Myths About Ginseng

Over millennia, so many legends have grown up around ginseng that separating facts from marketing is not easy. It is called the “root of life,” a “natural steroid,” and a remedy for everything. Our editorial team checked the most widespread claims and compared them with what clinical studies have actually shown.

Myth 1: ginseng is a natural doping agent for athletes

This is probably the most widespread notion, especially in sporting circles. It is fueled by stories about the use of ginseng by Soviet and Asian athletes, as well as by advertising for supplements “for endurance.” The reality is much more modest.

As early as 2000, Bahrke and Morgan analyzed the available studies on the ergogenic properties of ginseng and concluded that most controlled works showed no improvement in physical performance, and that positive results often came from studies with methodological flaws — without placebo control, without blinding, or with a small sample.

A later meta-analysis by Bach and colleagues (2016) confirmed this picture: regarding physical performance the data are contradictory, and one cannot confidently assert an ergogenic effect. The IOC consensus on dietary supplements (Maughan et al., 2018) does not include ginseng in the list of supplements with proven benefit for performance, unlike, for example, caffeine or creatine.

So ginseng is not a “natural doping agent.” It is a supplement with a possible effect on subjective fatigue, but without a convincing effect on strength, speed, or maximal oxygen uptake in healthy trained people.

Myth 2: ginseng raises testosterone and acts like a steroid

Ginsenosides have a steroidal chemical structure, and marketing is often built on this: “natural steroids,” “plant anabolic.” However, similarity of the molecular skeleton does not mean similarity of action. Cholesterol, bile acids, and vitamin D also have a steroidal structure, but no one considers them anabolics.

Ginsenosides are not agonists of the androgen receptors in the sense that testosterone or synthetic anabolic steroids are. There are no convincing clinical data on a substantial increase in testosterone levels in healthy men under the influence of ginseng. Some small studies showed changes in hormonal parameters, but these have not been reproduced in large-scale works.

The myth is partly connected with studies of ginseng in erectile dysfunction. A systematic review by Jang and colleagues (2008) found some signs of the efficacy of red ginseng for this indication, but the authors emphasized the small number and limited quality of the studies. Moreover, the improvement in erection is associated primarily with an effect on the vessels and nitric oxide, not with an anabolic or androgenic effect.

Something else is important: products that promise a “steroid” effect from plants are a risk group for adulteration. If a plant supplement suddenly produces a sharp gain in mass or strength, this is a reason to suspect undeclared synthetic impurities, not miraculous properties of the root.

Myth 3: “Siberian ginseng” is the same thing, only cheaper

Eleutherococcus senticosus is sold under the name “Siberian ginseng,” and many consider it a budget analog. In reality it is a different plant — of a different genus, with different chemistry. True ginsengs belong to the genusPanax, while eleuthero belongs to the genusEleutherococcus.

The main active substances of ginseng — ginsenosides — are absent in eleuthero. Its active compounds — eleutherosides — belong to other chemical classes. Therefore transferring the results of ginseng studies to eleuthero (and vice versa) is methodologically incorrect.

A study by Harkey and colleagues (2001), which analyzed the composition of commercial products, additionally showed that for both eleuthero and ginseng the quality on the market is very uneven. So “cheaper” does not always mean “more advantageous.”

This does not mean that eleuthero is bad or useless. It is simply a separate supplement, and it should be evaluated by its own studies.

Myth 4: the more expensive and older the root, the stronger the effect

Traditionally, the most valued are wild roots dozens of years old, whose price can reach astronomical sums. It is believed that with age the root “accumulates power.” This partly has a chemical basis: the content of ginsenosides in the root does indeed change with the plant’s age, and for cultivated ginseng it is usually recommended to harvest roots at least a few years old.

However, there is no clinical evidence that a wild hundred-year-old root produces a better health effect than a quality standardized extract of cultivated ginseng. On the contrary, it was precisely standardized extracts that were used in most controlled studies, because only they make it possible to reproduce the dose.

Moreover, on the market for expensive roots there is a high proportion of fakes and discrepancies in age and origin. The buyer in effect pays for a legend, not for measurable quality.

For practical purposes, the editorial team advises focusing on transparency of composition: the plant species, the part of the plant, the type of extract, and the ginsenoside content. More on this — in our material on the release forms of ginseng.

Myth 5: natural — therefore safe for everyone

Ginseng is generally well tolerated, and a systematic review by Coon and Ernst (2002) showed that in controlled studies the frequency of side effects was close to placebo. But it does not follow from this that the supplement is safe for everyone and in any amount.

• Ginseng interacts with medications: in a randomized study by Yuan and colleagues (2004), American ginseng reduced the effect of warfarin.
• It can lower glucose levels, which is important for people on glucose-lowering therapy (Vuksan et al., 2000).
• In some people it causes insomnia, nervousness, headache, stomach discomfort.
• Safety during pregnancy, breastfeeding, and in childhood has not been established.

A separate topic is product quality. Natural raw material can be contaminated with pesticides, heavy metals, or microorganisms, and combination supplements can contain undeclared substances. This is precisely why the IOC advises athletes to choose products with independent certification.

It is more correct to perceive ginseng as a plant remedy with pharmacological activity — with indications, limitations, and interactions, like any other remedy.

Another widespread myth is that ginseng must “necessarily be cycled,” otherwise tolerance will develop. Traditional recommendations do indeed provide for courses with breaks, and the EMA monograph limits the duration of use, but there are few quality studies of tolerance to ginseng in humans. The limitation on duration is more likely connected with a lack of data on long-term safety than with proven “habituation.”

Editorial conclusions

Ginseng is not a doping agent and not a plant steroid. The scientific data on its effect on athletic performance are contradictory, and there are no grounds to consider it a means of raising testosterone.

Possible areas of benefit — subjective fatigue and certain aspects of cognitive function — have been studied better, but even here the results are inconclusive.

Eleuthero is not ginseng, an expensive wild root is not a guarantee of an effect, and “naturalness” is not a guarantee of safety. The best choice is a standardized product from a manufacturer with transparent quality.

Our articles “Who Should Not Take Ginseng,” “Ginseng: Release Forms and Which to Choose,” and “What to Combine Ginseng With” will help you continue the topic.

References

1. Bahrke MS, Morgan WP. Evaluation of the ergogenic properties of ginseng: an update. Sports Med. 2000;30(2):113–134.
2. Bach HV, Kim J, Myung SK, Cho YA. Efficacy of ginseng supplements on fatigue and physical performance: a meta-analysis. J Korean Med Sci. 2016;31(12):1879–1886.
3. Maughan RJ, Burke LM, Dvorak J, et al. IOC consensus statement: dietary supplements and the high-performance athlete. Br J Sports Med. 2018;52(7):439–455.
4. Jang DJ, Lee MS, Shin BC, Lee YC, Ernst E. Red ginseng for treating erectile dysfunction: a systematic review. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2008;66(4):444–450.
5. Harkey MR, Henderson GL, Gershwin ME, et al. Variability in commercial ginseng products: an analysis of 25 preparations. Am J Clin Nutr. 2001;73(6):1101–1106.
6. Coon JT, Ernst E. Panax ginseng: a systematic review of adverse effects and drug interactions. Drug Saf. 2002;25(5):323–344.
7. Yuan CS, Wei G, Dey L, et al. Brief communication: American ginseng reduces warfarin's effect in healthy patients: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141(1):23–27.
8. Vuksan V, Sievenpiper JL, Koo VY, et al. American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius L) reduces postprandial glycemia in nondiabetic subjects and subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160(7):1009–1013.