Oct 22, 2008
Rhodiola rosea
The marketing hype surrounding Rhodiola rosea would suggest that anyone taking it would be cured of almost any ailment and have renewed vitality. It might have some benefits, as yet unproven, because of the presence of natural products known as rosavins, which may or may not be physiologically active. But, the idea that it could allow you to live long and prosper? Well, there are no peer-reviewed scientific research papers to support such claims, as far as I know and there are never likely to be. There are no panaceas, no elixirs of youth. Get over it people.
R rosea (aka golden root, roseroot, hóng jǐng tiān in TCM) is a member of the Crassulaceae family and grows across the Arctic, the mountains of Central Asia, the Rockies, the Alps, the Pyrenees, the Carpathian Mountains, Scandinavia, Iceland, Great Britain and Ireland.
The Wikipedia entry for R rosea says it may be effective for improving mood and alleviating depression and early stage studies on people have shown some efficacy in improving physical and mental performance, alleviating fatigue, and reducing high-altitude sickness. Someone achieving their healthcare management MBA would find these studies very helpful. A possible mode of action involves what the entry describes as, “optimizing serotonin and dopamine levels”. This apparently happens by inhibition of the enzyme monoamine oxidase, which supposedly ties in with an effect on endorphins, the body’s natural opiates.
A press release that I received could be used as a source in a final project of a student studying their masters in health administration. It was about R rosea and highlights a previously published article that claims that, “the roots appear to aid the brain by alertness and energy, without any trace of stimulants such as caffeine.” Isn’t that a contradiction in terms? If the root stimulates the brain, then surely by definition it is a stimulant?
I asked the author of the press release, Linda Todten of publicity company TMC Communications, to explain exactly what the description was intended to convey, this is what she had to say:
As you know, the trend is for “energy drinks” that combine large amounts of caffeine, or caffeine containing plants such as Guarana, along with high amounts of carbs for a big “energy boost.” The studies that the Swedes and Russians have done over the years have shown how this category of plant, the Adaptogen, can actually bring the body back to its full energy level without being over stimulated as happens with caffeine. Plus, the extract SHR-5 has been shown to have a very solid mental acuity boost via double-blind, placebo controlled studies in students or night shift physicians and others.
But, any product with a physiological effect cannot work without some side-effects; no herbal extract could be that specific at the molecular level.
Indeed, the plant root contains a variety of chemical natural products including rosavin, rosarin, rosin and salidroside (and sometimes p-tyrosol, rhodioniside, rhodiolin and rosiridin), which are all described as active ingredients of R rosea. These compounds are polyphenols, they may have some antioxidant activity but good evidence for positive health effects in people remains elusive, indeed that is the case for most antioxidant supplements.
R rosea products are marketed in the USA and elsewhere. Todten had this suggestion: “Think about the fact that this one product (Arctic Root brand) has sold over 400 million doses. Not many dietary supplements can claim that. That says, to me, that people must like the way it works to reduce stress or energize,” she told me. “People are not sheep, and they wouldn’t make a product a best seller in Europe over ten years with hundreds of millions taken if it didn’t do something that they liked!”
Well, couldn’t that simply be the power of marketing? What we need are references in the medical literature that provide results from large-scale, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of R rosea. I don’t think there are any such studies published in the peer-reviewed journals yet.
Fundamentally, there is no difference between a “natural” chemical and a “synthetic” one and equally no difference between the active component in a herbal remedy and that present in a pharmaceutical product. Indeed, some 40% of prescription drugs are based on natural products or derivatives of the active components of herbal medicines.
Of course, that doesn’t mean that just because there is some equivalence that all herbal medicines are active. Many are stufff and nonsense and the claims of some marketers for any given product, whether ginseng, hoodia, St John’s Wort, R rosea etc are often entirely sales hype. Moreover, a herbal remedy may contain a range of other components that are not beneficial and may even be detrimental, such as heavy metal contaminants or toxins.
One website describes R rosea thus: “Extracts of the roots have a reputation for stimulating the nervous system, relieving depression, enhancing work performance, improving cognition and memory function, eliminating fatigue and preventing high altitude sickness. The extract has been classified as an adaptogen. In simple terms, an adaptogen helps produce adjustments in the body to resist stress (e.g. chemical, biological, and physical). In addition, Rhodiola rosea also contains a range of antioxidant compounds.”
It’s that phrase “have a reputation for” that is most intriguing. Lots of things have a reputation but reputations are not scientific proof, nor are anecdotes from the countless people who email me or comment on this post claiming to have some insight into R rosea. As I understand it the word “adaptogen” is nothing more than modern pseudoscientific rebranding of the word “restorative” or “tonic”.
The longevity of a product in human history is not necessarily a positive thing (alcohol, marijauna, tobacco, opium to name but a few have been around for centuries) and who knows what chronic illnesses people who took it hundreds of years ago as a tea suffered. Even today, if it’s widely taken, we really don’t have the stats to say whether or not it’s safe. However, as you say taking a concentrate in a capsule is different from drinking an infusion.
I am not stating the following as absolute proof of anything, just as things to take into consideration in looking at Rhodiola Rosea. One is positive, one negative, but related.
The positive first: Rhodiola Rosea is reported to have been used by the natives of Siberia for at least 1000 years. If there were severe side effects, likely they would have been found. Also, there are several varieties of Rhodiola – and from what I have read the Rhodiola Rosea is by far the most effective.
Now the negative: Most of us take the herbal root whole in capsules ( at least I assume that what is in my capsules is ground up root), and the natives of Siberia drank it as a tea. So I do have a concern that we may be getting harmful agents that do not come into the tea, or at least not in significant quantities, by actually eating the root.
Anne Johnson
This is the abstract from the latest research paper on R rosea:
“Rhodiola rosea (roseroot) extract is a commercially successful product, primarily used to reduce the effect of fatigue on physical and mental performance. In this perspective we present our investigation of the most recent studies performed on human subjects. With a focus on the statistical methods we found considerable shortcomings in all but one of the studies that claim significant improvement from roseroot extract. Overall, the study designs have not been well explained. Experimental results have been confused and appear to be in some cases incorrect. Some of the conclusions are based on selected results and contradicting data have not been adequately taken into account. We point to other studies of higher quality performed on roseroot, several that found no significant effect and one that did. We conclude that the currently available evidence for the claimed effects is insufficient and that the effect of Rhodiola rosea is in need of further investigation before therapeutic claims can be made.”
This is to published in the respected journal Planta Med and went online at the end of May. The paper is by Blomkvist J, Taube A, Larhammar D of the Department of Neuroscience, Unit of Pharmacology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
So, although there are claims around that “researchers tout its usefulness in warding off depression, cancer and cardiopulmonary dysfunctions…treat hypertension, irritability, headaches, fatigue and many other sleep disturbances…increasing thyroid function, improving memory and learning capabilities, regulating menstruation and infertility and even helping to protect one from environmental toxins.” It looks like other researchers who have studied the studies come to a very different conclusion.
Panaceas are the medical equivalent of perpetual motion machines.
David,
Please be more specific when describing your results in “fundamental statistics.” Without context, the result you quote is meaningless. For example: if you are trying to detect if a two-sided coin is biased, how many flips do you need to reject the null hypothesis (that the coin is unbiased) with p < 0.01?
Hint: it ain’t anywhere near 10,000.
More to the point, with decent statistical intuition, it is often possible to make reasonable estimations of likelihood of the effects of a single factor. This becomes increasingly true as the effect size increases, and more alternative factors are reasonably controlled for. It doesn’t take too many strikes to the head to conclude that it wasn’t your breakfast bowl of Cheerios that knocked you out.
Anyway, your points about long-term side effects are well-taken. It’s a risk I imagine is acceptable for those suffering from extreme depression or fatigue. If, like acetaminophen, it turns out that we’ve been wrong the whole time, well… maybe then some will decide it wasn’t worth it. But I suspect many will not.
Just a few quick additional thoughts. Anecdotal evidence is fine in the absence of proper trials of any product with considered conventional or alternative. However, fundamental statistics would show that you need around 10,000 anecdotes to have an error margin of 1%. That means you need 10,000 cases describing benefits before you know to a one in one hundred degree of accuracy that those benefits are actually due to the thing being tested.
Moreover, just because users have not noticed any side-effects doesn’t mean they are not happening. Taking mega doses of vitamin C, for instance, seemingly has no side-effects until one day you get the agonising gripping pain of kidney stones…
There are also the general contraindications that might exist between any physiologically active product, whether mainstream or alternative, and medical conditions and other drugs or products a person might be taking. Who’s to say (in the absence of widespread trials) that taking R rosea is not a serious long-term risk factor for a particular illness for a sub-group of users who happen to have hypertension, say?
Bottom line is, of course, you can take what you like, many people do, it may make you think you’re healthier than you otherwise would be, but almost certainly it is not a cure-all, and without wider studies, you may be exposing yourself to unknown risks (alternatively, you may have hit on the elixir of life, and out live us all!).