Research last updated: 3 September 2026

Shilajit has human research behind it. The harder question is what that research actually proves.

A study can involve real people, use a placebo and report a statistically significant result, but still tell us much less than the headline suggests. The result may apply to one standardised Shilajit extract, one dose, one group of people and one outcome measured over a few weeks.

It doesn't automatically apply to every Shilajit resin, powder, capsule or gummy.

This article brings the human Shilajit studies we could locate into one evidence map. It shows who was studied, what preparation they took, how much they took, what researchers measured, what they found and, importantly, what each study can't show.

If you're looking for a broader overview rather than the individual trials, read our guide to Shilajit benefits and what the human research suggests.

Commercial disclosure: One Life Foods sells Shilajit. None of the studies below tested a One Life Foods product. We don't think a result from somebody else's extract or resin becomes evidence for ours simply because both products are called Shilajit.

Quick answer: what do human studies say about Shilajit?

There is genuine human research on Shilajit, but the evidence base is still small, mixed and highly preparation-specific.

In the literature search behind this page, we located:

• 16 published oral human studies where Shilajit could be interpreted reasonably directly

• additional human studies involving Shilajit-containing formulas, botanical processing or topical preparations

• older clinical records that are difficult to reconstruct fully

• recent human preprints and registered trials that haven't yet provided peer-reviewed evidence

Human studies have investigated testosterone, semen parameters, exercise and fatigue, bone mineral density, fracture healing, skin biology, female sexual function, oxidative stress, diabetes-related markers, vascular measures, collagen biomarkers and other outcomes.

That sounds broad, but breadth isn't the same as certainty.

Some studies are randomised, double-blind and placebo-controlled. Others have no control group at all. Some measure meaningful functional or clinical outcomes. Others measure hormones, blood biomarkers or gene expression.

There also isn't one universal substance called "Shilajit" that's identical from study to study.

Shilajit is a variable organic-mineral matrix whose composition can change with source, geology, purification and processing. If you'd like that background first, read what Shilajit is, what it contains and where it comes from.

How many human studies are there on Shilajit?

There's no perfectly clean answer because the boundary depends on what you count.

A modern placebo-controlled trial of a purified Shilajit extract clearly belongs.

A study of Shilajit processed repeatedly with another herb is less straightforward.

A multi-ingredient formula containing Shilajit is weaker evidence still because you can't isolate which ingredient caused the result.

A topical study of "mummy" belongs to the wider human literature, but it tells us very little about taking Shilajit orally.

That's why we've separated the evidence instead of inflating one headline number.

Our inclusion approach

The main table includes published oral human studies where Shilajit was the intervention, or where its study arm could be interpreted independently.

Studies involving multi-ingredient formulations, substantial botanical processing, topical applications or other interventions where Shilajit's individual effect can't be isolated appear in a separate table.

Preprints, protocols, trial registrations and difficult-to-verify historical reports are separated again.

We searched using Shilajit and alternative terms including Shilajatu, Asphaltum punjabinum/panjabinum, mumie, mumijo, mumiyo, mummy, momiai and mineral pitch.

This is an evidence map, not a formally registered systematic review. Older Russian, Persian and Ayurvedic literature can be difficult to retrieve, inconsistently indexed and sometimes impossible to reconstruct fully from accessible records. If we find another verifiable human study, we'll add it.

Human Shilajit studies at a glance

Study	Design and participants	Shilajit and dose	Main finding	Main limitation
Sharma et al. 2003	Double-blind placebo study. 30 healthy young adults. 45 days.	Purified/processed Shilajit, 2 g/day	Reported changes in several lipid and antioxidant-related measures.	Small sample, older reporting standards, high dose and limited replication.
Saxena et al. 2003	61 adults with diabetes on stable glibenclamide. Before-and-after design. 30 days.	Asphaltum panjabinum/Shilajit, 2 g/day	Oxidative-stress marker MDA decreased and catalase activity increased.	No placebo or untreated control. Biomarker study, not evidence of improved diabetic outcomes.
Biswas et al. 2010	Men with oligospermia. 35 enrolled, 28 completed. 90 days.	Processed Shilajit, 100 mg twice daily	Reported improvements in several semen measures, oxidative stress and testosterone.	No control group. Doesn't show improved pregnancy or live-birth rates.
Kumar et al. 2014	Randomised active-comparator study in type 2 diabetes. 95 registered, 84 completed. 3 months.	Suddha Silajatu, 500 mg twice daily	Some glucose measures improved from baseline.	No placebo, heterogeneous background treatment and no clear benefit over conventional treatment.
Niranjan et al. 2016	Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled. 40 people with type 2 diabetes and endothelial dysfunction. 12 weeks.	Purified aqueous Shilajit extract, approximately 250 mg twice daily	Reported improvements in several vascular surrogate, lipid and oxidative/inflammatory measures.	Small study using surrogate endpoints. Published dose wording is internally inconsistent.
Pandit et al. 2016	Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled. 96 healthy men aged 45 to 55 randomised, 75 completed/analysed. 90 days.	PrimaVie purified Shilajit, 250 mg twice daily	Total testosterone, free testosterone and DHEAS increased versus placebo.	Narrow population, 21 non-completers and no evidence that hormonal changes produced a health or performance benefit.
Das et al. 2016	16 overweight or class-I-obese adults. No placebo. 12 weeks.	PrimaVie, 250 mg twice daily	Changes in skeletal-muscle gene expression, including extracellular-matrix-related pathways.	Mechanistic study. Gene expression doesn't prove improved performance, recovery or tissue strength.
Gupta et al. 2016	Randomised active comparison in type 2 diabetes. 90 registered, 80 completed. 3 months.	Shilajatu, 500 mg twice daily	Symptoms and glucose measures improved from baseline.	No placebo or untreated group, so Shilajit's independent effect isn't clear.
Keller et al. 2019	Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled. 63 recreationally active young men. 8 weeks.	PrimaVie, 250 or 500 mg/day	In the full sample, 500 mg reduced fatigue-related strength decline versus 250 mg, but not placebo. Placebo differences appeared in an exploratory stronger-half subgroup.	Small male sample, subgroup findings and industry funding.
Das / El Masry et al. 2019	Randomised placebo study. 45 women aged 30 to 65. 14 weeks.	Standardised Shilajit, 250 or 500 mg/day	Higher dose increased skin microperfusion and changed skin gene-expression pathways.	Mostly physiological and mechanistic outcomes, not evidence for broad "anti-ageing" claims.
Sadeghi et al. 2020	Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled. 160 adults following tibial fracture surgery.	Momiai/Shilajit, 1 g/day for 28 days	Mean radiographic bone-union time was reported as shorter with momiai than placebo.	One fracture population, one preparation, borderline statistical significance and no independent replication.
Pingali & Nutalapati 2022	Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled. 60 postmenopausal women with osteopenia. 48 weeks.	Standardised aqueous extract, 250 or 500 mg/day	Both doses attenuated loss of lumbar-spine and femoral-neck BMD versus placebo.	Small trial in a specific population. BMD was measured, not fracture incidence. Commercial study-product involvement.
Mosavi et al. 2023	Triple-blind randomised trial. 48 reproductive-aged women, 43 analysed.	Shilajit, 200 mg twice daily	Reported improvements in total female sexual-function scores and several domains.	Small trial relying on self-reported outcomes. Not every outcome improved.
Patil et al. 2023	Randomised open-label adjunct study. 60 older adults with hypertension. 30 days.	Purified Shilajit, 500 mg twice daily	Some oxidative-stress markers improved.	No improvement in arterial stiffness or endothelial-function markers. Short and open-label.
Neltner et al. 2024	Randomised placebo study. 35 recreationally trained young men. 8 weeks.	Standardised Shilajit, 500 or 1,000 mg/day	Serum pro-c1α1, a collagen-synthesis biomarker, increased in supplemented groups.	A blood biomarker isn't direct evidence of stronger tendon, bone, skin or muscle. Small industry-funded study.
Yadav et al. 2026	Open-label single-arm pilot. 25 healthy moderately active men. 28 days.	TruBlk Shilajit resin, 500 mg/day	Several exercise, fatigue and body-composition measures improved versus baseline.	No placebo group, many outcomes, short duration and manufacturer-affiliated authors.

What does this table actually tell us?

1. Shilajit has more human research than a five-study summary suggests

A narrow look at modern supplement research can leave the impression that Shilajit has only been studied for testosterone, fertility and exercise.

The wider literature is broader.

Researchers have also investigated bone mineral density, fracture healing, skin microcirculation, collagen-related biomarkers, female sexual function, oxidative stress and vascular measures.

That's useful context, but it shouldn't be turned into a longer list of "proven benefits".

A study existing isn't the same as a benefit being established.

2. Most individual studies are still small

The fracture trial included 160 participants, which is substantial relative to the rest of the Shilajit literature. The postmenopausal bone study also stands out because it lasted 48 weeks.

Most studies are much smaller.

Several modern trials involve roughly 20 to 60 people. Some mechanistic studies are smaller still.

Small studies aren't worthless, but their results tend to be less stable. They're more vulnerable to baseline differences, chance findings, unusually large effect estimates and results that fail to reproduce later.

Independent replication matters.

3. Human research isn't the same as clinical evidence

This distinction matters enormously.

A study measuring whether a fractured tibia has united is asking a clinically meaningful question.

A study measuring whether someone retains muscular force after a fatigue protocol is measuring a functional outcome.

A study measuring testosterone is measuring a hormone.

A study measuring serum pro-c1α1 is measuring a biomarker.

A study measuring gene transcription is investigating a possible mechanism.

All are human research.

They aren't the same level of evidence.

A useful way to think about the Shilajit literature is:

Clinical outcomes: outcomes related directly to a health condition or clinical state, such as fracture union or bone mineral density.

Functional outcomes: things people can physically do or report, such as muscular performance, fatigue or validated sexual-function scores.

Surrogate outcomes and biomarkers: testosterone, oxidative-stress markers, inflammatory markers, vascular indices and collagen-related biomarkers.

Mechanistic outcomes: changes in gene expression or biological pathways that may help explain how an effect could occur.

The further an outcome sits from something a person can actually feel, do or clinically experience, the more cautious the claim should be.

What do human Shilajit studies show for testosterone?

The best-known testosterone study is Pandit et al. 2016.

Researchers randomised 96 healthy men aged 45 to 55 to purified Shilajit or placebo. Seventy-five completed the study and were analysed. The intervention provided 250 mg twice daily for 90 days.

Total testosterone, free testosterone and DHEAS were significantly higher in the Shilajit group than placebo at the end of the study.

That's a legitimate human finding.

It doesn't mean Shilajit has been shown to raise testosterone in every man.

The trial studied one purified preparation, in one relatively narrow age range, for 90 days. Twenty-one of the 96 randomised volunteers didn't complete the study. It also didn't demonstrate that the hormonal changes improved strength, libido, fertility, mood or another meaningful outcome.

If testosterone is the reason you're researching Shilajit, we've examined the study in much more detail in Does Shilajit Increase Testosterone? What the Human Research Actually Shows.

What do human studies show for male fertility?

Biswas et al. 2010 is frequently cited as evidence that Shilajit improves male fertility.

It's better described as an early study of semen and reproductive markers in men with oligospermia.

Thirty-five men with low sperm count enrolled and 28 completed 90 days of processed Shilajit at 100 mg twice daily.

Researchers reported improvements in sperm concentration, total sperm count, several motility and morphology measures, semen oxidative-stress markers and testosterone.

What's missing is important.

There was no placebo group.

Participants had a diagnosed fertility-related condition, so the findings can't simply be transferred to men with normal semen parameters.

Most importantly, the study didn't show that Shilajit increased pregnancy rates or live births.

So this is an interesting reproductive-health signal, not proof that Shilajit is a fertility treatment.

What do human studies show for exercise, strength and recovery?

This area now contains several different kinds of human evidence.

Keller et al. 2019 studied 63 recreationally active young men for eight weeks using 250 mg/day, 500 mg/day or placebo.

The result is often simplified too aggressively.

In the full study population, the 500 mg group retained more maximal voluntary isometric contraction strength after fatigue than the 250 mg group. It didn't significantly beat placebo on that comparison.

The statistically significant comparison against placebo came from an exploratory analysis of the stronger half of participants.

That doesn't make the result meaningless. It makes it a more conditional result than the headline "Shilajit beats placebo for strength" suggests.

Neltner et al. later studied a collagen-related serum biomarker in trained young men. That's potentially relevant to connective-tissue biology, but a change in a blood biomarker isn't evidence that someone's tendons, bones or muscles became stronger.

The 2026 TruBlk pilot adds something new because it tested a branded Shilajit resin rather than only the standardised extracts common in earlier exercise research. Several strength, endurance and fatigue measures improved after 28 days.

But that study had no placebo group.

A larger randomised placebo-controlled TruBlk trial has since appeared as a 2026 preprint, which we'll discuss below. Until peer review and independent replication, it should still be treated as emerging evidence.

For a deeper breakdown of the performance studies, read Shilajit for Exercise Performance: Fatigue, Strength and Recovery.

What do human studies show about Shilajit for women?

There's more direct research in women than many older Shilajit summaries imply.

Postmenopausal bone health

The strongest women-specific study is probably the 2022 trial in 60 postmenopausal women aged 45 to 65 with osteopenia.

Participants received placebo, 250 mg/day or 500 mg/day of a standardised aqueous Shilajit extract for 48 weeks.

Bone mineral density at the lumbar spine and femoral neck declined progressively in the placebo group. Loss of BMD was significantly attenuated in both Shilajit groups, alongside changes in bone-turnover, oxidative-stress and inflammatory markers.

That's one of the longer controlled Shilajit studies available.

It still doesn't tell us whether Shilajit prevents fractures, and it doesn't establish a general bone-health benefit in younger women, men or people without osteopenia.

Skin biology

A 2019 study in 45 women aged 30 to 65 investigated skin microperfusion and gene expression.

The higher Shilajit dose increased skin microperfusion and altered several biological pathways associated with extracellular matrix and vascular processes.

Again, that's interesting.

It isn't evidence that Shilajit "reverses ageing" or produces a visible anti-ageing effect.

Female sexual function

A small 2023 triple-blind study also reported improvements in total sexual-function scores and several domains in reproductive-aged women taking Shilajit.

It involved fewer than 50 participants and relied on self-reported questionnaires, so it should be considered preliminary.

We've brought the women-specific evidence together separately in Shilajit for Women: Benefits, Menopause, Energy and Safety.

What about bone health and fracture healing?

Bone is an interesting area because there are two studies looking at different clinical situations.

The 2020 Iranian momiai study involved 160 adults who'd undergone surgery for tibial fractures. Participants received 1 g/day of momiai or placebo for 28 days.

The researchers reported mean radiographic bone-union time of approximately 129 days in the momiai group compared with 153 days in the placebo group.

The statistical result was close to the conventional significance threshold, and it hasn't been independently replicated.

The 2022 osteopenia study asked a different question. Instead of fracture healing, it measured changes in bone mineral density over 48 weeks in postmenopausal women.

Together, these studies make bone biology a legitimate area for further Shilajit research.

They don't make Shilajit an established osteoporosis or fracture treatment.

What do the diabetes and cardiovascular studies show?

Several older and newer human studies have examined Shilajit in people with diabetes or cardiovascular risk factors.

The results include changes in oxidative-stress markers, glucose measures, lipids and vascular surrogate endpoints.

The designs are mixed.

Some studies have no placebo.

Others compare Shilajit against another active treatment.

Sample sizes are generally small.

One useful example of why selective reporting can mislead is the 2023 hypertension study. Some oxidative-stress markers improved with Shilajit, but arterial-stiffness and endothelial-function measures didn't.

If you report only the positive biomarkers, the study sounds much more convincing than it actually was.

At present, the human evidence doesn't establish Shilajit as a treatment for diabetes, hypertension or cardiovascular disease.

Why the exact Shilajit preparation matters

This may be the most important limitation in the whole literature.

Shilajit isn't one isolated molecule.

It's a variable organic-mineral matrix containing humic substances, fulvic compounds, mineral elements and numerous smaller organic components. Its composition can change with source material, geography, purification, concentration and processing.

Several modern studies used PrimaVie, a standardised commercial Shilajit preparation.

Other studies used processed Ayurvedic Shilajit, Iranian momiai, purified aqueous extracts or a branded resin.

Those products shouldn't automatically be treated as interchangeable.

A result from 500 mg of one standardised extract is first and foremost evidence for 500 mg of that standardised extract under those study conditions.

It's not automatically evidence for:

• a different resin

• a powder with an unknown Shilajit content

• a gummy containing multiple ingredients

• an unpurified product

• a product with a different chemical profile

• our own Shilajit

If you're comparing studies with products, our article on what to look for when buying Shilajit explains why the label alone isn't enough.

Fulvic acid percentages don't solve the preparation problem

It's tempting to say that two products are equivalent because both report a similar fulvic acid percentage.

That doesn't necessarily work.

Different laboratory methods can define and measure fulvic fractions differently. Results produced by one test method aren't always directly comparable with percentages produced by another.

The wider Shilajit matrix matters too.

If you're using fulvic acid figures to compare a clinical preparation with a consumer product, read Fulvic Acid in Shilajit: Which Test Can You Trust?.

Industry funding doesn't invalidate a study, but it matters

Commercial involvement is common in supplement research.

Several modern Shilajit studies were funded by, supplied by or involved researchers connected with companies that manufactured the preparation being studied.

Keller's 2019 exercise study was funded by Natreon.

The 2022 postmenopausal bone study used investigational product and biomarker kits supplied by Natreon.

The Neltner collagen-biomarker study was also funded by Natreon.

Several authors of the 2026 TruBlk resin pilot were affiliated with the manufacturer.

None of that proves the results are wrong.

Companies often fund research because they're the organisations developing a standardised ingredient in the first place.

But it makes independent replication especially valuable.

One positive company-funded study should lead to another study, preferably from an independent group. It shouldn't lead directly to "clinically proven" appearing on every unrelated Shilajit product.

Human Shilajit studies that can't be interpreted as cleanly

The following studies are part of the wider human literature, but we've kept them out of the main evidence count because Shilajit's individual contribution is difficult or impossible to isolate.

Study	What was tested	Why we treat it separately
Upadhyay et al. 2009	A combination involving Ashwagandha and Shilajit in people with type 2 diabetes is described in later reviews.	Multi-ingredient intervention and the primary publication wasn't sufficiently verified in our search.
Gupta et al. 2010	Shilajatu Rasayana alongside antiretroviral therapy in people with HIV. The Shilajit was processed with Amalaki, Guduchi and Mandukaparni.	Small study, multi-botanical processed preparation and outdated ART context. Can't isolate Shilajit.
Pattonder et al. 2011	Purified Shilajatu processed repeatedly with Agnimantha juice in obesity.	Single-arm study and substantial botanical processing.
Patel et al. 2012	Herbo-mineral diabetes formula containing Shilajatu, Guggulu, Vijayasara, Saptarangi and Triphala.	Multi-ingredient formula.
Singh et al. 2013	Shilajatu with Kutaki and Khadir in an obesity study.	Multiple active ingredients, plus lifestyle intervention in one arm.
Moghadari et al. 2018	Topical 20% mummy solution for pressure ulcers.	Topical treatment, not evidence for taking Shilajit orally.
Dhiman et al. 2021	Shilajeet Vati compared with another Ayurvedic preparation in a small prediabetes study.	Formulation equivalence is uncertain, with no placebo and very small groups.
Suman et al. 2025	Proprietary "Shilajit Capsule" in 20 men with sexual debility.	Open-label, uncontrolled and poorly generalisable.
Martinez et al. 2025	Chromium, Phyllanthus emblica and Shilajit-containing combinations during a diet and exercise programme.	Shilajit was one ingredient among several, so its effect can't be separated.

These studies shouldn't disappear from a comprehensive evidence review.

They also shouldn't be added to a marketing tally as nine more trials "proving Shilajit works".

Both approaches distort the evidence.

What about the newest Shilajit studies?

2026 TruBlk randomised trial

A larger randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of TruBlk Shilajit resin was posted to medRxiv in July 2026.

The study involved 100 resistance-trained men, with 99 completing the trial. Participants reportedly took 250 mg twice daily for 90 days, with greater improvements than placebo reported across several muscular-performance, recovery and hormonal measures.

This is potentially important because it's substantially stronger in design than the earlier 28-day open-label resin pilot.

But as of 3 September 2026, it's a preprint.

That means it hasn't completed conventional journal peer review.

The appropriate description is therefore:

Promising randomised evidence awaiting peer review.

Not:

Clinically proven.

If it passes peer review and the reported findings hold up, we'll update this article and our exercise performance review.

2026 myofascial pain preprint

An open-label pilot involving adults with myofascial pain was posted as a preprint in August 2026.

Participants received native Himalayan Shilajit as add-on therapy, and pain measures reportedly improved over time.

There was no control group.

Pain often changes over time and participants were receiving additional treatment, so improvement can't confidently be assigned to Shilajit.

It's a reason to conduct a controlled study, not evidence that Shilajit treats myofascial pain.

What isn't evidence for Shilajit benefits in humans?

Animal studies

Animal research can identify mechanisms, biological signals and hypotheses worth testing.

It can't tell us that the same effect occurs in people at normal supplemental doses.

A result in rats is a reason to run a human trial. It isn't a substitute for one.

Cell and laboratory studies

This includes some of the frequently cited work involving fulvic fractions, mitochondrial pathways, antioxidant activity and tau aggregation.

These studies can be scientifically useful.

They don't show that swallowing Shilajit produces the same effect inside a human body.

This distinction is particularly important for claims involving Alzheimer's disease, dementia, cancer and other serious conditions.

Reviews

Reviews are useful because they gather previous work.

They don't add new participants.

Five reviews discussing the same small testosterone trial don't become five testosterone trials.

Traditional use

Shilajit has a long history within Ayurvedic and other traditional systems.

That's historically important.

It isn't the same thing as modern clinical evidence.

Our article on what Shilajit is and its traditional use covers that history in more detail.

If you'd rather examine the most common stories one by one, see Shilajit Myths: What's True and What Isn't.

What do the human studies tell us about Shilajit dosage?

There isn't one clinically established Shilajit dose.

Different studies have used different preparations and amounts.

Modern controlled studies commonly cluster around 250 to 500 mg per day, although the literature ranges well outside that.

Examples include:

• 100 mg twice daily in the oligospermia study

• 250 mg twice daily in the testosterone study

• 250 or 500 mg/day in the Keller exercise study

• 250 or 500 mg/day in the postmenopausal bone study

• 500 or 1,000 mg/day in the collagen-biomarker study

• 1 g/day in the tibial-fracture study

• 2 g/day in some older studies

That doesn't mean the largest number is the best dose.

A milligram figure only makes sense in relation to the material being dosed.

Five hundred milligrams of one standardised extract isn't necessarily chemically equivalent to 500 mg of a different resin.

The studies therefore shouldn't be used as a universal dosing chart.

For practical guidance, see How to Take Shilajit: Dosage, Timing and Best Practice.

How long did human Shilajit studies last?

Most controlled studies have been relatively short.

Examples include:

• 28 days in the 2026 resin pilot

• 8 weeks in Keller's exercise trial

• 8 weeks in the collagen-biomarker study

• 90 days in the testosterone study

• 90 days in the oligospermia study

• 14 weeks in the women's skin study

• 48 weeks in the postmenopausal osteopenia trial

This matters for two reasons.

First, Shilajit hasn't generally been studied like caffeine, where you'd expect to evaluate an acute effect within hours.

Second, an eight or twelve-week study doesn't tell us what happens after several years of uninterrupted use.

We've looked specifically at study timelines in How Long Does Shilajit Take to Work?.

Is Shilajit safe according to human studies?

Across the human studies above, purified or otherwise prepared Shilajit was generally reported as reasonably well tolerated over the study periods used.

Several studies included liver, kidney, blood or general adverse-event monitoring.

That's reassuring, but it has limits.

The longest controlled oral study in the main table lasted 48 weeks.

We don't have comparable multi-year controlled evidence for continuous daily use.

Safety data from a purified study preparation also can't automatically be applied to an unknown consumer product.

With Shilajit, product safety and ingredient safety aren't exactly the same question.

A natural material collected from mineral-rich environments may require purification and testing for unwanted contaminants. Depending on the product and process, relevant concerns can include heavy metals, microorganisms, mycotoxins, PAHs and solvent residues.

That's why we put more weight on a finished-product laboratory report than claims such as "raw", "gold grade" or a particular altitude.

For the personal side of the question, including medication, pregnancy, breastfeeding and health conditions, read Is Shilajit Safe? Side Effects and Who Should Avoid It.

For the product side, see How to Read a Shilajit Lab Report.

Does Shilajit resin have human research?

Yes, but this needs context.

For years, much of the modern Shilajit research used purified or standardised extracts rather than the resin format consumers commonly buy.

That changed with the 2026 TruBlk work.

The published 28-day pilot studied a branded Shilajit resin at 500 mg/day.

A larger 90-day randomised placebo-controlled study of the same resin has also appeared as a preprint.

So it would now be incorrect to say that Shilajit resin has never been studied in humans.

What we can say is:

Human resin research remains limited and product-specific. A trial of TruBlk resin isn't automatically evidence for a different resin.

This is why understanding how Shilajit is extracted, filtered and processed matters when comparing products with studies.

How should you judge a Shilajit health claim?

Five questions usually expose whether the evidence matches the marketing.

1. Which human study supports the claim?

If the benefit can't be tied to something actually measured in people, it isn't supported by human evidence.

A mechanistic theory isn't a clinical result.

2. Was there a placebo or control group?

People can improve over time for many reasons.

Training improves performance.

Symptoms fluctuate.

Regression to the mean occurs.

Expectations affect subjective outcomes.

A before-and-after study can't separate those effects nearly as well as a randomised placebo-controlled trial.

3. What did researchers actually measure?

Don't silently translate one endpoint into another.

Increased testosterone isn't automatically increased libido.

A collagen biomarker isn't automatically a stronger tendon.

Gene expression isn't automatically faster recovery.

Bone mineral density isn't the same as fewer fractures.

Sperm count isn't the same as pregnancy.

Read the measured outcome, not the marketing translation.

4. Who was studied?

A result in healthy men aged 45 to 55 belongs first to healthy men aged 45 to 55.

A result in postmenopausal women with osteopenia belongs first to postmenopausal women with osteopenia.

A result in men with oligospermia belongs first to men with oligospermia.

Extrapolation may eventually prove reasonable.

It isn't evidence until somebody tests it.

5. Was the same type of Shilajit tested?

This is where many commercial claims become weakest.

A company can't simply point at a successful trial of PrimaVie and say its unrelated resin is "clinically proven".

Nor can we.

The study belongs to the material that was actually studied.

So, is Shilajit clinically proven?

Not as a single universal claim.

That's too broad.

There are individual Shilajit preparations with human trials showing statistically significant effects on particular outcomes in particular populations.

That's different from saying:

"Shilajit is clinically proven."

A more accurate statement would be:

Certain purified, standardised or otherwise defined Shilajit preparations have produced positive findings in human studies, but the evidence varies substantially by outcome, study quality, population and product.

That's a less exciting sentence.

It's also much closer to what the research actually says.

What are the most promising areas of Shilajit research?

Based on the human evidence currently available, several areas deserve further study.

Testosterone

One controlled study in healthy middle-aged men produced a clear hormonal signal, but replication is needed.

Male reproductive markers

The oligospermia study reported sizeable changes in semen measures, but the absence of a control group substantially limits confidence.

Exercise and fatigue

There are controlled and uncontrolled signals around muscular fatigue and performance, with a larger 2026 randomised resin preprint now adding to the picture.

Bone health

The postmenopausal osteopenia trial and tibial-fracture trial involve outcomes with greater clinical relevance than many supplement biomarker studies. Both need independent replication.

Women's health

The evidence base is no longer close to empty. Bone, skin and sexual-function studies exist, but they involve distinct populations and shouldn't be generalised into a universal "Shilajit for women" claim.

Skin and connective-tissue biology

Human studies have produced mechanistic and biomarker signals involving microperfusion, extracellular-matrix gene expression and collagen-related biomarkers. Clinical significance remains less certain.

Our position

We sell Shilajit.

We also think the category is better served by showing the evidence at its real size than by turning every positive p-value into a benefit claim.

The human literature is more substantial than many sceptical summaries suggest.

It's also much weaker and more conditional than a lot of Shilajit marketing suggests.

There are real randomised trials.

There are genuinely interesting findings.

There are studies in both men and women.

There are clinically relevant outcomes in the literature, not just laboratory theories.

But there are also small samples, short durations, uncontrolled studies, surrogate endpoints, commercial involvement, limited replication and major differences between the preparations being tested.

The fairest summary is this:

Shilajit has a real but still limited human evidence base. Some findings are genuinely promising. The evidence doesn't justify treating every Shilajit product as equivalent, and it doesn't support turning a collection of small, product-specific studies into a universal list of proven health benefits.

That distinction is the reason this evidence table exists.

You can explore the rest of our complete evidence-based Shilajit Guide, where we cover benefits, safety, dosage, composition, testing, sourcing, purification and the claims that deserve closer scrutiny.

Frequently asked questions about Shilajit studies

How many human studies are there on Shilajit?

In our search up to 3 September 2026, we located 16 published oral human studies where Shilajit could be interpreted reasonably directly, plus additional formulation studies, topical research, historical records, protocols and recent preprints.

The exact number depends on whether mixed Ayurvedic formulations and studies where Shilajit's effect can't be separated are counted as Shilajit trials.

Has Shilajit been studied in randomised controlled trials?

Yes.

Randomised controlled human studies have investigated Shilajit or Shilajit preparations in areas including testosterone, muscular fatigue, postmenopausal bone mineral density, tibial-fracture healing, female sexual function and several metabolic or vascular outcomes.

Study quality and replication vary considerably.

Does research prove that Shilajit increases testosterone?

One randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study found increased total testosterone, free testosterone and DHEAS after 90 days in healthy men aged 45 to 55 taking 250 mg of purified Shilajit twice daily.

That doesn't prove the same effect occurs in all men or with all Shilajit products.

Has Shilajit been studied in women?

Yes.

Human research in women includes a 48-week study of postmenopausal women with osteopenia, a study investigating skin microperfusion and gene expression, and a small randomised trial investigating female sexual function.

The evidence is still limited and population-specific.

What dose of Shilajit is used in human studies?

There's no single research-backed universal dose.

Many modern studies have used approximately 250 to 500 mg per day, although some have used lower or substantially higher amounts.

Dose can't be separated from preparation because different Shilajit products aren't necessarily chemically equivalent.

How long do Shilajit studies last?

Many human studies last around 8 to 13 weeks.

Some are shorter, including a 28-day resin pilot, while the longest controlled study in the main evidence table lasted 48 weeks.

There isn't strong multi-year evidence for continuous daily use.

Does a study of Shilajit extract apply to Shilajit resin?

Not automatically.

A trial establishes evidence for the preparation that researchers actually tested.

Standardised extracts and natural resins can differ in composition, processing and concentration.

Human resin research now exists, but it's still limited and product-specific.

Is Shilajit proven to treat disease?

No.

Current human research doesn't establish Shilajit as a treatment for conditions such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, infertility, osteoporosis, Alzheimer's disease or cancer.

Some studies investigate populations with particular conditions or measure relevant biomarkers, but that's not equivalent to proving a disease treatment.

References

1. Sharma P, Jha J, Shrinivas V, Dwivedi LK, Suresh P, Sinha M. Shilajit: evaluation of its effects on blood chemistry of normal human subjects. Ancient Science of Life. 2003;23(2):114-119.

2. Saxena N, et al. Modulation of oxidative and antioxidative status in diabetes by Asphaltum panjabinum. Diabetes Care. 2003;26(8):2469-2470. doi:10.2337/diacare.26.8.2469-a.

3. Biswas TK, Pandit S, Mondal S, et al. Clinical evaluation of spermatogenic activity of processed Shilajit in oligospermia. Andrologia. 2010;42(1):48-56. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0272.2009.00956.x.

4. Kumar S, Singh G, Pandey AK, Singh RH. A clinical study on the Naimittika Rasayana effect of Silajatu and Mamajjaka in type-2 Diabetes Mellitus. AYU. 2014;35(4):404-410. doi:10.4103/0974-8520.159000.

5. Niranjan K, Ramakanth GSH, Fatima N, Usharani P. Evaluation of the effect of purified aqueous extract of Shilajit in modifying cardiovascular risk with special reference to endothelial dysfunction in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. International Journal of Ayurveda and Pharma Research. 2016;4(4):1-7.

6. Pandit S, Biswas S, Jana U, De RK, Mukhopadhyay SC, Biswas TK. Clinical evaluation of purified Shilajit on testosterone levels in healthy volunteers. Andrologia. 2016;48(5):570-575. doi:10.1111/and.12482.

7. Das A, Datta S, Rhea B, et al. The human skeletal muscle transcriptome in response to oral Shilajit supplementation. Journal of Medicinal Food. 2016;19(7):701-709. doi:10.1089/jmf.2016.0010.

8. Gupta V, Keshari B, Tiwari S, Narasimha Murthy KHHVSS. A comparative study of Shilajatu and Asanadi Ghana Vati in the management of Madhumeha with reference to type-2 diabetes mellitus. AYU. 2016;37(2):120-124. doi:10.4103/ayu.AYU_211_15.

9. Keller JL, Housh TJ, Hill EC, Smith CM, Schmidt RJ, Johnson GO. The effects of Shilajit supplementation on fatigue-induced decreases in muscular strength and serum hydroxyproline levels. Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition. 2019;16:3. doi:10.1186/s12970-019-0270-2.

10. Das A, El Masry MS, Gnyawali SC, et al. Skin transcriptome of middle-aged women supplemented with natural herbo-mineral Shilajit shows induction of microvascular and extracellular matrix mechanisms. Journal of the American College of Nutrition. 2019;38(6):526-536. doi:10.1080/07315724.2018.1564088.

11. Sadeghi SMH, Hosseini Khameneh SM, Khodadoost M, et al. Efficacy of Momiai in tibia fracture repair: a randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled clinical trial. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. 2020;26(6):521-528. doi:10.1089/acm.2019.0453.

12. Pingali U, Nutalapati C. Shilajit extract reduces oxidative stress, inflammation, and bone loss to dose-dependently preserve bone mineral density in postmenopausal women with osteopenia: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Phytomedicine. 2022;105:154334. doi:10.1016/j.phymed.2022.154334.

13. Mosavi S, Tabarrai M, Tansaz M, et al. Effects of oral Shilajit tablets on sexual function and sexual quality of life among reproductive-aged women: a triple-blind randomized clinical trial. Traditional Medicine Research. 2023;8:66. doi:10.53388/TMR20230305002.

14. Patil SG, Patil KA, Sarashetti R, et al. Effect of purified Shilajit (Asphaltum punjabianum) on oxidative stress, arterial stiffness and endothelial function in elderly with hypertension: a randomised controlled study. Indian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology. 2023;67:197-204. doi:10.25259/IJPP_447_2022.

15. Neltner TJ, Sahoo PK, Smith RW, et al. Effects of 8 weeks of Shilajit supplementation on serum Pro-c1α1, a biomarker of type 1 collagen synthesis: a randomized control trial. Journal of Dietary Supplements. 2024;21(1):1-12. doi:10.1080/19390211.2022.2157522.

16. Yadav D, Mishra S, Shah KM, et al. Safety and efficacy of TruBlk Shilajit resin supplementation on physical performance and blood biomarkers in healthy adults: a 28-day open-label pilot study. Cureus. 2026;18(1):e102372. doi:10.7759/cureus.102372.

17. Gupta GD, Sujatha N, Dhanik A, Rai NP. Clinical evaluation of Shilajatu Rasayana in patients with HIV infection. AYU. 2010;31(1):28-32. doi:10.4103/0974-8520.68205.

18. Pattonder RK, Chandola HM, Vyas SN. Clinical efficacy of Shilajatu processed with Agnimantha in Sthaulya (obesity). AYU. 2011;32(4):526-531. doi:10.4103/0974-8520.96127.

19. Patel DV, Chandola H, Baghel MS, Joshi JR. Clinical efficacy of Shankhapushpi and a herbo-mineral compound in type-II diabetes. AYU. 2012;33(2):230-237. doi:10.4103/0974-8520.105243.

20. Singh B, Sujatha N, Sharma MC, Upadhyaya SD. Clinical evaluation of Shilajatu, Kutaki and Khadir in the management of Sthaulya (obesity). International Journal of Research in Ayurveda and Pharmacy. 2013;4(4):503-506. doi:10.7897/2277-4343.04408.

21. Moghadari M, Rezvanipour M, Mehrabani M, et al. Efficacy of mummy on healing of pressure ulcers: a randomized controlled clinical trial on hospitalized patients in intensive care unit. Electronic Physician. 2018;10(1):6140-6147. doi:10.19082/6140.

22. Dhiman E, Panda PK, Singh VC. A clinico-pathological study on Prameha Purvarupa and its management with Nisha-Amalaki Churna and Shilajeet Vati. International Research Journal of Ayurveda & Yoga. 2021;4(5):11-19. doi:10.47223/IRJAY.2021.4508.

23. Suman, et al. Open label single centric clinical exploratory efficacy study on Shilajit Capsule, an Ayurvedic proprietary formulation. International Journal of Medical and Exercise Science. 2025;11(1):2160-2178. doi:10.36678/IJMAES.2025.V11I01.008.

24. Martinez V, McAngus K, Dickerson BL, et al. Effects of 12 weeks of chromium, Phyllanthus emblica fruit extract, and Shilajit supplementation on markers of cardiometabolic health, fitness, and weight loss in men and women with risk factors to metabolic syndrome initiating an exercise and diet intervention: a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Nutrients. 2025;17(12):2042. doi:10.3390/nu17122042.

25. Yadav D, Gupta R, Chaudhary A, et al. TruBlk Shilajit resin supplementation improves muscle strength, endurance, and exercise recovery in males undertaking resistance training: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial. medRxiv. Posted July 2026. doi:10.64898/2026.07.27.26358996. Preprint, not peer reviewed as of 3 September 2026.

26. Analgesic efficacy of native Himalayan Shilajit as add-on therapy in myofascial pain syndrome: an exploratory pilot clinical trial. medRxiv. Posted August 2026. doi:10.64898/2026.07.24.26357716. Preprint, not peer reviewed as of 3 September 2026.

Written by

Written by Chris Simon, Founder of One Life Foods.

Chris has worked in the supplement industry since 2009 and has worked with Shilajit since 2017, with a focus on independent testing, analytical methods and responsible product sourcing.

Read more about Chris and the story behind One Life Foods.