Talk:Rhodiola rosea
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Rhodiola rosea 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. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a quality rating on the quality scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | |
Contents |
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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[1] 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)
