Shilajit Studies at a Glance: What Has Been Scientifically Studied?

In short: A handful of small human studies exist on shilajit – including on testosterone levels, muscle strength after fatigue and sperm quality – as well as preclinical work and review articles. Large, independent, replicated studies are lacking. This page lists the most important papers with design, participant numbers, duration and limitations, and is continuously updated.

Important: No health claims are authorised for shilajit/mumijo in the EU (Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006). This article reports neutrally on the state of research and makes no claims of effect.

How we read studies – and why the design is decisive

Not every “study” carries the same weight. For classification, we use the standard evidence hierarchy:

1. Randomised, placebo-controlled double-blind trials (RCTs): the gold standard – random allocation and placebo comparison filter out expectation effects.
2. Clinical studies without a control group: provide initial indications, but cannot separate placebo and time effects from substance effects.
3. Preclinical research (cell culture, animal models): hypothesis-generating, but not transferable to humans.
4. Review articles: only as good as the studies they summarise.

In addition, we check for every paper: How large was the sample? How long the duration? Who funded it? Was a patented proprietary extract used – and can the results even be transferred to other products?

The human studies at a glance

Study	Journal / year	Design	N	Duration	Endpoints examined	Main limitations
Pandit et al.	Andrologia, 2016	Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled	63 evaluated	90 days	Total and free testosterone plus other hormone values in healthy men (45–55 y), 2×250 mg purified shilajit	Small; patented proprietary extract; no independent replication
Biswas et al.	Andrologia, 2010	Clinical study without placebo control	28 evaluated	90 days	Sperm count, motility and hormone values in men with reduced sperm count, 2×100 mg processed shilajit	Very small; no control group; hypothesis-generating only
Keller et al.	J Int Soc Sports Nutr, 2019	Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled	63	8 weeks	Retention of maximal strength after fatiguing exercise, serum hydroxyproline; 250 vs 500 mg daily in physically active men	Small and short; single performance parameter; young healthy men

That – as of today – is essentially the human-scientific basis on which the entire shilajit market argues. The data are not sufficient for authorised health claims.

The studies in detail

Pandit et al. (2016): testosterone levels in healthy men

In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, healthy men between 45 and 55 years received 250 mg of purified shilajit or placebo twice daily for 90 days; 63 participants were evaluated. At the end of the study, higher values for total and free testosterone were measured in the verum group than under placebo. Limitations: small sample, narrowly defined population, patented extract, no independent replication – and no statement on the everyday relevance of the differences in lab values.

Biswas et al. (2010): sperm parameters with reduced sperm count

28 men with reduced sperm count took 100 mg of processed shilajit twice daily for 90 days; higher sperm counts and improved motility were reported at the end. Without a placebo group, the shares of time, expectation and substance effects cannot be separated. The paper is therefore considered a pilot study.

Keller et al. (2019): muscle strength after fatigue

63 physically active men received 250 mg of shilajit, 500 mg of shilajit or placebo over 8 weeks. Among other things, the decline in maximal voluntary muscle strength after a fatiguing exercise protocol was measured; in the 500 mg group, this decline was smaller at the end of the study. Limitations: short duration, specific endpoint, no statements about women, older people or longer-term use.

Preclinical research: hypotheses, not proof

The majority of the shilajit literature is preclinical – cell culture and animal studies. Two frequently cited examples:

• Carrasco-Gallardo et al. (2012, International Journal of Alzheimer's Disease): Review of cell and animal models on fulvic acid and brain ageing processes. Preclinical – not transferable to humans; the authors themselves name the lack of controlled human studies.
• Meena et al. (2010): Paper on traditional use at high altitudes and on iron parameters in animal models. Preclinical – not transferable to humans.

Preclinical findings are the beginning of scientific work, not its result. Serious texts always label them as what they are.

Review articles and safety

The most-cited safety review comes from Stohs (2014, Phytotherapy Research). It describes purified shilajit as well tolerated at the dosages studied and identifies the central risk not as the substance itself but as contamination – in particular heavy metals in raw, unprocessed material. We have summarised the practical consequences in our articles Shilajit Side Effects and Shilajit & Heavy Metals.

What is missing: the research gaps

An honest study overview names not only what has been examined but also what is missing – because it is precisely in these gaps that the exaggerated marketing promises that characterise the shilajit market arise. The most important open points:

• Large, independent RCTs with several hundred participants and pre-registered endpoints.
• Replications: None of the central results has so far been confirmed by an independent research group using the same design.
• Studies in women and older people – the existing papers examined almost exclusively men.
• Long-term data beyond 12 weeks of use.
• Standardisation: comparability between differently composed preparations – results from a proprietary extract do not automatically apply to other products.
• Interaction studies with medicines (see Shilajit and Medicines).

Check for yourself: how to research shilajit studies on PubMed

You don't have to take our word for anything – you can verify every statement yourself in a few minutes. Here is how:

1. Open pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov – the freely accessible database of biomedical literature.
2. Search for “shilajit” and additionally for “mumijo” or “mumie” – research uses both terms for the same natural product; if you search for only one, you miss half.
3. Filter on the left by article type (“Randomized Controlled Trial”, “Clinical Trial”) – this separates human studies from the numerically dominant preclinical work.
4. Read the abstract with focus: who was examined (population), how many (N), how long (duration), what was measured (endpoints) – and is there a limitation in the last sentence?
5. Check the conflict of interest note at the end of the article: manufacturer funding does not make a study worthless, but it belongs in the assessment.

If you come across a relevant new human study that is missing from our overview: feel free to write to us – we will review and add it.

Our editorial approach to studies

So that you can put our articles into context, here is our fixed standard: we report studies with design, participant numbers, duration and limitations; we explicitly label preclinical research; we do not translate study results into product promises; and we link the original sources so you can read them yourself. We incorporate relevant new studies into this overview. You will find the overall classification by topic area in the pillar article Shilajit Effects; how we apply the same transparency to product quality is shown on the page Lab Tests & Quality.

Frequently asked questions about shilajit studies

Is there a large meta-analysis on shilajit?

To our knowledge, no robust meta-analysis of randomised trials exists – the available studies are too few and too heterogeneous for that. There are review articles that summarise the individual papers.

Are the shilajit studies independently funded?

Partly not. Several central papers used patented proprietary extracts from individual manufacturers; conflicts of interest must be factored into the assessment – one more reason to wait for independent replications.

Why don't animal studies count as proof?

Because dosages, metabolism and endpoints cannot be transferred one to one. Many substances that showed effects in animal models fail human studies. Preclinical work generates hypotheses – nothing more.

Where can I find the original studies?

All papers discussed here are linked below with PubMed search links – you can verify every statement yourself.

Is this overview updated?

Yes. As soon as relevant new human studies appear, we add them with design, participant numbers and limitations.

Sources & further reading

• Pandit, S. et al. (2016): Clinical evaluation of purified Shilajit on testosterone levels in healthy volunteers. Andrologia. PubMed
• Biswas, T. K. et al. (2010): Clinical evaluation of spermatogenic activity of processed Shilajit in oligospermia. Andrologia. PubMed
• Keller, J. L. et al. (2019): The effects of Shilajit supplementation on fatigue-induced decreases in muscular strength and serum hydroxyproline levels. Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition. PubMed
• Carrasco-Gallardo, C. et al. (2012): Shilajit: a natural phytocomplex with potential procognitive activity. International Journal of Alzheimer's Disease. PubMed
• Meena, H. et al. (2010): Shilajit: a panacea for high-altitude problems. International Journal of Ayurveda Research. PubMed
• Stohs, S. J. (2014): Safety and efficacy of shilajit (mumie, moomiyo). Phytotherapy Research. PubMed

---

This article is for neutral information purposes and does not replace medical advice. Food supplements are no substitute for a balanced, varied diet and a healthy lifestyle. If you have a medical condition, take medication, are pregnant or breastfeeding, talk to your doctor or pharmacist before use.

Redaktion shilajitkaufen.com – We write to a fixed editorial standard: studies reported neutrally, no healing claims, sources under every article. More about our quality criteria: Lab Tests & Quality.