The multi-billion dollar “snake oil” industry is nothing if not good at marketing. This is probably because this is not one or even a small number of companies, but likely thousands of companies and millions of individuals crowdsourcing many different marketing strategies. Those that work tend to prosper and proliferate, spawning variations. The rhetoric has been evolving in this way for at least hundreds of years.
There are several common themes that are frequently used to sell dubious treatments, which can be summarized as something like, “Modern science meets ancient wisdom to discover how this natural product works gently with your body to achieve healing.”
Interestingly, this evolving marketing language is often used to sell the same products, some of which have been sold by snake oil salesmen for over a hundred years. Take echinacea, which as I wrote about in 2010:
“It was first popularized by a dubious physician and snake-oil salesman called H.C.F. Meyer. In the late 1800s he sold Echinacea as a panacea, claiming it cured everything, including cancer. He also heavily marketed the Native American connection, which was popular at the time.”
Such products were marketed as native, as all natural, as herbs, supplements, then “neutraceuticals”. How do they work? That always seems to be a mystery, but it must have something to do with toxins, or perhaps boosting the immune system. They could be a “superfood” providing preternatural nutrition. On the more magical end of the spectrum they may harmonize your vibrational frequencies, or facilitate the flow of chi.
Some herbs, of course, are actual drugs. Most of the useful ones have already been purified as pharmaceuticals (there is an entire discipline dedicated to identifying active ingredients, purifying, and testing them). But they are strangely rarely markets as drug-like, even when the putative mechanism of action is pharmacological. No one says – take echinacea, it’s a naturally-occurring drug with variable constituents of unknown dose and bioavailability, but probably in too low a dose to cause serious side effects (or any actual effect).
Now we have another term to add to the lexicon of dubious health claims – the “adaptogen”. The most common definition out there is similar to this one by Dr. Hunnes from UCLA Health: “The claim is that adaptogens reduce our body’s reaction to stress and help us adapt to stressors better.”
How do they allegedly do that? Well – “Experts believe that adaptogens interact with the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, which initiates your body’s stress response and plays a big role in keeping your body in balance.” The evidence for this is virtually non-existent, which is why it is stated as a “belief”. Other proposed mechanisms include boosting the immune system, reducing oxidative stress, and balancing the body (such as balancing hormones). These are familiar vague claims already part of the snake oil canon.
Another one is the claim that adaptogens can fight fatigue through their “ergogenic” effects. This is yet another sciencey-sounding term for something nonspecific, in this case increasing energy and stamina or reducing fatigue.
Even researchers who promote herbal remedies have found the term frustrating vague:
“The term “adaptogen,” which has not been well defined scientifically, undermines the need for increased inquiry and research into the many promising effects of this herb.”
One of the hallmarks of good science is that it uses precise terminology and definitions. Words are the place-keepers for our ideas, and we literally cannot think precisely without precise language. Vague words betray vague and sloppy thinking. When it comes to the supplement industry, and the alternative medicine industry more broadly, vague terminology is not a bug, it’s a feature.
Vagueness allows for general marketing vibes without being tied to a specific scientific claim that can be proven false. The supplement industry has even managed to have this approach codified into law in the US, in the form of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA). This act created the “structure-function” category of marketing claims that can be made for herbs and supplements – things like boosting the immune system, increasing energy, supporting a positive outlook. These are basically the same claims made for “adaptogens”. It’s the same con with a new label.
Actually the term “adaptogen” was coined in 1947 by Soviet toxicologist Nikolai Lazarev. He failed, however, to discover anything specific to back up the concept, as did later research. The term has never been accepted as a genuine scientific concept, and is not recognized by the FDA as a legitimate claim (which is why you have to back up the label by saying it “boosts the immune system” or some other structure-function claim).
Now the term has a second life as just another marketing buzzword for snake oil products. It’s a perfect vague marketing term for a society that has a vague faith in science without really understanding it – get your neutraceutical ergogenic adaptogen.