Talk:Ginseng

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (see comments)

[edit] Yin/Yang messed up

The Yin/Yang cold/hot talk in Panax quinquefolius American ginseng (root) is messed up. First you associate Yin with cold, Yang with heat, and next you do it the opposite way. The reason it has been claimed that American ginseng promotes Yin (shadow, cold, negative, female) while East Asian ginseng promotes Yang (sunshine, hot, positive, male) is that, according to traditional Korean medicine, things living in cold places are strong in Yang and vice versa, so that the two are balanced.

[edit] Taxonomy changes

Panax notoginseng is the same as Panax pseudoginseng. So it shouldn't be listed twice in the box. I just added to the stub for Panax pseudoginseng. Ksvaughan2 19:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reordering this article

This article is primarily about two different plants: American Ginseng and Panax Ginseng. Panax ginseng is divided into red and white. The uses and doses are different between different ginsengs. I think that the sections should be substantially reordered, with subheadings under each type. Ksvaughan2 21:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved some of the paragraphs around and changed the fonts on headings so that it flows: American, Asian- white and red, red paragraphs, wild, substitutes. It still needs some structural changes so that uses and dosages are under each type. Ksvaughan2 05:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overdose

This is all about notoginseng, which is neither sold as ginseng nor dangerous. I think it should be removed. I also question the citation- the same author has an extensive article on notoginseng called "Rare Reactions to a Safe Herb" where he lists all 19 documented adverse reactions, all allergic, which has nothing to do with dosage or toxicity. And the article mentioned does not say anything about notoginseng. [[1]] Besides, ancient references to only two alleged overdose reactions could be misidentified plants if such references actually exist. The herb is hemostatic so is unlikely to cause hemorrhage. If no one objects I will remove it Ksvaughan2 20:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC) herbalist

I removed it since it didn't have to do with ginseng and I can find no legitimate sources with that information. Ksvaughan2 05:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ginseng Folklore

Text of Ginseng Folklore article created by User:Tdiddi:

Ginseng has been a subject of Chinese folklore and legend for it’s healing power. Ginseng has been used as a tonic, and has a reputation for being a root for long life. Many of the Ancient Chinese Emperors have paid their own weights in gold just to possess a root which was very old and would insure longevity themselves as well. People on their deathbeds have been given a strong dose of a good quality root in order to prolong their lives a little longer so that distant relatives could travel from afar to bid them farewell or to extend their life so that they could finish speaking their last wishes to the family and bestow their blessings on the survivors.

If any of this is verifiable, it should be added to the main Ginseng article. Andrewa 23:42, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This is a quote from the Chinese classics, cited from Dharmananda's article.Ksvaughan2 06:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

.................. is it a fruit or vegetable??

Reply--

- a vegetable is any edible part of a plant. A fruit is usually scientifically defined as the seed carrying part of the plant. That's why most fruit a person eats has some seeds in it. So a fruit is always a vegetable but a vegetable is not always a fruit. BUT I believe the part of the ginseng used is the root.

[edit] huh???

this sentence: "A comparative, randomized and double-blind government study does indicate it to be "a promising dietary supplement" when assessed for an increase in quality of life [2]"

That's pretty vague - actually it tells exactly what the herb does. Helps several problems. If you don't like it don't take it.

[edit] Ability to concentrate

In the article at the moment it says that Ginseng decreases the ability to concentrate. In many articles around the web and in common knowledge, it says that Ginseng increases the ability to concentrate.

What is it then?

Good question.

It is an adaptogen which increases the ability to concentrate. The article was wrong. Ksvaughan2 19:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC) (herbalist with degree in Chinese medicine)

[edit] On stress, other psychological diseases and Ginseng

In my phytotherapy books Ginseng's roots (and also their essential oil) are indicated after and during long periods of mental and psychological stress. So, according to them, the statement Ginseng decreases the ability to concentrate is false. The capacity of the human body to react and to adapt when it is internally and externally stressed, is increased when it assumes Ginseng roots. Someone advises Ginseng's roots against sexual inappetence, but this is only collateral, it is not its primary function. This is due to a general reactivation of internal organs and systems.

[edit] ginseng works

I can tell you ginseng works for me. It is not a placebo. It has given me extended energy on long difficult bicycle rides.

On another ocasion I drank about 2 liters and I had more energy for sexual activity than I had ever had in my life.

I came to this sight to learn why this happens. I was dissapointed.

I have been told that there are 4 types of bodies in asian medicine. Perhaps my body is particularly receptive to ginseng.

Then why is there no literature (as far as I can tell) on its pharmochemistry? Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV, but when it's between Western medicine and Eastern voodoo, we're supposed to go with Dr. Smith. --The Lizard Wizard 00:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

If you don't believe Ginseng's effect, you should try it and see for yourself. It's not that expensive and can be found in TCM stores. Some Asian grocery stores also carries them. The most common way of preparing ginseng is just boil it with broth or other liquid (water, vodka, etc). You can also eat it directly, but I promise that you won't like the taste. Lightblade 21:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If taking it seems to help you in whatever way, how do you know whether that is because of some physiological effect or because of the boost in confidence that accompanies taking something you believe works? It is logically impossible for you to know, isn’t it? This is the reason that claims of the physiological efficacy of whatever substance can be verified only by means of studies that examine the _comparative_ effect between groups of people who take the substance in question and those who take an inert substance. I’m happy that ginseng does it for you, whether its “effect” is physiological or not, but conclusions can’t be drawn from your experience alone.

Secondly (not speaking about this article in particular), while I strongly support the idea that Wikipedia should not _arbitrarily_ subordinate one school of thought to another, that is something very different from writing articles that blindly advance as possible truth every known view on a subject, no matter how bizarre. Take an example: The availability of modern medicine undeniably results in extraordinary gains in life expectancy. Hypothetically, suppose that a few individuals, for whatever reason, believe that modern medicine is a hoax and that “infections” are really caused by invisible garden gnomes that beat people with tiny hammers while they sleep. We have two views here, but including the blatantly absurd view, for which no evidence whatsoever is advanced, as a possibly true alternative to the demonstrably plausible view is nothing short of misinformation. (I however think it’s perfectly legitimate to include it in the context of “Some people believe … but there’s no evidence for it,” if that has some relevance.)

--Jim 03:00 28 October 2006

"It's not a placebo, because I tried it and believe it works" <-- this is a completely false argument anyways. If it's a placebo, it means you believe it works. Stating that you believe it worked for you is in no way an argument that it's not a placebo.

I've read through all of your arguments in this section and it appears the last two are the most informative with strong arguments that they have supported well ... however I am in no position, myself, having no experience in medicine and recieving very little information from wikipedia on this matter to assume anything about what is or isn't right. So with that said, my argument will aslo have no supporting evidence and can be written off as the humorous 'garden nolmes beating people with shovels' example but that's okay ... let those who want to win win. I am an international athlete who has used ginseng at varying periods of my life since I was 14 years old. My reasons for using it were based soley on rumors of it being something healthy to drink, and I remained ignorant to the arguments of its other benefits up until reading these articles. From personal experience and without any expectations of ginseng, I drew several conclusions about its benefits based on what I've deduced using it for many many years that match up well with a few of the arguments here. For instance, at a young age I quickly began to realize that it helped me concentrate better, and my mental endurance while undergoing heavy training sessions was greatly increased by ginseng. I have also, over the past few years, noticed its advantages during sexual intercourse (something that caught my interest just now when I read that it's traditionaly been used as both a stimulant and an aphrodesiac.) As irellevent my personal experience with ginseng may be to most of you, the point that I would like to strees would be not to rely on conflicting arguments over it be your deciding factor in whether or not you use it. I have no doubt that it could have different reactions for different people and I would suggest that whoever is curious should simply try it in small amounts and decide, based on the reaction they get, whether they enjoy its effects on them or not. -dan

[edit] wikipedia

I think Wikipedia is one of the most useful tools to learn about, just about, any subject matter... And unlike other encyclopedia's and engines of learning (i.e. the US School System), articles' neutrality and accuracy are constantly under survelliance by the community of intelligensia. I like Ginseng. I take it in my tea almost every day. I think it does help my energy levels and concentration to some extent (esp when taken with ginkgo). Some of the disputable "facts" on this website are very useful in learning, at least what people think about ginseng, and the undisputed ones help us learn what we know about ginseng. I don't think drawing attention to inaccuracies in any theory or underlying thought on a subject (i.e. ginseng = good / ginseng = garbage; superstitious crap), no matter how substantiated, should be ignored. If Bush and the Christian right, for example, point out holes in the theory of evolution, they should be heard. But that is not to say that we reject all logic...

[edit] I honestly think this article is terrible

Ginseng has rescently come in my life. Wikipedia let me down when i tried to learn why i felt so good. This stuff cured my adhd, i feel great 24/7. Never tired, energised, sleep very well, heart feels healthy, can remember everything.

REPLY:

Well, it doesn't really state in the artical that ginseng is horrible for you, or that it makes you feel ill or tired.

The reason the Wikipedia does not contain any information about how ginseng cures ADHD, reverses Alzheimers, destroys cancer and runs for president, is because it's all unverifiable hocus pocus. I'm sure that if there IS an effect from ginseng, it's minor. All of the claims that ginseng cures this and that and makes people have great sex is all entirely in the mind. I'm not trying to say this is a bad thing - after all, according to ANOTHER Wikipedia article, "other studies argue that up to 75% of the effectiveness of anti-depressant medication is due to the placebo-effect rather than the treatment itself." Indeed, "placebo-effect" does not equal "no-effect." A "placebo-effect" means that the reaction is entirely mental, not chemical – and it appears that the mind is stronger than even the best anti-depressants. So if Western medicine, which has proven chemical benefits, is still a majority placebo effect, then is it so unimaginable that an herb like ginseng has placebo-effects?

As a side note, I would like to agree with you, this article is horrible. But not because it doesn't contain all of your Eastern hoodoo. It's because it contains so many unverified, uncited statements. It also is just terribly written. Can we work on that? Brash 19:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Brash, I don't use ginseng and I'm pretty sure I never will, but I find the tone and offensive language of your remarks to be prejudicial, Eurocentric, inherently unscientific and frankly--I can't help but say this--asinine. Only someone of such a cast of mind might seriously consider that one's mind is so powerful that even pharmaceutical substances will not affect it--whether they come from a sterile retort somewhere or from some Asian mortar and pestle. By all means ratioanlly discuss the mild or moderate effects of this substance on people. But keep your insulting language and cultural biases to yourself if you want your opinion to be considered without a disgust that overwhelms anything important you may have to say. NaySay 14:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is interesting, and has a lot of potential, but contains WAAAAAYY too many uncited facts. I just pretty much wiped out the side-effects section, and added citations for the little that remains. There's no excuse for adding a statement--especially a medical one--without a citation to back it up. (Remember there are people out there stupid enough to make health-related decisions based on what they read on the internet.) -Bindingtheory 00:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

REPLY:

A lot of Ginseng's effects have to do with the fact that it is a vasodialator. However, it also contains elements that can cause the heart to beat harder (similar to epinephrine), thus the overall effect is an increase in pulse pressure where the systole increases and the diastole deacreases. In a normal healthy individual that has a balanced diet, there wouldn't be much effect on the body other than perhaps an increase in vitality. Due to its ability to cause the heart to pump harder, it is contraindicated for people with hypertension and yet conversely can cause hypotension from the vasodialation. In essence, it would be the same as taking medications to treat high blood pressure (such as nitroglycerin), then going out for a run. The pipes widen but the flow goes up. Keep in mind that when blood flows easier to the rest of the body, muscles work better, cells can produce more energy (ATP), your brain receives more oxygen and sugars, vitamins, etc. and your overall metabolism goes up. -Zexola 12:40, 30 November 2006 (PST)

[edit] well.....

this article covers the true ginsengs, as well as those tradtitionaly called ginseng but bear no resembulance or simular chemical makeup to that of those of the panax species. although Eleutherococcus senticosus has been proven to be a powerful adaptogen along with Schizandra chinensis: Stimulating effect of adaptogens: an overview with particular reference to their efficacy following single dose administration

according to the doctorine of signatures, ginseng root,which is called tradtionally "man root", bearing resimulance to a human, has been thought to be a cure all. and given this, there have been alot of uses traditionally for ginseng as a cure-all. what is concidered to be "true" ginseng contain ginsenosides, but only 7 of the 28 known ginsenosides are currently used in clinical studies. Korean Ginseng has been proven to be an affective alternative to convential E.D. treatment methods, so says a july 2006 double blind, placebo controlled study, where 20 men had improved rigility, penetration, and maintenence then those who haven't had the gensing. you can see for yourself: Study of the efficacy of Korean Red Ginseng in the treatment of erectile dysfunction

which in other words, great sex.

not all of the ginsengs provide vasodialating effects: An evaluation of the hemostatic effect of externally applied notoginseng and notoginseng total saponins

according to a published article, Panax notoginseng (teichi ginseng) flower extract has been proven to decrease the proliferation of colorectal cancer (cancer of the rectum and the colon) cells. again, see for yourself: Notoginseng enhances anti-cancer effect of 5-fluorouracil on human colorectal cancer cells

that's just three of the MANY types of ginseng (those panax and not) that have had proven studies for just some of their uses.

as for citing references, i can see the writer's concern with citing a medical statement with no back up. yes, people do actually use just what they read off the internet and accept it as gospel truth. to some, elvis is still alive and kicking. bottom line, it's been proven to work. Arisugawa 06:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Arisugawa

Two very limited studies can hardly be called conclusive proof that ginseng works in all cases. While I find it easy to believe that ginseng has hemostatic properties, I find it a little harder to believe that it cures ADHD, as someone in this talk page dubiously claimed. We simply are going to have to have absolutely specific scientific evidence to back up every single statement made on the ginseng page, not testimonials from new age wikipedians.

By the way, I hope you don't mind me fixing your post so it was actually readable. Brash 22:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This editor didn't say it "cures ADHD," nor were claims to that effect made on the article page. Furthermore, the person who originally made that claim did so in the context of recounting a personal experience, not putting forth facts for inclusion in the article. Just because some people make unsubstantiated claims does not mean that other more modest claims cannot be substantiated. Essentially, your argument is a strawman. 209.30.90.117 23:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

although, to this date, over 2,000 medical studies have been done on ginseng(various species), of those over 300 of those are just clinical trials. And yes, one of those does include ginseng with ginko biloba to relieve, but not cure, the effects of ADHD: [2] although the effects on the person on this talk page may be of an exceptional nature. ADHD is a chemical imbalance, and very differnet from ADD. the testimonials on this page represent a very small percentage of the body types out there.Arisugawa 03:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)arisugawa

Well after listening to all of the bashing of opposing research, namecalling, and nit-picking, I can only suggest that if you want a good read on some really good research from Canada (locations listed below), then read Null and Opposing Effects of Asian Ginseng (Panax ginseng C.A. Meyer) on Acute Glycemia

Department of Nutritional Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Clinical Nutrition and Risk Factor Modification Centre, St. Michael’s Hospital (J.L.S., L.A.L., V.V.), Toronto, CANADA

So let's not bash sources or reports because anyone can pull up "valid" research if you look hard enough... -Zexola 01:07, 28 February 2007 (PST)

[edit] White Ginseng

In the section on differnet types under Red Ginseng the article states

A study of ginseng's effects on rats show that while both White ginseng and Red ginseng reduce the incidence of cancer, the effects appear to be greater with Red ginseng.

I can't find any other mention of white ginseng any where on the page. Is this a differnet type, a substitute, or what? 64.16.40.18 19:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ginseng

I am really got that not much has been said about hunting and selling wild ginseng. At more than $8 per ounce and the joy of finding a ginseng plant during the beautiful autumn months is wonderful,(it is seasonal and can only be hunted a for few months and in most states it is illegal to take the berries they must be left behind).

It is very difficult to find but nothing lifts your spirit like finding a ginseng plant.

More later. . . . Daytrivia 02:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I have read that the most potent ginseng (which are of course extremely rare) causes a person to black out because its so powerful. Good friend100 02:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I only dug the root and sold it. I did not know then nor do I now that using ginseng internally had any after effects. It just never occurred to me to take it internally. Wild ginseng is a beautiful plant. It is valuable and rare but it still grows and awaits to be found. A person can really get close to nature by hunting it.

The root grows something like 1/2 inch every 50 years. Later...... Daytrivia 14:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

We have harvested most of our old growth ginseng and it is increasingly rare. It won't make you black out, but it is warming and good for the feeble aged. It is not for, say young men. Because of the rarity and expense it is cooked down to a concentrate by itself and later added to formulas. It doesn't take much. Ksvaughan2 19:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC) (herbalist)

American ginseng is endangered. If you are wildcrafting it, please leave most of it to regrow and plant seedlings in similar areas. There are links for woods-grown ginseng programs in the Wild Ginseng section, including places where you can learn to cultivate it in the woods.

Also you can just harvest leaves, but do it carefully so the plant isn't hurt. In Cherokee medicine, ginseng leaves makes everything work better in a formula. It is illegal to harvest the root unless it is cultivated on your land in most of the US. Licenses may be required to sell it out of state. Ksvaughan2 19:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC) (herbalist)

[edit] Horticulture

There should be a section on growing and caring for wild or potted ginsing plants. 69.242.82.192 10:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I added a section on woods grown ginseng under the Wild Ginseng section which leads you to outside references on how to grow it. The North Carolina Arboretum also has information. Also contact United Plant Savers to get sources of seedlings and direction on cultivation. Ksvaughan2 18:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pharmacology

In addition to horticulture, there should be a section on the pharmacology of ginseng -- what its active chemicals are. How does it work? What parts of the body and/or brain does it stimulate? And so on. Zweifel 13:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Side Effects

The side effects section does not cite primary research. In fact none of the citations that the article referencing the side effects uses is primary research. It isn't credible unless the research or the traditional observation cites it. KSVaughan2 04:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ginseng, Nitric Oxide, and Reproductive Activity

This section doesn't mention Nitric Oxide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcostley (talk • contribs) 21:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ginger?

Why would anyone confuse ginseng with ginger? __meco 15:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rather questionable double blind study

"Of the 625 patients recruited, 124 were excluded from the study due to lack of compliance with the treatment, so that 338 patients in group A and 163 patients in group B completed the study." I can only access the abstract but I find these drop out rates suspicious. Actually technically they are participants excluded, not necessary drop outs. Double-blind studies typically involve random assignment in a 50-50 ratio. Apparently the study didn't do this which is not really a problem in itself but it means there could have been systematic differences in the participants excluded from each group. 20% of the participants were excluded from this study so group differences could have easily been created through biased exclusion criteria, especially given the apparent disequal initial group assignment.

It also appears that the subjective measure used was validiated by the same group that used it potentially in the same study (again only have abstract) which only increases my suspicion. Unless someone can find the full artcile and convince me participant exclusion has not effected the results I think we should remove this study from the article or at least state the caveats.JamesStewart7 12:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Good to see someone checking up on things like this.

I don't know where else to put this but I was quite disappointed by this article. It seems to have been written on/off by opponents and proponents with very little cold hard objectivity. In the opening the whole idea of ginseng working is pretty much debunked, but then the rest of it goes into detail on a whole lot of studies done on ginsengs effects(some also linked from ginsenoside article). I don't have a clue about this, and so it's hard for me to correct anything, but both sides should perhaps work together to try to promote a more objective and undecided article. I, at least, ended up feeling like it blatantly stated two (almost) opposite things in the same article. Araziel (talk) 00:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wisconsin ginseng copyright violation

The entire section titled "Wisconsin Ginseng", added in March 2008 by 63.164.145.198, seems to be copied verbatim from http://www.ginsengboard.com/whywi.cfm. Here's a link from archive.org showing they had the text before it was added to Wikipedia. I've removed the section.

As part of the same set of edits, the same user modified the text "Ginseng that is produced in the United States and Canada is particularly prized" to say "Ginseng that is produced in the United States, especially Wisconsin, is particularly prized" (emphasis added). I've reverted that change too, but please feel free to add it back if you have a reliable source for it. --mconst (talk) 02:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with the removal. The section also seemed to look a lot like advertisement.Trilobitealive (talk) 03:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology

The "etymology" section currently reads (emphasis added):

The English word ginseng derives from the Chinese term rénshēn (simplified: 人参; traditional: 人蔘), literally "man root" (referring to the root's characteristic forked shape, resembling the legs of a man). The difference between rénshēn and "ginseng" is explained by the fact that the English pronunciation derives from a Japanese reading of these Chinese characters. However, the current Japanese word for these characters 人参 (ninjin) means carrot, and ginseng is referred to in Japanese as 朝鮮人参 (chosen ninjin), adopting the name of the last dynasty of Korea 朝鮮 (Choson). The Korean name is 고려인삼 高麗人参 (goryo insam).

I haven't been able to find a source for the sentence in bold. The Oxford English Dictionary, Merriam-Webster's, and the American Heritage Dictionary all claim that English "ginseng" derives directly from Chinese "rénshēn" (although the OED spells it "jên shên", since it uses Wade-Giles rather than pinyin.)

I've deleted that sentence for now, but please feel free to add it back if you have a source for it. I also removed the following sentences (talking about Japanese and Korean), since they're no longer really relevant to the article. --mconst (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

	Ginseng is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.