Where the claim comes from
The “84 minerals” figure appears across product pages, social media and supplement blogs, usually without a citation. We have searched for a primary laboratory study establishing it and have not found one. Scientific reviews describe shilajit’s mineral content in general terms, as part of a complex organic-mineral mixture,[3] not as a fixed number of minerals. A figure repeated widely without a source is a sign of marketing copy travelling from page to page.
Why an element count is the wrong measure
| What matters | Does a count show it? |
|---|---|
| How much of each element | No |
| Whether toxic metals are present | No; a long list almost certainly includes them |
| Whether levels are within legal limits | No |
| Nutritional value per serving | No |
A sensitive instrument such as ICP-MS can detect dozens of elements at trace levels in almost any natural material. Detection isn’t the same as a meaningful amount; see ICP-MS explained and detection limits.
The elements the claim leaves out
Shilajit binds elements from the rock it forms in, so any long list would include unwanted ones. A 2025 study measured thallium in natural shilajit and in commercial supplements.[1] Lead, cadmium, mercury and arsenic are the standard concerns, and GB law sets maximum levels for lead (3.0 mg/kg), cadmium (1.0 mg/kg) and mercury (0.1 mg/kg) in supplements.[2] A marketing claim that celebrates the number of elements turns a safety question into a selling point. See heavy metals in shilajit.
Is shilajit a meaningful mineral source?
No. A serving of a few hundred milligrams can only supply tiny amounts of any one mineral, and the amounts vary by source. Shilajit is not a substitute for a varied diet or a mineral supplement with declared amounts; see minerals and trace elements and iron levels and anaemia.
Our verdict
The “84” figure lacks a primary source we could find, and a count of elements is the wrong way to judge shilajit. Ask for amounts, and above all for metals results against GB limits.
What to ask instead
- Which elements were measured?And by which method?
- At what levels?Numbers with units and detection limits.
- Are lead, cadmium, mercury and arsenic within limits?For the batch you are buying.
See mineral profile testing and how to read a COA.
The bottom line
The “84 minerals” claim turns a safety question into a selling point. A count of elements says nothing about amounts and would include toxic metals. Ignore the number, ask for measured levels with units, and check lead, cadmium, mercury and arsenic results against GB limits for the batch you buy. That is the mineral information that actually helps you.
Why the number keeps being repeated
Specific numbers sound scientific, and once a figure appears on a few popular pages it gets copied into new listings without anyone checking the source. That pattern also affects other shilajit claims, such as altitude figures; see altitude claims.
What a better mineral claim would look like
An informative mineral claim would list a handful of measured elements per serving, with units, the test method and the batch number, alongside the results for lead, cadmium, mercury and arsenic. For example: “per 300 mg serving: iron X µg, magnesium Y µg; lead below the GB limit; batch report linked.” That gives you something to check and compare. Few products do this, which is exactly why a bare count of “84 minerals” is used instead: it is easier to print and impossible to verify.
The element that rarely appears on lists
Thallium is a toxic element that standard consumer panels usually don’t test. A 2025 study measured it in shilajit and in commercial supplements,[1] which is a useful reminder that a mineral list celebrates what was found while saying nothing about what wasn’t looked for.
What research actually measures
Scientific studies of shilajit report element concentrations for specific samples, often to assess safety rather than nutrition. They show wide variation between sources, which is the opposite of a fixed universal mineral count.[1]
Frequently asked questions
Does shilajit really contain 84 minerals?
We have not found a primary laboratory study establishing that figure, and a count says nothing about amounts.
Where does the 84 minerals claim come from?
It is widely repeated in marketing without citations. Scientific reviews describe shilajit’s minerals generally, not as a fixed number.[3]
Is a long mineral list a good sign?
Not necessarily. A long list would include toxic metals such as lead and thallium.[1]
Is shilajit a good source of minerals?
No. Amounts per serving are small and variable.
What mineral information should a good brand show?
Measured levels with units for key elements, especially lead, cadmium, mercury and arsenic, on a batch report.
Are 84-mineral claims allowed in the UK?
What are the UK limits for metals in supplements?
Lead 3.0, cadmium 1.0 and mercury 0.1 mg/kg as sold.[2]
Is “over 80 minerals” any different from “84 minerals”?
No. Any count of elements has the same problem: it says nothing about amounts and would include toxic metals.
Sources & further reading
Primary research, regulators and standards bodies are cited first. A source being listed here does not mean it supports every claim made by sellers; it supports the specific statement it is attached to.
- Quantifying of thallium in Shilajit and its supplements to unveil the potential risk of consumption of this popular traditional medicine. BMC Chemistry 19:20, 2025. doi:10.1186/s13065-025-01384-7. View source (opens in a new tab) [Laboratory analysis]
- European Commission (UK version on legislation.gov.uk). Commission Regulation (EC) No 629/2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs. legislation.gov.uk, 2008. View source (opens in a new tab) [UK legislation (retained)]
- Agarwal SP, et al.. Shilajit: a review. Phytotherapy Research 21(5):401–405, 2007. doi:10.1002/ptr.2100; PMID 17295385. View source (opens in a new tab) [Review]
- Department of Health and Social Care. Great Britain nutrition and health claims (NHC) register. GOV.UK. View source (opens in a new tab) [Official register]
- Committee of Advertising Practice. UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising (CAP Code), Section 15: Food, food supplements and associated health or nutritional claims. asa.org.uk. View source (opens in a new tab) [Advertising code]