to its references, and none of those stand up to Wikipedia criteria. Likewise, here, your Talk and Teahouse, the 2016 review is not sufficient for summarizing human trials. Not even close to MEDRS. Says itself - no human evidence. David notMD (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Cancer Treatment?

Effect of Withania somnifera on DMBA induced carcinogenesis

LeemolDavisGirijaKuttan Amalanagar Cancer Research Centre, Amalanagar, Thrissur, 680 553 Kerala, India Received 5 September 2000, Revised 4 December 2000, Accepted 12 December 2000, Available online 4 April 2001. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7ED1:2E00:2C47:8658:AC3:E300 (talk) 20:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

A primary report about a small scale animal study published in a lower tier journal falls well short of the type of sourcing needed to make claims regarding cancer treatment. Please see WP:MEDRS for details. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

No high-quality evidence for efficacy as a drug or dietary supplement

This edit states the general conclusion both of Drugs.com and MedlinePlus that there is no high-quality clinical evidence that using ashwagandha provides any benefit. There's no need to massage the language that it "possibly may affect" or there is "limited" possible evidence for benefit. The bottom line for an encyclopedia is to clearly state the fact: there is no approved use of it as a drug, and there is no clinical proof it has value as a supplement. Zefr (talk) 17:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Zefr is correct, only research with massive selection bias published by groups with financial ties to pharmaceutical companies (as is invariably the case with antidepressants) can be considered high quality evidence. 82.26.113.110 (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Zefr is correct. Netanyahuserious (talk) 10:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Toxicity

Toxicity is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Toxic effects of the herb Ashwagandha (Withania somnifera) Venkat TL (talk) 08:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Ashwagandha is Grown and Supplied in USA also

I actually wanted to add that Ashwagandha is also Grown and Supplied in the USA by submitting a link as a piece of evidence which you reverted, https://the-unwinder.com/news/best-source-of-ashwagandha/. Ricalston (talk) 10:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't doubt it's grown in a bunch of places (which raises questions about notability), but surely there's a better source for that info than a promo text written by a personal trainer on a website focusing on selling supplements. Robincantin (talk) 13:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

New clinical research

This study seems to support the efficacy of ashwagandha for anxiety, though sample size is a tiny N=61 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3573577/ Can someone knowledgeable on the subject review and add if relevant? Tgalos90 (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Preliminary research (not new, 2012) in an obscure journal with a low impact factor. Not usable. --Zefr (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Would this article be of interest here? https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07391102.2020.1775704? Briancady413 (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Just to add to this and the examples below: Effects of Ashwagandha (Withania somnifera) on Physical Performance: Systematic Review and Bayesian Meta-Analysis https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8006238/ published in the Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology.

I would also like some clarification on how drugs.com is considered an acceptable source while peer-reviewed journals are not. Drugs.com is owned by a private trust started by two pharmacists - not what I would consider an unbiased source. thanks. SaucyFineBologna (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology is not Medline-indexed, indicating it is unestablished, potentially unreliable, and not a usable source for Wikipediia medical content, as explained in MEDRS. It is a dubious MDPI journal with possible predatory editorial practices that make it unreliable for medical content.

Drugs.com is a trusted source in long-term use for medical content on Wikipedia. It is a monograph source for nearly every prescription drug infobox (e.g., Metformin). For non-prescription compounds, like W. somnifera, there are few better, monograph sources on natural products that give objective coverage on the same topics used to review an actual approved drug; Metformin monograph on Drugs.com, as an example and the Drugs.com monograph on W. somnifera for comparison.

"Peer-review" is one issue in assessing source quality, but not the only factor in adhering to WP:MEDASSESS, see left pyramid for the hierarchy of evidence quality. There are no review sources for W. somnifera published in reputable clinical journals that meet a high level of MEDASSESS quality.

If you have good review or clinical guideline sources on W. somnifera to offer, please provide them here for editors to assess. Zefr (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Acceptable?

Can we add these?

PMID	Journal	Impact Factor	Extract
PMID 31742775	Phytotherapy Research	3.092	"W. somnifera extract improved performance on cognitive tasks, executive function, attention, and reaction time."
PMID 31731424	International Journal of Molecular Sciences	4.183	"WS was not only effective, but most importantly at these dosages WS was safe and well tolerated"

Sthubbar (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Nice table. A high-quality review of clinical research would not be published in Phytotherapy Research, and indeed, the studies mentioned for assessment were fraught with inconsistencies and design weaknesses, including mixed subject groups of different disorders. No good journal would have published this mess of research. The article in IJMS discusses extracts of W. somnifera, so is really a review of speculations from lab research which is too inconclusive for an encyclopedia. Further, IJMS is listed as unreliable as an MDPI journal in WP:CITEWATCH, so is unusable. --Zefr (talk) 03:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you for the response.Sthubbar (talk) 05:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Zefr, can we address the contention that IJMS is listed as unreliable as an MDPI journal in WP:CITEWATCH? WP:CITEWATCH describes MDPI as:

• hit-and-miss
• removed in 2015
• some are fine

This reads to me as though some journals from MDPI are perfectly acceptable.

Furthermore, the Beall's List website says "I decided not to include MDPI on the list itself." I understand you have two objections to the second resource. If the journal is not allowed than there is no need to address the first objection. Can we first agree that the journal is acceptable, or show further justification why this particular journal is unnacceptable beyond a simple association with MDPI, and then address the first concern?Sthubbar (talk) 09:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

All of the research in PMID 31731424 is on extracts and is low quality, primary research based on conjecture from in vitro lab studies, a source condition discouraged by WP:PRIMARY and WP:MEDANIMAL. About primary research on medical content, WP:MEDREV says "A reason to avoid primary sources in the biomedical field – especially papers reporting results of in vitro experiments – is that they are often not replicable and are therefore unsuitable for use in generating encyclopedic, reliable biomedical content." That's enough guidance to exclude it and justify its negative position in Citewatch. --Zefr (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Zefr, OK, so since you jumped right to supporting the first objection of the quality of the research, I'm assuming that the quality of the journal is no longer an issue. Let's consider a different quote from the conclusion: "As reviewed herein, the recent clinical trials using randomized double-blind placebo control designs using WS extracts have shown that at specified dosage ranging from 200 mg/kg to 1000 mg/kg WS was not only effective, but most importantly at these dosages WS was safe and well tolerated."

As to your objection about primary sources, you have me totally confused. As I understand it the process is:

1. Primary research is done
2. Secondary research in the form of a review or meta-analysis of the primary research is done.
3. Tertiary research in the form of Wikipedia summarizes the secondary research.

PMID 31731424 is secondary research summarizing the primary research.

What am I misunderstanding?Sthubbar (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

First, IJMS is generally a low-quality journal often containing poorly written or poorly edited content based on thin or disputable evidence, so it has a deserving place on Citewatch. The questionable value of clinical studies cited in PMID 31731424 is revealed in Table 1 where are displayed the so-called "randomized double-blind placebo controlled trials", all of which were on small subject groups and dubious designs published in weak journals rarely (or never) cited for Wikipedia medical content. WP:MEDHOW requires editors to judge the quality of research for use as sources, and this criterion fails for the Dutta review. Most of the research discussed in that paper is on in vitro models, which are too preliminary and non-reproducible to use as an encyclopedic reference. None of the content in question can be attributed to high-quality reliable medical sources. I've provided enough feedback on this topic, and will not be responding further unless other editors join with new dispute issues of interest. --Zefr (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback.Sthubbar (talk) 05:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

It seems like Zefr is starting with the premise that research about this plant is shoddy and proceeding accordingly. I appreciate that skepticism is a virtue in science, but at this point one Wikipedia user seems to be preventing readers from even seeing the evidence, in context? And from viewing the talk page has seemingly been doing that for years. Would love to discuss w/ you Zefr, but it kinda seems like many people have tried to have this conversation over the years to no availAshwinr (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

There are over 200 Wikipedia editors watching this article, and anyone can jump into the conversation or edit the article. According to WP:BURDEN, it is the obligation of an editor wishing to change from the prevailing content and sources to provide a reliable source. Phytotherapy Research is not a reliable source for medical content, as it meets no WP:MEDRS standards - see WP:MEDASSESS pyramids.

Your edit here today is a vague statement that does not make the article clearer, and is not an improvement beyond what existed before. Herbalism is quackery and dietary supplements do not treat any clinical conditions. The mainstream scientific consensus is that "there is insufficient scientific evidence that this herb is safe or effective for treating any health condition or disease" (the existing status in the article). Use of W. somnifera for treating clinical disorders is a WP:FRINGE practice.

If you want views from experienced medical editors, post a topic at WT:MED or request an RFC. I think you'll get the same feedback as I'm giving you. Zefr (talk) 04:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Phytotherapy does meet WP:MEDRS standards based on the available evidence. Please provide specific warrants for your claim that it does not, otherwise you are deleting evidence without a basis in Wikipedia standards. Ashwinr (talk) 22:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I would also note that your claim that "herbalism is quackery" is an ascientific claim that is not germane to the issue at hand: namely, is there robust evidence that Ashwagandha extract has an impact on stress, insomnia, and other conditions? My claim is that the linked sources suggest an affirmative answer to this. In my view, you are insisting that the scientific consensus suggests a negative answer, abjectly contradicting the actual evidence provided. When I and others make efforts to hold you accountable to evidentiary standards for your claim, you insist that the journal is not rigorous, again without any evidence. Ashwinr (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• I have procedurally closed your RfC. A statement requesting an RfC must be neutral, and yours is far from it. If you would like to start an RfC, please do so in a new section, describing in an entirely neutral fashion what you would like comments regarding. (Note that you may still of course express your views, but do so as a comment of your own on the RfC, not within the RfC statement itself.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Requesting separate objective input on the following question: does Phytotherapy Research meet Wikipedia standards for reliability? It is a peer-reviewed journal with an impact factor of 6.338. By user Ashwinr, 8 October 2023.

That information does not address the issue discussed above: Phytotherapy Research is not a reliable source for medical content, as it meets no WP:MEDRS standards - see WP:MEDASSESS pyramids for the quality of evidence needed to support medical content. High-quality reviews of Phase III clinical trials do not appear in Phytotherapy Research because there are no such trials on W. somnifera to review - the existing trials are all rudimentary and low-quality with design and compliance problems, as commonly mentioned by the authors. Phytotherapy Research publications do not guide national clinical organizations for their recommendations about using W. somnifera for treating any supposed medical disorder (because no such recommendations exist), and do not influence national regulatory agencies about approving W. somnifera as a drug (W. somnifera is not approved for treating anything). An acceptable source would be "medical guidelines or position statements by internationally or nationally recognized expert bodies also often contain recommendations, along with assessments of underlying evidence" (from MEDASSESS) or a Cochrane review.

The concluson is that Phytotherapy Research publications on W. somnifera are preliminary at best, and too low-quality to imply an effect on any physiological mechanism or clinical disorder. Zefr (talk) 04:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I have closed your RfC; that is a question to be asked at WP:RSN, preferably as a specific question in relation to its use on this page. BilledMammal (talk) 05:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

"no conclusive clinical evidence that it is effective for treating any ailment." - Conclusive evidence? .

"Conclusive evidence" is evidence which cannot be contradicted by other evidence. Given that scientific progress in empirical fields relies on falsifiability (read Karl Popper), there will NEVER be conclusive evidence on this topic... We must instead make an assessment on whether there is a preponderance of evidence in favour of a specific conclusion. I agree that many of the journals talked about on this page are 3rd rate, but we also have a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study posted on Medicine (IF = 2.1) which observed reductions in anxiety and cortisol. A meta-analysis found in CNS Drugs (IF = 4.2) also finds support for efficacy in regards to anxiety. Perhaps you do not think this is sufficient, but please do not wait for conclusive evidence because there will not be any.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6750292/ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%252Fs40263-013-0059-9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.252.166 (talk) 02:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The linked page for Withaferin A lists significant evidence, which would suggest that the Withania_somnifera page in its current state should be tagged as incoherent. 119.18.33.114 (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

This is correct, and I've attempted to address this with a recent edit. The wikipedia page asserted previously that there was insufficient evidence, and (incoherently) cited two pages that listed...clinical trials and systematic reviews indicating that it is in fact effective.

The above comment is right - science does not provide conclusive evidence. Of the studies available to us now, the evidence suggests that it is effective. Ashwinr (talk) 22:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no reputable source that says W. somnifera is effective for treating anything. A reputable source would be 1) a high-quality systematic review or meta-analysis in a respected clinical journal or book, 2) a national clinical organization proclaiming its efficacy and safety in a guideline for a specific disorder - see WP:MEDORG, or 3) a national regulatory agency publishing a guide for its dose-related safety and efficacy, in which case it would become a prescription drug. No such evidence exists.

W. somnifera is prescribed by herbalist quacks or purchased as a supplement by uninformed consumers. Its use to supposedly treat clinical disorders is WP:FRINGE content far outside the mainstream of clinical science. Results from lab research and low-quality clinical trials are too preliminary and unencyclopedic to include, WP:NOTJOURNAL #6-8. Zefr (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Evergreen annual?

Is it correct to describe a plant as evergreen shrub and also an annual? 92.40.172.239 (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

side effect: "increased testosterone levels"

For men, this is most definitely a benefit, and an indication that it could be used to treat low testosterone levels. It's interesting how when an effect is named as a side effect, it gets into Wikipedia very easily these days, as long as it's for an article on alternative medicine. MarshallKe (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

For clarification for User:Zefr, the article *does* say "increased testosterone levels" is a side effect. My suggestion is perhaps to remove that part. MarshallKe (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it is possible to squeeze it into the text as a biological effect, not stating whether it is good or bad (as it would be with original definition of side effect, but the term got to be commonly used to refer to adverse effects only nowadays). Whether the effect is adverse or not would obviously depend on the context and size of the effect, both for man and woman. TK synantropijny (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

"History" section?

There is a lengthy history of this plant used therapeutically and even as food. The use is widespread such that the whole fresh root is sold in the markets where the plant locally occurs. Drsruli (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

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://en.wikipedia.org/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)