Adaptogens Are Stimulants

the classic ones at least.

After writing The Adaptogen Problem, my feeds shifted. Google and Instagram started pushing ashwagandha gummies and shilajit (shilajit to quit). But ResearchGate and Semantic Scholar, bless their algorithmic hearts, started serving me adaptogen research papers, day after day. Enter a 2005 paper by Alexander Panossian, which I had never read before, titled “Stimulating effect of adaptogens: an overview with particular reference to their efficacy following single dose administration.”

As I mentioned in the original article, Panossian is the most prolific “adaptogen” “researcher” alive. If anyone should be defending the concept, it’s him.

So what does his paper say?

The active compounds in Rhodiola, Schisandra, and Eleutherococcus are “phenylpropane and phenylethane derivatives” that are “structurally related to the catecholamines.” The single-dose effects work through the sympatho-adrenal system - the acute stress response pathway, same as other stimulants. Schisandra specifically is described as “evidently, a mild stimulant” based on correlation analysis showing it increases sympathetic tone, activates the adrenal cortex, and intensifies metabolic processes.

The research subjects referenced throughout the paper? Sailors on watch duty. Soldiers on 20km ski marathons in -28°C weather. Cosmonauts in isolation. Sprinters. Radio operators. The entire research program was built around pushing through fatigue, enhancing performance under stress, extending working capacity.

This was clearly stimulant research with different branding.

The paper includes a table (Table 2) comparing stimulants to adaptogens. The claimed differences - stimulants cause energy depletion, adaptogens don’t. Stimulants cause insomnia, adaptogens don’t. Stimulants have side effects, adaptogens don’t. All claims unsuported in the paper.

The same paper, in its empirical sections, reports that after 2-3 weeks of continuous Schisandra use, subjects developed “sleeplessness, excitability and a low level of general well-being.” It notes these negative effects were “similar to coffee.” It documents that high doses of Eleutherococcus made some subjects “feel sleepy and flabby” with decreased blood pressure - a comedown pattern.

The theoretical definition of adaptogens and the reported data contradict each other within the same document.

This is the problem with the adaptogen concept in miniature. The definition makes claims - non-specific resistance, normalizing effects, no side effects, fundamentally different from stimulants. The data shows catecholaminergic stimulation, sympathetic activation, insomnia, tolerance, and performance enhancement research conducted on soldiers and cosmonauts. The framework says one thing. The pharmacology says another.

Panossian knows what’s in his own paper. He wrote the table claiming adaptogens don’t cause insomnia, and he wrote the section documenting Schisandra causing insomnia. He titled it “Stimulating effect of adaptogens,” while maintaining that these aren’t stimulants. He seems to have had serious financial interest in “adaptogen” companies while conducting “research.”

Grifters gonna grift.

-Thomas