Ginseng

In Dr James A. Duke's book 'The Green Pharmacy', Ginseng is listed as a being potentially effective at combating chronic fatigue syndrome. Here are a couple excerpts :

'Commission E, the group of scientists that advises the German government about herbs, endorses ginseng as a tonic to combat feelings of lassitude and debility, lack of energy and ability to concentrate, and during convalescence'.

'Clinical studies indicate that ginseng improves athletic performance'

'ginseng is used today by Russian cosmonauts and Asian Olympic athletes as an adaptogen, an herb that increases general resistance to all types of stress'

I wonder if it would be safe to combine ginseng and rhodiola rosea.

http://www.herbalgram.org/herbalgram/articleview.asp?a=2333

I'm no scientist but that seems quite comprehensive.

Like I said though, I felt RR had a quite soothing calming effect but I didn't greatly notice much ergogenic aid. I found ginseng to be more effective in this department.

ric_stern/RST said:

so, show me where it is ergogenic for endurance performance. where are these studies that are peer reviewed, and used on endurance trained humans?

ric

I think you missed my point. Hey, just don't use it, and we'll see you at the finish line with your journal articles.:eek:

CapeRoadster said:

I think you missed my point. Hey, just don't use it, and we'll see you at the finish line with your journal articles.:eek:

Not at all: In God we trust, everyone else bring data.

Ric

ric_stern/RST said:

Not at all: In God we trust, everyone else bring data.

Ric

You definitely missed my point. I believe in "data" just as much as anyone. However, the research on ginseng, as the summary article I quoted aptly pointed out, is simply lacking. So, since enough research hasn't been done, clearly one should NOT rule out the possibility of ginseng as a performance-enhancer, especially given the fact that Chinese medicine has used it for centuries.

Listen, if we were to believe that data is everything, then important scientific findings would never see the light of day. Spinal manipulation therapy (SMT), otherwise known as osteopathic or chiropractic manipulation, was scoffed at for over 50 years by medicine because "evidence was lacking". Of course, the real reason there was little research was because of competition to medicine by chiropractors and osteopaths, and conspiracy by medicine against those professions (the A.M.A. was found guilty of conspiracy and violations of anti-trust laws against the chiropractic profession in 1987 in the Supreme Court of Illinois). Once medicine backed off, the door opened for integrative medicine and SMT was found to be overwhelmingly beneficial. The North American Spine Society (a group of mostly neurosurgeons) now gives SMT its highest rating for physical medicine techniques for LBP, for example. Yet, before 1988, for mostly political reasons, "evidence on SMT was lacking".

Your point is not lost on me. However, I'll say it again: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is a growing body of evidence that ginseng is an effective PED, and an important botanical medicine for persons with a myriad of lung ailments. Further, the medical establishment often taints its own research with the aid of the pharmaceutical industry in order to squash anything that might be advantageous to its competition. That has happened repeatedly in medical journals like NEJM over the years.

The recent NEJM glucosamine study used the wrong type of glucosamine: it was a study designed to fail. A NEJM study on whiplash funded primarily by auto insurers is another example from a few years ago.

You're going to have to dig a little deeper.

Remember when they laughed at Dean Ornish, M.D. for saying the effects of heart disease could be "reversed"? Well, I remember it. Now it is established medical fact.

If patients had to wait for research to try safe, already tried and true therapies that work despite lack of research base, like SMT or ginseng or glucosamine sulfate or a heart-healthy diet, then those patients would suffer a great deal and the world would be a poorer place because of it.

Please don't confuse a lack of evidence with proof that something does not exist or have clinical benefit. That is a serious scientific mistake.

CapeRoadster said:

Remember when they laughed at Dean Ornish, M.D. for saying the effects of heart disease could be "reversed"? Well, I remember it. Now it is established medical fact.

If patients had to wait for research to try safe, already tried and true therapies that work despite lack of research base, like SMT or ginseng or glucosamine sulfate or a heart-healthy diet, then those patients would suffer a great deal and the world would be a poorer place because of it.

Please don't confuse a lack of evidence with proof that something does not exist or have clinical benefit. That is a serious scientific mistake.

Maybe you have difficulty understanding English -- i don't know whether English is your primary language. Anyway, i said that there is no evidence that it (either RR or G) is ergogenic for endurance trained athletes. That is true, there is no good peer reviewed evidence supporting that it is ergogenic in endurance trained athletes that i could find with a quick literature search. You then said there were lots of studies showing it was ergogenic. So, again, i ask you: where are these studies? Someone writing in a book that it's likely ergogenic doesn't cut it.

If you bother to take some time and read what i wrote, all i said was that there was no evidence supporting it's ergogenicity in endurance athletics. I haven't commented on whether it's likely or unlikely to be ergogenic.

I did however, find this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15902991&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum

Ric

ric_stern/RST said:

Anyway, i said that there is no evidence that it (either RR or G) is ergogenic for endurance trained athletes. That is true, there is no good peer reviewed evidence supporting that it is ergogenic in endurance trained athletes that i could find with a quick literature search. You then said there were lots of studies showing it was ergogenic. So, again, i ask you: where are these studies?
Ric

here are several studies showing rhodiola rosea to be an effective ergogenic aid:-

1) De Bock, K; Eijnde, B.O.; Ramaekers, M; Hespel, P. (2004). Acute Rhodiola Rosea intake can improve endurance exercise performance. International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism. 14 (3). p298-307.

2) Saratikov and Tuzov (1963). Effect of Leuzea cartha-moides on physical work capacity and fuctional activity of the organism. Proceedings of Siberian Branch of USSR Academy of Sciences. Biological Sciences. 12. p126-132.

This study using various adaptogens, including Rhodiola Rosea, showed the adaptogens used increased endurance by 64%

3) Saratikov and Krasnov (1987). Rhodiola Rosea is a valuable Medicinal Plant. Tomsk. Monograph. Tomsk State University Press.

This study of 112 athletes showed that 89% of those who supplemeted with Rhodiola Rosea showed marked improvements in both speed and strength during track and field, swimming, speed skating and ski racing.

4) Seifula, R.D. (1999). Sport Pharmocology Manual. Sport Pharma Publishing. Moscow.

Similar results were shown to that of the study by Saratikov and Krasnov (1987) but this time the resluts were seen in weightlifters, wrestlers and gymnasts.

They were just a few. there are LOADS of studies out there on adaptogens and rhodiola rosea, most showing positive results. such studeis have been carried out extensively over the last 50 years. happy reading. 🙂

alex.

ratboy83 said:

here are several studies showing rhodiola rosea to be an effective ergogenic aid:-

1) De Bock, K; Eijnde, B.O.; Ramaekers, M; Hespel, P. (2004). Acute Rhodiola Rosea intake can improve endurance exercise performance. International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism. 14 (3). p298-307.

they're untrained individuals...

Quoted post said:

2) Saratikov and Tuzov (1963). Effect of Leuzea cartha-moides on physical work capacity and fuctional activity of the organism. Proceedings of Siberian Branch of USSR Academy of Sciences. Biological Sciences. 12. p126-132.

This study using various adaptogens, including Rhodiola Rosea, showed the adaptogens used increased endurance by 64%

3) Saratikov and Krasnov (1987). Rhodiola Rosea is a valuable Medicinal Plant. Tomsk. Monograph. Tomsk State University Press.

This study of 112 athletes showed that 89% of those who supplemeted with Rhodiola Rosea showed marked improvements in both speed and strength during track and field, swimming, speed skating and ski racing.

4) Seifula, R.D. (1999). Sport Pharmocology Manual. Sport Pharma Publishing. Moscow.

Similar results were shown to that of the study by Saratikov and Krasnov (1987) but this time the resluts were seen in weightlifters, wrestlers and gymnasts.

They were just a few. there are LOADS of studies out there on adaptogens and rhodiola rosea, most showing positive results. such studeis have been carried out extensively over the last 50 years. happy reading. 🙂

alex.

data is very equivocal when *well designed tests* are used, e.g., http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16948486&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_docsum

or http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15903375&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_docsum

ric

ric_stern/RST said:

Maybe you have difficulty understanding English -- i don't know whether English is your primary language. Anyway, i said that there is no evidence that it (either RR or G) is ergogenic for endurance trained athletes. That is true, there is no good peer reviewed evidence supporting that it is ergogenic in endurance trained athletes that i could find with a quick literature search. You then said there were lots of studies showing it was ergogenic. So, again, i ask you: where are these studies? Someone writing in a book that it's likely ergogenic doesn't cut it.

If you bother to take some time and read what i wrote, all i said was that there was no evidence supporting it's ergogenicity in endurance athletics. I haven't commented on whether it's likely or unlikely to be ergogenic.

I did however, find this ncbi.nlm.nih.govquery.fcgiOpen ↗

Ric

Dear Ric, Mr. English,

You're claiming that I said:

ric_stern/RST said:

You then said there were lots of studies showing it was ergogenic.

One has to ask how your English is doing. Here's what I actually said:

Quoted post said:

Ginseng is very likely ergogenic. There are many studies.

and

Quoted post said:

However, the research on ginseng, as the summary article I quoted aptly pointed out, is simply lacking. So, since enough research hasn't been done, clearly one should NOT rule out the possibility of ginseng as a performance-enhancer, especially given the fact that Chinese medicine has used it for centuries.

So, please don't misquote me again. There are MANY studies on ginseng and performance-enhancement.

You also said:

ric_stern/RST said:

If you bother to take some time and read what i wrote, all i said was that there was no evidence supporting it's ergogenicity in endurance athletics. I haven't commented on whether it's likely or unlikely to be ergogenic.

Let me point out to you, Ric, that the correct possessive form of "belonging to it" is NOT "it's", as you wrote, but instead "its". The contraction "it's" means, literally "it is" and is a common mistake among those not educated in the proper form of the possessive. Confusing, yet true nonetheless. I was a newspaper editor for years in a past career. But, alas, I digress.

Now, when you say "there's no evidence", you're discounting centuries, millennia, of empirical Chinese evidence. You meant to say "there are no peer-reviewed, prospective, placebo-controlled, long-term studies using excellent, non-flawed research methods". But please listen, again:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In other words, there are no good studies saying ginseng doesn't work, either. While you wait for those studies, there are those who will have effective results from using ginseng, placebo effect and non-placebo effect.

Further, many so-called "better" studies performed on herbs and plants used as medicines are flawed. They are seriously and fatally flawed oftentimes. If you don't read the ENTIRE study, though, you really shouldn't form an opinion. Citing abstracts is easy, reading and understanding entire studies is another thing. Have you actually read the ABSTRACTS you cite?

Here are some study ABSTRACTS showing ginseng has cognitive performance-enhancing effects. There are at least 400 of these studies out there, many looking also at gingko biloba, a blood-thinner with many other effects.

ncbi.nlm.nih.govquery.fcgiOpen ↗

ncbi.nlm.nih.govquery.fcgiOpen ↗

ncbi.nlm.nih.govquery.fcgiOpen ↗

Here is a study ABSTRACT showing ginseng has an ergogenic effect. I like this one because it is a review and it sees a role for ginseng in preventing upper respiratory viral infections and improving cognition. I believe these are ergogenic effects, although the authors of that review do not see improved cognition and prevention of viral infection as "improving athletic performance". I absolutely disagree. Sometimes even ABSTRACTS hold clues to authors' biases and views.

ncbi.nlm.nih.govquery.fcgiOpen ↗

Here's a recent Korean study ABSTRACT that shows ginseng has an ergogenic effect:

ncbi.nlm.nih.govquery.fcgiOpen ↗

Here's one from Purdue showing an effect on lipid metabolism. Ergogenic? Yes, absolutely:

ncbi.nlm.nih.govquery.fcgiOpen ↗

The very respected Dr. Luke Bucci, who authored a textbook I own, as well as several others in clinical nutrition, published this in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition a few years back:

ncbi.nlm.nih.govquery.fcgiOpen ↗

I'll quote from the ABSTRACT:

Quoted post said:

Controlled studies of Asian ginsengs found improvements in exercise performance when most of the following conditions were true: use of standardized root extracts, study duration (>8 wk, daily dose >1 g dried root or equivalent, large number of subjects, and older subjects. Improvements in muscular strength, maximal oxygen uptake, work capacity, fuel homeostasis, serum lactate, heart rate, visual and auditory reaction times, alertness, and psychomotor skills have also been repeatedly documented. Siberian ginseng has shown mixed results.

So, as I said, there are studies. Many, many studies. Many of them DO show an ergogenic effect. Many do not. So, there you are. I've shown you several study ABSTRACTS. I respect Bucci's take on things. I advise you to read entire studies, not just abstracts, and tell me what you think. And you've got to get to the root of things, heh-heh. Take that as your first CLUE.

I'll be waiting for you at the finish line.

Man, CapeRoadster and Ric Stern at it now...can't both of you get off your ego driven bandwagons and just agree to disagree????? You both tried to shoot me down/repudiate my position in a couple of threads I commented in. Now you two are going at it with each other. You guys are taking up a lot of space with your hot air (sigh and roll of eyes...). I'm sure I speak for many visitors to this site.

CapeRoadster said:

Here is a study ABSTRACT showing ginseng has an ergogenic effect. I like this one because it is a review and it sees a role for ginseng in preventing upper respiratory viral infections and improving cognition. I believe these are ergogenic effects, although the authors of that review do not see improved cognition and prevention of viral infection as "improving athletic performance". I absolutely disagree. Sometimes even ABSTRACTS hold clues to authors' biases and views.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...l=pubmed_docsum

Here's a recent Korean study ABSTRACT that shows ginseng has an ergogenic effect:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...l=pubmed_docsum

Other than my grammatical mistake, i stand by what i said previously.

For clarity: ergogenic means to do more work (Lamb and Williams, Ergogenics Enhancements of Performance In Exercise and Sport, 1991). In terms of cycling performance, or athletic performance, that means producing more power output (in cycling) or greater velocity (in running), etc. That's why the authors in the first study (cited above) don't consider ginseng to be ergogenic. It may have other properties, but that wasn't what we were discussing.

Apart from the one study you cited where *untrained sedentary* people managed to last longer during an incremental test i can't find any (well designed) research showing an ergogenic effect. However, this study, potentially has methodological errors in it (i say potentially, as i don't have access to that paper and can't therefore read the methodology that was employed). But it's important to note that sedentary subjects were used, and that this has implications for trained athletes (i.e., the results may not transfer).

And, why will you be waiting for me at the finish line? Am i supposed to be scared? Does beating me in a race somehow invalidate what i said? Anyway, USA Cycling doesn't list a Dr Wright, so, of the list of Wrights on the site i don't know which one you are, and whether you'll be beating me or not (not that i really care whether you beat me or not).

Ric

tonyzackery said:

Man, CapeRoadster and Ric Stern at it now...can't both of you get off your ego driven bandwagons and just agree to disagree????? You both tried to shoot me down/repudiate my position in a couple of threads I commented in. Now you two are going at it with each other. You guys are taking up a lot of space with your hot air (sigh and roll of eyes...). I'm sure I speak for many visitors to this site.

As for me, I was trying to help you, not "shoot you down". You asked for help, but then you seemed to already have a plan of action that was unyielding. Rhetorical stuff from you, in the end.

As for ric and me, we can take care of ourselves. I'm just trying to inject a little humour and a bit of a challenge into these sometimes otherwise stale threads, that's all. I don't think bandwidth will be an issue. I'm not sure you speak for anyone but yourself.

ric_stern/RST said:

Other than my grammatical mistake, i stand by what i said previously.

For clarity: ergogenic means to do more work (Lamb and Williams, Ergogenics Enhancements of Performance In Exercise and Sport, 1991). In terms of cycling performance, or athletic performance, that means producing more power output (in cycling) or greater velocity (in running), etc. That's why the authors in the first study (cited above) don't consider ginseng to be ergogenic. It may have other properties, but that wasn't what we were discussing.

Apart from the one study you cited where *untrained sedentary* people managed to last longer during an incremental test i can't find any (well designed) research showing an ergogenic effect. However, this study, potentially has methodological errors in it (i say potentially, as i don't have access to that paper and can't therefore read the methodology that was employed). But it's important to note that sedentary subjects were used, and that this has implications for trained athletes (i.e., the results may not transfer).

And, why will you be waiting for me at the finish line? Am i supposed to be scared? Does beating me in a race somehow invalidate what i said? Anyway, USA Cycling doesn't list a Dr Wright, so, of the list of Wrights on the site i don't know which one you are, and whether you'll be beating me or not (not that i really care whether you beat me or not).

Ric

The word "ergogenic" has been defined in many ways, not just the limited ways in which the authors of your book have defined it. Merriam-Webster defines it as "enhancing physical performance", while others have defined it as this:

Quoted post said:

An ergogenic aid is a performance enhancing device or substance. This very broad definition can include legal modes of performance enhancement (such as using a heart rate monitor for optimum training) as well as illegal aids such as anabolic steroids or human growth hormone.

Wiki says:

Quoted post said:

Ergogenic aids are any external influence which can positively affect sporting performance. These include mechanical aids, pharmacological aids, physiological Aids, nutritional aids, and psychological aids.

I choose the broader definition, but so be it.

I didn't cite studies, I cited study ABSTRACTS. Glad you're calling a spade a spade regarding that. One must read the entire study to make comments. With a website like yours, I think you would be better served if you purchased the full-length articles and read the research, as to offer an informed position. Citing abstracts doesn't cut it in science, sorry.

And no, my saying "see you at the finish line" was meant to be a remark about those who aren't using PED's of any sort will likely be left in the dust. Said in jest, that's all. My belief is that the entire pro peloton is doped to the hilt. And no, I'm not the threatening type, nor am I juiced on so much testosterone so as not to know the difference. Beating you in a race (which I am certain I could not do) would definitely help to invalidate your opinions, however.

Integrative medicine is the future, and the studies on ginseng are quite promising. You still seem to have missed my point, however: absence of evidence is not the same thing as evidence of absence. I think you don't get that yet.

CapeRoadster said:

The word "ergogenic" has been defined in many ways, not just the limited ways in which the authors of your book have defined it. Merriam-Webster defines it as "enhancing physical performance", while others have defined it as this:

Wiki says:

I choose the broader definition, but so be it.

Your definition is essentially the same as mine. That is you are looking at some method/manipulation that allows you to do more 'work'. (more work being a higher power output in cycling). If it doesn't allow you to generate more power it isn't ergogenic.

I'm not certain that a HR monitor could be classed as ergogenic (in fact you maybe able to define it as ergolytic). Essentially, HR training isn't optimal and could be ergolytic (depending on how it was used).

Quoted post said:

I didn't cite studies, I cited study ABSTRACTS. Glad you're calling a spade a spade regarding that. One must read the entire study to make comments.

usually, i do read the studies. Obviously, the abstract is a brief (or should be) review of the paper in hand. In the instance above, i don't have that paper, and by looking at the methodology/results/data presented in the abstract, i ain't in the slightest bit interested in reading such a study.

Quoted post said:

With a website like yours, I think you would be better served if you purchased the full-length articles and read the research, as to offer an informed position.

see above. i'm obviously not going to purchase every paper i may see in abstract form. i would be destitute before long. so, i make a decision based on what i already know on a subject, and the info presented in the abstract. if you want to fund me to read every paper, whose abstract i read, then i can send you my bank details.

Quoted post said:

Citing abstracts doesn't cut it in science, sorry.

i never said it did.

Quoted post said:

And no, my saying "see you at the finish line" was meant to be a remark about those who aren't using PED's of any sort will likely be left in the dust. Said in jest, that's all. My belief is that the entire pro peloton is doped to the hilt.

while, no doubt there are some/many doped to the hilt, i would suggest that you should moderate your comments that it is all pro riders. There are pros i work/have worked with who i am certain (or as certain as i can be given that i don't live and follow them 24/7) don't take drugs. I don't believe you can 'tar' all people the same because a subset of those people have done something.

Quoted post said:

Integrative medicine is the future, and the studies on ginseng are quite promising. You still seem to have missed my point, however: absence of evidence is not the same thing as evidence of absence. I think you don't get that yet.

I think you've missed the point. I still haven't suggested whether i think ginseng or other herbs are good, bad, or indifferent. all i have said is that there are no good data available (i.e., peer reviewed, randomised placebo double blind crossover and counterbalanced, etc) using trained endurance athletes showing an ergogenic effect. I then pointed out that there were papers showing no effect (when a study was performed as above).

Lastly, the stuff you cited are full papers. Each paper has an abstract at the beginning. Most research isn't freely available (i.e., you have to pay for it: see my 'complaint' above), hence you can only link to the abstract of the paper. However, i have no idea whether you've read the full paper or not. If i've read the paper i would still cite the abstract at Pub-Med because i'm hardly likely to type in the 5000 words or so of the paper, am i?

ric

look. sod all this argumument. i've used both herbs. both helped me. give them a try. if it helps- wicked if it doesn't- not the end of the world!!!!! the test will only cost you a tenner!!!

alex.

ratboy83 said:

look. sod all this argumument. i've used both herbs. both helped me. give them a try. if it helps- wicked if it doesn't- not the end of the world!!!!! the test will only cost you a tenner!!!

alex.

It's not an argument, it's a discussion. It's what online forums are about.

Anecdote doesn't really do it for me.

Ric

You two - Cape and Ric, really should take your bickering off line and just email each other back and forth and spare the rest of us. We thank you.

tonyzackery said:

You two - Cape and Ric, really should take your bickering off line and just email each other back and forth and spare the rest of us. We thank you.

Again, we're not bickering, we're having a discussion. Whether anything will come of the discussion is difficult to say. As for taking it off line, why would we want to? The idea of a forum is to discuss a subject, not suggest a topic and then have made your mind up prior to the discussion. If at some point the topic turned 'sour' (e.g., someone became rude), then i could close the thread as a moderator/community leader.

And, out of the discussion people reading that discussion may (or may not learn something), which seems like a good idea to continue it.

If you don't want to read the discussion, then simply don't. The thread and the forum isn't yours to 'shut'.

Ric

ric_stern/RST said:

Again, we're not bickering, we're having a discussion. Whether anything will come of the discussion is difficult to say. As for taking it off line, why would we want to? The idea of a forum is to discuss a subject, not suggest a topic and then have made your mind up prior to the discussion. If at some point the topic turned 'sour' (e.g., someone became rude), then i could close the thread as a moderator/community leader.

And, out of the discussion people reading that discussion may (or may not learn something), which seems like a good idea to continue it.

If you don't want to read the discussion, then simply don't. The thread and the forum isn't yours to 'shut'.

Ric

I understand. You both are the type of guys that need the last word...