Supplement evidence

092 / 575Mood & stress

Rhodiola rosea

View my plan →

The short answer

Small heterogeneous trials examine fatigue, stress, and performance; reliable clinical benefit is uncertain.

Evidence and scope: Mixed evidence
This status does not grade the ingredient for every goal, outcome, or person.
Important limitation: Trials are inconsistent or small, so a reliable clinically important benefit is not established.
Before deciding: Key concern: Bipolar disorder, stimulants, antidepressants, blood-pressure or glucose medicines, and pregnancy require caution.

01 / PRACTICAL GUIDE

Dose, absorption, and combinations

These are indication-specific reference or studied ranges—not a personalized prescription. Start with the objective, then check the form, label, medicines, and health conditions.

Reference range by objective

Stress symptoms200–400 mg/day standardized extract in many studies

Reference or studied range—not a personalized prescription. The product label or a clinician may specify a different dose.

Dose source ↗

More is not automatically better. A clinician or product label may specify a different amount.

Absorption / solubilityFormulation-dependent

Not usefully classified as a fat- or water-soluble vitamin; absorption depends on the salt, extract, delivery system, and meal.

How it is commonly taken

Take earlier in the day and with food if needed.

Do not combine casually

Bipolar disorder, stimulants, antidepressants, blood-pressure or glucose medicines, and pregnancy require caution.

Dose and use source ↗

Dose and use links lead to primary or official source material. Search links are discovery tools, not proof that every returned paper applies.

02 / EVIDENCE

What the research says

We keep supportive, mixed, negative, safety, and contextual findings together. The headline never replaces the underlying papers.

2research papers in this ledger

12unique primary studies represented

48unique participants represented

These are audited counts for this JIVANA collection, not search-result totals. Participants are counted once when multiple papers use the same cohort; review papers are not added again to participant totals.

Open the research timelineResearch timeline

Entries are ordered by publication year. A study period appears only when the source reports it.

2014

Does not support the tested claimPMID 25268730 · NCT01278992

Rhodiola rosea for fatigue in nursing students on shift work

Both fatigue measures favored placebo at day 42, while adverse-event counts did not differ. This small trial directly contradicts simple anti-fatigue marketing and does not establish benefit in other populations.

Published: 2014Duration: 42 daysn=48 participants

Study design and methods

Design: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel trial
Population: 48 nursing students aged 18–55 during clinical shift rotations
Intervention: Rhodiola rosea 364 mg at the start of the wake period, with up to one additional capsule, versus placebo
Outcome: RAND-36 vitality, fatigue visual analogue scale, quality of life, and adverse events

Funding or conflict note: Funded by Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development through AVAC Ltd.

Open research record ↗

2012

Does not support the tested claimPMID 22643043

Rhodiola rosea for physical and mental fatigue

Results were contradictory: only 2 of 6 physical-fatigue trials and 3 of 5 mental-fatigue trials reported benefit. Every included study had high risk of bias or reporting flaws, so efficacy was not established.

Published: 201211 primary studies represented

Study design and methods

Design: Systematic review of 10 randomized and 1 controlled clinical trial
Population: Healthy and clinical populations studied for physical or mental fatigue; total participant count was not reported in the abstract
Intervention: Rhodiola rosea preparations versus placebo or other controls
Outcome: Physical performance, mental fatigue, and safety

Open research record ↗

Unscreened discovery appendix—not evidence52 candidate publicationsSearch run: Aug 21, 2026

Complete for the displayed PubMed query at the search timestamp—not for all databases or every possible synonym. Candidates can be irrelevant, duplicate the same study, or report negative findings. They are never summed as evidence or participants until screened.

03 / SOURCES

Start with the source material

Official evidence overviewPubMed bounded human-evidence search Live PubMed discovery searchNational Library of Medicine

The live search is for discovery only. Search-result counts change and are not included in the audited totals above.

Recent PubMed discovery recordsDirect links to the first 12 records returned by the reproducible search. These are discovery candidates—not reviewed summaries or a count of supportive findings.

04 / EXPERT CONTEXT

Expert context—not evidence

Expert positions are dated context—not scientific evidence. They never raise the evidence status or become consensus by repetition.

No direct, source-verified endorsement is currently recorded. Research authorship or discussion alone is not treated as endorsement.