Talk:Rhodiola rosea

Over editing

Someone has destroyed the usefulness of this article.

People have gotten so overzealous about editing articles that they just delete everything. This renders articles useless. So what if a link is not to a peer reviewed journal? It's better than no link. If you disagree with a statement like "this herb is good for...", it would be better to edit the statement to say "this herb is reputed to be good for" or "fans of this herb claim ..., but this has not been confirmed by academic studies" rather than deleting the statement. Alternatively, you could create a section called "non-scholarly alternative health claims about this substance," rather than just deleting information that could be important to someone.

Stop trashing what other people write. You are not God. This is the people's encyclopedia, not the encyclopedia of pedantic scholars. Pedantic scholars already have scholarly journals from which they can exclude the writings of people without scholarly credentials. You don't have to treat wikipedia like this. People spend a lot of time and energy putting information into this encyclopedia. Just deleting it wholesale is no better than being a graffiti artist or vandalizing public property.

I came to this article to try to get information about this herb, and what it is claimed to do, and find this one paragraph piece of nothing. You overzealous editors with swollen egos have made this article useless to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aebarschall (talk • contribs) 21:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding the point of wikipedia. Charles35 (talk) 01:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the OP's comment. There is a LOT of support for claims about the possible or probable efficacy of rhodiola rosea for a number of conditions. Simply deleting is the wrong approach, and discussion (which doesn't appear here) is appropriate. I can (and will upon request) provide a dozen references to peer-reviewed journal entries providing scientific evidence supporting claims of psychoactive effects of rhodiola rosea. I suspect that drug company shills are editing this article to downplay the efficacy of herbal remedies, claiming things like "a review of the scientific literature shows no evidence of efficacy for any known condition..." BS. There is PLENTY of evidence.Phatgeek47 (talk) 04:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)phatgeek47

I'll submit this first article describing a peer-reviewed experiment suggesting efficacy for depression: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phatgeek47 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Literature review just in

The main Norwegian medical publication just published the findings of a review of the available literature, and concluded that there was no indication that R.rosea has any beneficial effect compared to placebo. It does, however, appear that it can have potentially risky interactions with prescription and OTC medicine. The consensus of this independent study was that patients that are ill, have risk factors, or take medication or other herbal supplements, should stay away from it; this from a country that sources a lot of the R.rosea that is sold.

Also, this article currently lacks useful sourcing for just about everything in it. Based on the existence of a verifiable secondary source (the preferred type on WP) that contradicts essentially everything in this article, it should probably be stubbed unless such sources are added reasonably soon.

I would suggest chainging statements like "It is very useful for XYZ" to "It has been claimed to be very useful for XYZ by source", with an inline reference to the study. Russian studies are fine, of course, as long as they are properly cited; online translation is adequate for a cursory attempt at verifying the number of patients studied and whether the methodology seems reasonably sane. Be aware that the actual "adaptogen" contents vary wildly from plant to plant, season to season, area to area and so forth, based on official studies.

I'm not opposed to herbal medicine as such, nor have my own experiences with R.rosea been negative (they have, by and large, been positive but within what I would also expect from a passive placebo), but Wikipedia needs to document the statements of others, not make statements of its own when these are not clearly supported by available evidence.

Obtw, I've never heard of "Golden Root" or "Arctic Root" here, until those were used for marketing. Up here, it is called "Rosenrot", which translates as rosy root. It may have been used by the Vikings, but they also used essentially every edible plant in their herbalism, as well as quite a number of inedible ones (e.g. Fly Agaric and Psilocybe), and R.rosea was (to the best of my, admittedly limited, knowledge) primarily used in salads.

Replies should be directed to or mirrored at my talk page; I don't track this page actively.

Zuiram 00:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It's unsourced, and parts of it doesn't even make sense internally (88% better/84% worse). Better than rewriting: discard everything related to "adaptogens", except the fact that R. rosea is used in commercial herbal medicine. Then let someone rebuild that part in a serious fashion.

JöG 17:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There was an article on Rhodiola rosea in this week's Science News (Sept 22, 2007). It cites double-blind, placebo-controlled studies that support claims of the herb's benefits in publications of Phytomedicine in April 2000, May 2000, and March 2003. There are also publications in Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine and a Bulgarian physiology & pharmocology journal. I haven't reviewed these articles and I don't know whether these journals are peer-reviewed and respected, I just wanted to point interested parties towards some pro-Rhodiola studies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.225.22 (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrong redirect

This genus is not monotypic; Rhodiola rhodantha (rose crown, queen's crown) also belongs here and Rhodiola should thus have a page on its own . Please someone fix that. Dysmorodrepanis 12:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. For your information, http://linnaeus.nrm.se/flora/di/crassula/rhodi/welcome.html claims there are 36 species in Rhodiola. JöG 17:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 16:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Stimulants are not adaptogens

This article mischaracterizes 'stimulant substances' as adaptogens. Adaptotgens are not stimulating-- they are strongly balancing-- so, when taking an adaptogen, a person with high blood pressure will experience a lowering of blood pressure, wheras a person with low blood pressure will instead experience an increase in blood pressure: this is true for many bodily functions-- adaptogens do not 'stimulate', instead they better regulate-- towards restoring the body's natural balance or homeostatic center.

Also-- All adaptogens are not 100% regulating and will have a minor tendency to also stimulate or relax a person-- the key to finding the right adaptogen for you is dependent on your own tendency towards 'heat in the head' (a TCM or traditional chinese medicine term)-- such as anxiety, irritability, or even a warm or hot feeling in the head, or a red tongue etc). Generally speaking-- if you have 'heat' symtpms, avoid 'warming' adaptogens and instead use 'neutral' adaptogens (or 'cooling' adaptogens--** but never use a 'cooling' herb long term without the direction of a certified [repeat- CERTIFIED FROM A MAJOR ASIAN SCHOOL] practitioner).

Seeing a certified chinese or other certified asian-trained herbalist is a g od idea when taking adaptogens in order to reap the benefits while avoiding potential problems.

161.98.13.100 22:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

More references needed

Many of the key statements are not backed up with references, particularly under "uses of". For example, reference 1 links to a citation-lacking website (http://www.mdidea.com/products/herbextract/salidroside/data.html) as opposed to, say, PubMed papers. Sal7777777 (talk) 17:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Such products are very hard for producing authoritative wiki articles. They may also be subject to agenda-laden edits from one or opposing camps. I see the issue of adaptogens has been edited out, quite rightly due possibly to some misunderstanding of what they are: however both scientific balance and acknowledgement of traditional perceived effectiveness has its place. (The logic of this is: there is no proof that many substances have the effect claimed by traditional medicine, but neither is there proof that they do not.) The evidence on Rhodiola Rosea is contradictory and most studies were flawed, so cannot be relied on as proof of efficacy. One paper in teh medical press outlined a proposed study with sufficient safeguards and rigor, though probably it has not yet been done. Partly to increase the needed references and partly to demonstrate that teh science is tentative rather than condemnatory, I am adding a further reference with a small note. It is by the European Medicines Agency, so a reasinably authoritative source. WC500127861.pdf available at http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Herbal_-_HMPC_assessment_report/2012/05/WC500127861.pdf Kind regards, Parzivalamfortas 19:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parzivalamfortas (talk • contribs)

This page needs cleaning up.

I've had to remove references to 'mdidea dot com' since that article itself has no references, and on a side note, they are selling herbal products. Still, we need to clean up the quackery in this article and replace it with real peer-reviewed journal-published scientific evidence. --Mark PEA (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
--
I've just done some searching, and it appears there are many papers about Rhodiola rosea, and I just don't have the time to go through them all, but I found a good summary, which highlights the mixed evidence towards some of the claims of Rhodiola rosea (alot of 'pro-Rhodiola' websites seem to cite pre-1990 studies). Here is the reference and the PDF file of the entire study can be found here: http://www.ameriden.com/5962.pdf --Mark PEA (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

A topic of ....

Rhodiola alsia has been added based on the following http://www.springerlink.com/content/u444x064123m3051/ However, a verification from other publications and authors is needed--222.67.207.79 (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Fire safty

The plant was also planted around the pipes of old sod-roofed houses in the nordic countries I belive, as the plant is less likly to catch fire then some of the other plants that used to grown on the roofs.

Luredreier 23:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luredreier (talk • contribs)

Unreadable and full of in text-references

This article is unreadble due to numerous in-text references to studies and authors. References are great, but Wikipedia doesn't use the Harvard system and this article now looks more like a bad university essay. There are even references to page numbers and publishers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.208.124.165 (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I started replacing some of the inline references with ref tags, but there are a number of these remaining. The format of the references still needs to be cleaned-up as well. Also it appears that many of the references were copied directly from the text at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3363/is_4_18/ai_n57336387/ GranolaB (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That material was, for the most part, pointless and unintelligible jargon. I object to it via WP:NOTABILITY. It looked like it was simply copy/pasted from a study. For example, a list of some of the "50 polar compounds" found in the plant has no relevance to "potential health effects". There were stray characters and words everywhere, making it almost impossible to read. I removed almost all of it. Charles35 (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Names of the psychoactive chemicals in Rhodiola rosea?

What are the specific alkaloids / molecules involved in its CNS effects? 216.227.117.35 (talk) 07:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

footnotes are messed up -- 2 column, then 29 & 30 are one-column.

Edit screen for footnotes should show only the template. This shows the template, then the text of 29 & 30:

29. Panossian, A., Wikman, G. 2010. Rosenroot (Roseroot): Traditional Use, Chemical Composition, Pharmacology, and Clinical Efficacy. Phytomedicine 17(5-6): 481-493. DOI 10.1016/j.phymed.2010.02.002

30. Bozhilova, M. 2011. Salidroside content in Rhodiola rosea L., dynamics and varyability. In: Botanica Serbica 35 (1): 3-6. http://botanicaserbica.bio.bg.ac.rs/arhiva/pdf/2011_35_1_533_full.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.133.143 (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent edit

This massive recent edit needs to be addressed. I think all of that material needs to be edited to include paragraphs and address other structural and grammatical needs before being added to the article. The walls of text are too massive to have in the article without paragraphs. I am going to remove all of the material from the article and put it here. We also need to make sure all of the references are up to par. Thanks, MidnightRequestLine (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

PLEASE HELP!

I think it's more than enough to simply put the information here for others to work from. The ip made similar edits to two other articles, which I've removed for the same reasons. --Ronz (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the ip has an account now. --Ronz (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Biologically active components

Scientists found about 140 components in subterranean portion of Rhodiola Rosea (Pannossian et al, 2010). Roots with Rhodiola shoots contain phenols and their derivatives: (in %): tyrosol 0.25 , salidroside 0.51 -1.39 ; aromatic compounds: rosavin1-2.5 %, cinnamic alcohol, rosin, rosarin . The subterranean part contains carbohydrates (in %): glucose and fructose 2.31, sacharose 0.53, sedoheptulose . Organic acids 0,15%: oxalic, malic, succinic.. Terpenoids: rosiridin, rosiridol . Essential oil 0.8—0.9 %, about 86 components were found in its composition, including cinnamic aldegide, citral, phenylethyl alcohol, 3-phenylethylacetate, geraniol, geranyl acetate etc. Steroids: р-sitosterol . Phenolcarbonic acids and their derivatives: gallic, methyl ether of gallic acid . Tannins 15.9-20.25% Flavonoids: kaempherol, astragalene, 7-rhamnoastragalin, 7-rhamnoside of kaempherol, tricine, 5-glucoside and 7-glucoside of tricine, glucoside, rhodionin, rhodiolene, acetylrhodalgin, 8-methylgerbacetine . Antrachinones, Alkaloids Rhodiola roots and shoots contain micro-elements (concentration in ash in  %): a great amount of manganese – up to 0,8, argentum 0,0002, zinc 0,1, copper 0,002 etc. Chemical composition of essential oil from Rhodiola rosea root growing in different countries – varies. For example, the main component of the essential oil from Rhodiola growing in Bulgaria are geraniol and myrtenol, in China – geraniol and octanol, and in India -phenylethilic alcohol. Cinnamic alcohol was discovered only in the sample from Bulgaria . Rhodiola rosea growing abroad contains several times less essential oil than the golden root of Russia. Essential oil contains main classes of chemical substances: monoterpene hydrocarbons (25,40%), monoterpene alcohols (23,61%) and strait chain aliphatic alcohols with (37,54%) . In the aerial portion, there were found the following organic acids: oxalic, malyc, citric; phenols and their derivatives: salidroside; phenolcarbon acids: gallic, coffeic; cumarines; tannins; flavonoids: rhodionin, rhodionidin, rhodalin, rhodiolgin, rhodiolgidin . In the stalks of Rhodiola, there were found: gossypetine, rodiolflavonoside, gallic acid, trans-p-hydroxicinnamic acid, p-tirosol .

Pharmacological properties

In Russian scientific medicine alcohol extract of Rhodiola is used as a treatment stimulating central nervous system, against asthenic and neurasthenic syndromes, low performance, angioneurosis, in psychiatry, against functional diseases of nervous system, in the rehabilitation periods after somatic and infectious diseases, Also they are are recommended for treatment of low performance in practically healthy people. . Experimentally it was found that salidroside protects human red blood cells from oxidant stress and can be a good adaptogen to enhance body resistivity to stress and fatigue. . In experiment conducted on mice salidroside prevents loss of hematopoietic stem cells HSC in conditions of oxidative stress . In experiment conducted on mice salidroside shows hypoglycemic activity, neuro-protective activity . Salidroside suppresses tumor metastases of lymphatic sarcoma cells in humans and acts as an anti-virus against Coxsackievirus B3. . Salidroside, rosavin and rosarin have a stimulating effect on nervous system. Gossypetine and rhodiolflavonoside from Rhodiola rosea demonstrate an anti-bacterial effect against Staphylococcus aureus and activity against prostate cancer cells . Shoot extract, salidrosil and rosavin show germicidal activity against Neisseria gonorrhoeae . Hydroalcoholic extract of rhodiola lowers drug dependance and body susceptibility to their repetitive use, it can be a very effective natural treatment against opium drug-abuse. . Rhodiola rosea extract has shown positive activity in the treatment of tobacco-dependance. . Rhodiola extract and salidroside have a medicinal anti-stress effect in overeating. . Rhoiola rosea extract and salidroside have a neuroprotective effect . Using rhodiola extract lowers general anxiety level. . Rhodiola rosea has a rejuvenating effect on drosophila , slowing down aging of insects, and its extract and salidroside slow growth of cancerous cells in human bladder . Rhodiola rosea has various pharmacological activities: antioxidant, anti-depressant, anti-cancerous etc. . Extract of Rhodiola rosea root has an anti-infammatory effect. . Rhodiola rosea extract together with tirosol, salidroside, rosavin show explicit adaptogenic, contralterative action and enhance resistivity of various organs to damage Rhodiola medicines have an adaptogenic effect showing neuroprotective, cardio-protective, anti-depressant, neuroleptic, nootropic action, they increase life continuity and stimulate activity of central nervous system. A number of clinical trials show that repetitive use of Rhodiola rosea medicines is effective against fatigue, it increases mental activity in humans (particularly the ability to concentrate attention in healthy humans) and decreases anxiety (fear) and fatigue syndrome. Good results were obtained in using Rhodiola for treating mild and moderate depressions and general anxiety . Single use of Rhodiola extract has a strong, regardless on the dose, adaptogenic, anti-stress, neuroleptic, and stimulating effect against acute stress , the use of extract containing 3% of rosavin and 1% of salidroside for six months is effective against chronic stress. . Rhodila medicines have anti-toxic to poisonous compounds, anti-hypnotic and anti-narcotic effect, prevent development of experimental leucocytosis, hyper- and hypoglycemia, enhance resistivity to infections in animals. Thanks to the combination of psycho-stimuating and adaptogenic properties, rhodiola extract is a valuable medical treatment for practically healthy people prone to asthenisation weakness at work requiring high mental performance. Asthenisation appeared in low performance, difficulty in falling asleep at night and drowsiness during the day, poor appetite, irritability and headaches. Rhodiola is very effective in asthenic conditions after somatic and infectious diseases, use of golden root relieves mental fatigue, eliminates apathy at daytime (without further loss of night sleep) , morning tiredness, mental and physical performance is improved, concentration is better, headache gets better or disappears. Thus, Rhodiola medicines are recommended as a stimulating treatment for tired people in good health and the ones suffering from asthenic conditions after somatic or infectious diseases; against functional diseases of nervous system- various forms of neurosis (hyposthenic stage of neurasthenia, psychosthenia), angioneurosis, hypotension, sexual disorders like impotence in men. Extract from Rhodiola shoots and roots has an explicit stimulating property, substantially increases the volume of dynamic and static work. The increase in performance is especially noticeable when using Rhodiola medicines on the background of fatigue and carrying out strenuous physical work. Meanwhile rhodiola normalizes metabolic processes, facilitates economic use of energy resources and their fast re-synthesis, improves energy metabolism in muscles and brain because of the early use as oxidation substrates both carbohydrates and fats. Similar to ginseng medicines, Rhodiola extract has adaptogenic properties, and prevents development of hyper- and hypoglycemia, leucocytosis and leucopenia in rabbits. In experiment Rhodiola extract has antitumoral and anti-metastatic action, fortifies effect of other cytostatics, lowers levels of hyper- and hypoglycemia, activates function of thyroid. Also use of Rhodiola extract and tincture enhance body resistivity to infections, X-ray and ionizing radiation, toxic chemical substances (benzine, acetone, ethyl alcohol, chlorophos, medicines etc.) During an experiment intake of 1ml/kg of Rhodiola extract by rats for 8 days increased their production of β–endorphin 4 times. Increase in endorphin production can be regarded as one of the stress-protective mechanisms. . Rosavin, rosarin, rosin, rosiridine have properties similar to salidroside .

Use in medicine

Rhodiola rosea is widely used in alternative medicine to treat altitude sickness and hypoxia. Subterranean portion is used in Tibet medicine for cardio-vascular and gastric- enterological diseases. In alternative medicine root tea and tincture are used for treatment of metro- and menorrhagia, diarrhea , fevers, scurvy , as an anti-fatigue treatment improving performance , against respiratory infections, as a diuretic, against gout and diabetes , against anemia, pulmonary tuberculosis, liver diseases, toothache , gastric diseases, malaria, nervous diseases, impotence, low performance, exhaustion and as a corroborant and health-improving treatment . Externally (poultices, lotions, tea and tincture from rhodiola roots) are taken against conjunctivitis, abscesses, skin rash; for gum unction — against pyorrhea. The juice was used for debriding; it was taken against icterus, hearing aggravation. In the Mongolian alternative medicine rhodiola is used for treatment of bone fractures, various wounds, pulmonary tuberculosis, skin diseases, as an anti-pyretic and corroborative treatment. Cattlemen give rhodiola root tea to undernourished and exhausted cattle . In Altai rhodiola rosea is used against neurotic and gastric illnesses, as a corroborant, against diabetes, scrofula, heavy metrorrhagia and as a febricide . In Russian scientific medicine extract from rhodiola shoots and roots is used for treatment of neurosis, hypotension, schisophrenia, physical and mental fatigue, vegetative-vascular dystonia, asthenic conditions after various diseases. Medicines with rhodiola enhance mental performance, improve memory, enhance body resistivity to negative factors. Rhodiola rosea positively effects the functions of sexual glands and reproductive organs, and may respectively be recommended to treat oligospermia, impotence, retarded puberty, primary and secondary amenorrhea, dismenorrhea, adnexitis, early menopause, fibro-cystic mastopathy, polycystic ovaries. Rhodiola medicines speed up repairative (healing) processes in wounds, traumas, bone fractures, and therefore are recommended for use in pre-and post-surgical periods . Tea and lotions made from aerial portion are used in alternative medicine for treatment of trachoma.

Use in cosmetics and perfumery

In clinical medical trials on people Rhodiola Rosea extract has a positive effect on sensitive and fading skin improving overall skin condition (Diemant et al., 2008). Thanks to the content of valuable biologically active substances in root with shoots: rosavin, tirosol, salidroside, phytosterins, flavonoids, tannins, phenol-carbon acids and its derivatives, essential oil, microelements (manganese, argentum etc.), organic acids (succynic, malic etc.), Rhodiola rosea extracts have a multi-lateral positive effect on people when using them in creams. Creams with Rhodiola rosea extracts have explicit stimulating and adaptogenic properties; they slow down aging processes, increase resistivity of the whole body and skin to various complex of external environmental factors: pathogenic micro-organisms, X-ray and ionizing radiation, toxic chemical compounds etc. Creams with golden root are especially effective against exhaustion, stress, for taking care of irritated,sensitive and damaged skin. Thus metabolic processes get normalized, intracellular energy exchange improves. Because of the earlier use of both carbohydrates and fats as oxidation substrates, skin regeneration processes improve; trans-epidermal water loss decreases; skin barrier(protective) function increases. As a result, overall skin condition improves, its aging slows down, skin gets rejuvenated, dryness disappears, sense of comfort appears, the level of depression decreases.

Other uses The aerial portion is consumed as food, and also added to salads (Saratikov, 1974) .

claims in lede about FDA

The part about the FDA in the lede is backed by a reliable source. It is a pdf that you can find here by removing the space between the two o's in the following link: http://www.go ogle.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fda.gov%2Fdownloads%2FDrugs%2FGuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation%2FEnforcementActivitiesbyFDA%2FCyberLetters%2Fucm059168.pdf&ei=SA5vUa2SN8PU0gHQ54DwBA&usg=AFQjCNHZlNlcYCgefoH6gsPZNfXkd5sS9Q&sig2=IzWOiwqVvkRK3QoVTBg-KA

The pdf is only accessible through the google domain. The google domain is blocked by wikipedia for technical reasons that are unrelated to this source. Please remember that WP:V requires that info be verifiable, not verified. In other words, there must be a source, but that source does not have to be cited in the article. If you would like to verify the info, I welcome you to look at that pdf. Thank you. Please do not delete the lede because it doesn't have a source because it can be found here.

I do not know how to make a different link to the source. If you know how, please let me know. Thanks.MidnightRequestLine (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Um, when I punched in the address, I was forwarded to a URL not hosted by google, so inclusion of this url should be fine. I question whether this is a sufficient WP:RS for the claim made in the article. I would feel more comfortable with something other than a primary source to verify this - perhaps a review of the event or some secondary source that discusses the account. Rkitko ^(talk) 02:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay - added it. Will be searching for better source. Thank you, MidnightRequestLine (talk) 03:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I feel the section about the FDA removal a bit deceptive and unclear. After reading the pdf it seems the only complaint was to a specific website about portraying the product (which included echinacea, rhodiola rosea and other botanicals) as "drugs". Can someone with more editing experience weigh in on this? - anon. 05/09/2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.196.21 (talk) 13:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

http://www.livestrong.com/article/168785-what-is-rhodiola-good-for/ simply isn't a reliable source. Nor does it verify the information cited. What's it there for and why? --Ronz (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing is not that cut and dry. It is being used for the sentence about how some people claim the plant treats anywhere from fatigue to cancer. Let me offer an analogy for why this is allowed. Say Donald Trump had a personal website in which he claimed that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. This is obviously not a reliable source to say "Barack Obama is from Kenya." But, if we phrase it properly, we can use the source to say something like "Donald Trump has claimed that Barack Obama was born in Kenya." See the difference? Livestrong is popular and stable enough to use as a source for such a claim. We cannot use it to say "this plant treats cancer", but we can use it to say "some people have claimed that this plant treats cancer." MidnightRequestLine (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

FDA Warning Letters: There is a common misunderstanding as to what such a letter is about. Dietary supplement companies are not allowed to make treatment or prevention claims on labels or websites EVEN IF HUMAN TRIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THE CLAIMS. This relates to the DSHEA law passed in 1994. A Warning Letter does NOT mean that the FDA rejects the science, only that companies are not allowed to make claims based on science (or make claims without any science). The action of making a claim means the FDA must treat the product as a drug, and when it does - Voila! it's an unapproved new drug. If the company amends its label and website to make no health claim it can continue to sell the product. David notMD (talk) 10:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Unused references

It is not apparent how the following list of references have been used to support article content (if at all), so I am moving them here so that other editors can use them to improve the article. Deli nk (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Bozhilova, M. 2011. Salidroside content in Rhodiola rosea L., dynamics and varyability. In: Botanica Serbica 35 (1): 3-6. http://botanicaserbica.bio.bg.ac.rs/arhiva/pdf/2011_35_1_533_full.pdf
• Atlas of medicinal plants of Russia. Edited by Bykov V.A. M. 2006. p. 347
• Barnaulov O.D. Ginseng and other adaptogens (Lectures on phytotherapy) Spb. “ELBI” Publishing House, 2001, p. 140
• Barnaulov O.D., A.U.Limarenko, V.A. Kurkin, G.G.Zapesochnaya, A.N. Schavlinsky. COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF BIOLOGICAL ACTIVITY OF COMPOUNDS EXTRACTED FROM RHODIOLA L SPECIES. Chemical pharmaceutical journal, 1986, issue 11, pp. 1107–1112
• State Pharmacopoeia of the USSR. XI edition, issue 2. М., Medicine. 1990. art. 75 «Roots and shoots of rhodiola rosea”.
• Zapesocnaya G.G., Kurkin V.A. Glucosides of brown alcohol from Rhodiola rosea root // Chemistry of natural compounds, 1978. #4, pp. 519–520
• Zapesochnaya G.G., Kurkin V.A. Flavonoids of Rhodiola rosea roots// Chemistry of natural compounds, 1983, #1, pp. 23–32
• Zapesochnaya G.G., Kurkin V.A., Schavlinsky A.N. Chemical study of root and aerial pat of Rhodiola rosea L// Thesis report of the All-union *Scientific Conference: results and perspectives of scientific research in the area of creating medicinal treatments from plant stock. M., 1985, pp. 92–93
• Krasnov E.A., Duvidson L.M., Khnykina L.A., Evstigneyeva R.P.//Stimulators of the central nervous system. Tomsk, 1966, pp. 72–76.
• Krasnov E.A., Saratikov A.S., Surov U.P. Plants in the Crassuaceae family. Tomsk, 1979 p. 208
• Krylov G.V., Herbs of life and their searchers. 2nd updated edition-Siberian Publishing House, Novosibirs. 1972, p. 449.
• Kurkin V.A. Chemical study of Rhodiola Rosea L: Kurkin V.A. Chemical study of Rhodiola Rosea L.: Disseration abstract of Ph.D. M., 1985, p. 20
• Kurkin V.A., Zapesochnaya G.G., Schavlinsky A.N. Flavonoids of Rhodiola rosea L root// Chemistry of natural compounds, 1984. #3, p. 390
• Kurkin V.A., Zapesochnaya G.G., Schavlinsky A.N. Flavonoids of aerial portion of Rhodiola Rosea L.// Chemistry of natural compounds, 1984. #5. pp. 657–658
• Kurkin V.A., Zapesochnaya G.G., Schavlinsky A.N., E.L.Nukhimovsky, V.V.Vandyshev. Method of determining authenticity and quality of Rhodiola rosea roots// Chemical-pharmaceutical journal, 1985, issue 3, p. 190
• Mashkovsky M.D., Medical treatments. Doctor's manual. Volume I, 14th edition, reviewed and updated. M., Novaya Volna, 2000
• Minayeva V.G. Medicinal plants of Siberia. 5th edition. Reviewed and updated. Science, Novosibirsk. 1991, p. 431
• Plant resources of the USSR: Flowering plants, their chemical composition, and use. Caprofoliaceae-Plantaginaceae families.-L. Science. 1990. p. 328
• Revina T.A., Krasnov E.A., Sviridova T.P., Stepaniuk G.Y. Surov U.P. Biological peculiarities and chemical composition of Rhodiola Rosea L., grown in Tomsk.// Vegetative plants. 1976. issue 3. pp. 355–360
• Sokolov S.Y., Zamotaev I.P. Directory of medicinal plants. M. Medicine. 1988. p. 464
• Sokolov S.Y., V.M.Ivashin, G.G.Zapesochnaya, V.A.Kurkin, A.N. Schavlinsky. STUDY OF NEUROTROPIC ACTIVITY OF NEW SUBSTANCES EXTRACTED FROM RHODIOLA ROSEA Chemical pharmaceutical journal, 1985, volume 19, issue 11, pp. 1367–1371
• Troschenko A.G., Kutikova G.A., Rhodiolosyde of Rhodiola rosea and Rh.quadrifia// Chemistry of natural compounds, 1967, #4, pp. 244–249
• Turova A.D. Promising medicinal plants based on the experience of alternative medicine and expeditions of VILR. Works of the All-Union *Scientific Conference: On broadening the use of natural resources of medicinal plants taking into account the experience of alternative medicine. Tbilisi. 1971. pp. 46–51
• Khaidav C., Altanchmeg B., Varlamova T.S. Medicinal plants in Mongolian medicine. Ulan-Bator. Gosizdatelstvo. 1985. p. 391
• Cicilin A.N. Russian medicinal plants. M. Exmo, 2010. P. 736
• Shreter A.I. Medicinal flora of the Soviet Far East. M. 1975. P.328
• Bystritsky A, Kerwin L, Feusner LD. A pilot study of Rhodiola rosea (Rhodax) for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). J Altern Complement Med 2008 Mar;14(2):175-80.
• Cifani C, Micioni Di B MV, Vitale G, Ruggieri V, Ciccocioppo R, Massi M. Effect of salidroside, active principle of Rhodiola rosea extract, on binge eating.Physiol Behav.

2010 Dec 2;101(5):555-562

• Cybulska P, Thakur SD, Foster BS, Scott IM, Leduc RI, Arnason JT, Dillon JA. Extracts of Canadian first nations medicinal plants, used as natural products, inhibit neisseria gonorrhoeae isolates with different antibiotic resistance profiles. Sex Transm Dis 2011 Jul;38(7):667-671.
• Diemant Gde C, Valazquez Pereda Mdel C, Eberlin S, Nogueira C, Werka RM, Queiroz ML. Neuroimmunomodulatory compound for sensitive skin care: in vitro and clinical assessment. J Cosmet Dermatol 2008 Jun;7(2):112-119.
• Jafari M, Felgner IS, Bussel II, Hutchili T, Khodayari B, Rose MR, Vince-Cruz C, Mueller LD. Rhodiola: a promising anti-aging Chinese herb. Rejuvenation Res 2007 Dec;10(4):587-602.
• Li F, Tang X, Xiao F, Gong J, Peng Y, Meng X. Protective effect of salidroside from Rhodiolae Radix on diabetes-induced oxidative stress in mice. Molecules 2011 Dec 1;16(12):9912-9924
• Li X, Sipple J, Pang Q, Du W. Salidroside stimulates DNA repair enzyme Parp-1 activity in mouse HSC maintenance. Blood. 2012 May 3;119(18):4162-4173.
• Liu Z, Li X, Simoneau AR, Jafari M, Zi X. Rhodiola rosea extracts and salidroside decrease the growth of bladder cancer cell lines via inhibition of the mTOR pathway and induction of autophagy. Mol Carcinog 2012 Mar;51(3):257-267.
• Mattioli L, Funari C , Perfumi M.. Effects of Rhodiola rosea L. extract on behavioural and physiological alterations induced by chronic mild stress in female rats. J Psychopharmacol. 2009 Mar;23(2):130-142.
• Mattioli L, Perfumi M. Evaluation of Rhodiola rosea L. extract on affective and physical signs of nicotine withdrawal in mice. J Psychopharmacol 2011 Mar;25(3):402-410.
• Mattioli L, Titomanlio F, Perfumi M. Effects of a Rhodiola rosea L. extract on the acquisition, expression, extinction, and reinstatement of morphine-induced conditioned place preference in mice. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2012 May;221(2):183-193
• Mings DS, Hillhouse Bj, Guns ES, Eberding A, Xie S, Vimalanathan S, Towers GH. Bioactive compounds from Rhodiola rosea (Crassulaceae). Phytoter Res 2005 Sep;19(9):740-743
• Palumbo DR, Occhiuto F, Spadaro F, Circosta C. Rhodiola rosea Extract Protects Human Cortical Neurons against Glutamate and Hydrogen Peroxide-induced Cell Death Through Reduction in the Accumulation of Intracellular Calcium. Phytother Res 2012 Jun;26(6):878-883
• Pannossian A, Wikman G, Sarris J. Rosenroot (Rhodiola rosea): traditional use, chemical composition, pharmacology and clinical efficacy.Phytomedicine 2010 Jun;17(7):481-493
• Perfumi M, Mattioli L. Adaptogenic and central nervous system effects of single doses of 3% rosavin and 1% salidroside Rhodiola rosea L. extract in mice. Phytother Res 2007 Jan;21(1):37-43.
• Pooja, Bawa AS, Khanum F. Anti-inflammatory activity of Rhodiola rosea--"a second-generation adaptogen". Phytother Res. 2009 Aug;23(8):1099-1102.
• Qian EW, Ge DT, Kong SK. Salidroside protects human erythrocytes against hydrogen peroxide-induced apoptosis. J Nat Prod 2012 Apr 27;75(4):531-537.
• Rohloff J. Volatiles from rhizomes of Rhodiola rosea L. Phytochemistry 2002 Mar;59(6):655-61.
• Shi TY, Feng SF, Xing JH, Wu YM, Li XQ, Zhang N, Tian Z, Liu SB, Zhao MG. Neuroprotective effects of Salidroside and its analogue tyrosol galactoside against focal cerebral ischemia in vivo and H2O2-induced neurotoxicity in vitro. Neurotox Res. 2012 May;21(4):358-367.
• Sun C, Wang Z, Zheng Q, Zhang H Salidroside inhibits migration and invasion of human fibrosarcoma HT1080 cells. Phytomedicine 2012 Feb 15;19(3-4):355-363
• Wang H, Ding Y, Zhou J, Sun X, Wang S. The in vitro and in vivo antiviral effects of salidroside from Rhodiola rosea L. against coxsackievirus B3. Phytomedicine 2009 Mar;16(2-3):146-155.
• Richard P. Brown, MD & Patricia L. Gerbarg with Barbara Graham. “The Rhodiola Revolution" Rodale Press, 2004. A discussion of the benefits of Rhodiola rosea.
• Pharmacokinetic Interaction between Losartan and Rhodiola rosea in Rabbits.

Contradictions

This article is self-contradictory. The introduction says "it has never been conclusively shown to be effective in treating any medical condition" but later on says "there is scientific evidence only for depression as a benefit in humans". Perhaps "never been conclusively shown" is not entirely inconsistent with some "scientific evidence", but this vagueness needs to be clarified. Also there are apparent contradictory statements about which chemical are present, which are predominant, and which may be responsible for the pharmacology (if there is any). Deli nk (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a large amount of scholarly data supporting it's efficacy. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19168123 Guosim (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Organization Overhaul

This article is verbose, repetitive, and has grossly overlapping categories. I'll try to work on this a bit as I'm interested in this plant, but I haven't done this large of a revamp before. For instance: "Phytochemicals and potential health effects" includes "Uses"; Better would be to separate Phytochemicals from Uses. Further, "Scientific Evidence" is a ridiculous category, evidence for claims should be provided via citations for those claims, but claims should be in whatever category they fall under. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VagueObjects (talk • contribs) 04:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Valid name and synonyms

According to the The Plant List, Rhodiola rosea L. is one of many synonyms of Sedum roseum (L.) Scop. (accepted), while the USDA Plants Database lists Sedum roseum (L.) Scop as an orthographical variant of Rhodiola rosea L. I'm not sure which name should be the primary article title, but as there is now an article Sedum roseum, the two should be adroitly merged. The many synonyms, if included in the taxobox, might better off be placed in a collapsible list in the interest of aesthetics and succinctness.--Animalparty-- (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The USDA PLANTS database is not an authoritative list of plant names and synonymy. It does what it can, but it doesn't keep up with most taxonomic changes. Browsing the recent literature just now, it appears that Sedum was found to be highly paraphyletic and segregate genera were split off. Rhodiola appears to be well supported now on its own; most recent papers acknowledge it as a genus and not a subgenus of Sedum. GRIN is a decent source for taxonomic information -- far better than USDA PLANTS -- and indicates that Rhodiola rosea is the accepted name. I'll merge Sedum roseum (which really should be Sedum rosea as the specific epithet is a noun and doesn't change gender with the genus as GRIN notes) and collapse the synonym list as you suggest. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 01:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I wonder why the Plant List, which I take to be somewhat more authoritative than USDA plants, lists Sedum roseum as the accepted name when its use (1771) is much later than the 1753 nomen of R. rosea, which, for animals at least, makes the elder name valid under the principle of priority. Maybe just an oversight or a pending change in their system.--Animalparty-- (talk) 03:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Studies on health conditions

I added some studies of rhodiola Meel11223 (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

All those studies are primary research in journals that do not publish rigorous clinical research, and do not meet WP:MEDRS. High-quality systematic reviews are needed for medical content; WP:MEDSCI. The content added and its sources are not usable. --Zefr (talk) 00:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The sources are in peer reviewed scientific journals and adhere to WP:MEDRS, and WP:MEDSCI. Looks like you have a NPOV problem, and a bias.

Meel11223: Your last edit disrupted and eliminated two references from respected sources that had long been in the article: Drugs.com and NIH. Drugs.com states "Clinical trials supporting therapeutic claims are of limited quality and quantity." Your sources are individual, limited-subject, preliminary, non-review studies published in non-clinical journals - they do not qualify as WP:MEDRS reviews, should not be used in the lede, and represent your statement of "promising" results, which is not a MEDRS statement for an encyclopedia and is easily refuted by the weak evidence in the sources. This is not an edit war, but rather is a matter of competent interpretation of sources, WP:CIR, which you are not doing. --Zefr (talk) 02:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Meel11223 added this statement and sources to the lede: "Studies on those symptoms, fatigue, stress, cognition, and other mood symptoms, have shown promising results."

References

• ref #1 is a pilot study on only 100 subjects. Under Shortcomings in the article, the authors acknowledged the exploratory, preliminary nature of the study, providing evidence that it was not conclusive, and so is not a MEDRS-quality review.
• ref #2 is another non-placebo pilot study using just 40 subjects who took R. rosea extract. Clearly, it is very preliminary and not MEDRS-quality.
• ref #3 is an alternative medicine source with a woeful impact factor and is not an encyclopedic source.
• ref #4 is another pilot study on just 20 subjects. Not a MEDRS source.
• ref #5 is a review of lab studies and two clinical trials. This source might be used in a Research section in the article, but the full article content is not available without a subscription, so cannot be fully assessed by the general Wikipedia user.

Conclusion: there is insufficient MEDRS support to discuss possible or "promising" effects of R. rosea extract in the lede, so I am removing it again. There is no WP:MEDSCI consensus to state possible or promising efficacy.

I have also removed from this talk page discussion the banners and edit warring notices used by Meel11223 -- they do not address improving the article per WP:TALK. --Zefr (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)