Rhodiola may make hard sessions feel easier, but the evidence is shaky

Rhodiola rosea is a herb with centuries of traditional use and a modern reputation as an adaptogen, and it is increasingly marketed to athletes for performance and recovery. The claims range from workouts feeling easier to protection against exercise-induced muscle damage. What has been lacking is a careful look at whether the randomised trial evidence in healthy people actually supports any of it. This review gathered every eligible trial to find out where the herb stands.

Two reviewers independently searched PubMed, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library for randomised controlled trials published up to March 2023 that tested Rhodiola rosea in healthy participants who were not using other supplements. Thirteen studies qualified, covering 263 people, 198 men and 65 women, aged between 18 and 65. Two studies tested acute supplementation, five tested chronic use, and six combined both approaches. Outcomes spanned performance measures alongside markers such as heart rate, blood lactate, creatine kinase and C-reactive protein.

The picture was mixed but leaned positive: 11 of the 13 studies reported some beneficial effect, while 2 found no effect on measures including perceived exertion, heart rate, antioxidant capacity, blood lactate, creatine kinase or C-reactive protein. Taken together, acute supplementation was linked to better endurance performance and lower ratings of perceived exertion. Chronic supplementation was linked to better anaerobic performance but not to endurance performance, and may positively affect muscle damage during exercise. The authors flag two limitations that cut across everything: supplementation and exercise protocols differed widely between studies, and most studies carried an unclear or high risk of bias.

This is one of the more favourable evidence summaries for a herbal sports supplement, and it usefully separates acute effects from chronic ones, a distinction earlier discussions often blurred. At the same time, the variation between protocols and the bias concerns mean the findings sketch a direction rather than establish an effect. The authors themselves call for more high-quality studies before clinical efficacy can be firmly established. Which doses, which timing and which types of exercise benefit most all remain open questions.

If rhodiola is on your radar, the honest reading is cautiously interesting: most trials found something positive, and the acute endurance and perceived-effort findings form the most consistent thread. The evidence base is small and uneven, so any single claimed benefit should be treated as unconfirmed rather than proven. The trials were in healthy adults aged 18 to 65, so the findings at least concern the sort of person likely to be reading this. This is a supplement where the science is still catching up with the marketing.