What the claim implies
“Used for 3,000 years” does two jobs in marketing. It suggests safety (“people have used it forever”) and it suggests effectiveness (“it wouldn’t have lasted otherwise”). Both inferences feel reasonable, but neither follows from the history itself. This article checks the claim; the history in full is in a short history of shilajit and history and traditional use.
What the historical record actually shows
| Tradition | What is documented |
|---|---|
| Ayurveda | Classed as a rasayana; 20 classical formulations and 24 proprietary products counted in a 2011 review[1] |
| Classical purification | Herbal decoction methods described in classical practice[4] |
| Persian medicine | Described as moomiaii by Avicenna, Razi and later physicians[2] |
| Scientific reviews | Describe use “for thousands of years”, without a precise start date[3] |
So the broad claim of very long use is supported. The precise number is the weak point: we have not seen a dated source that fixes shilajit’s first use at 3,000 years ago, and different brands quote different figures, from “centuries” to “5,000 years”.
Three gaps between tradition and today’s jar
- Different preparationTraditional shilajit was purified with herbal decoctions and often combined with other ingredients;[4][1] modern resin is usually water-extracted and taken alone.
- Different purposeTraditional uses, such as rejuvenation or bone pain, are framed within traditional medical systems, not modern diagnoses.
- No dose or effect dataLong use doesn’t record how much helped whom, or by how much.
Does long use mean shilajit is safe?
Not by itself. Traditional use tends to reveal obvious, immediate harms, but it isn’t designed to detect uncommon or long-term effects, and it says nothing about contamination in a modern product made from a different source. Contaminants such as metals depend on the rock each batch came from, which is why batch testing matters regardless of heritage.[5] See why “natural” doesn’t automatically mean safe and Is shilajit safe?
Our verdict
Long traditional use is real and documented. The specific “3,000 years” is rarely sourced, and no length of use proves an effect or guarantees safety for a modern product.
Heritage claims and UK rules
Describing history is fine. Turning history into a health promise isn’t: health claims in UK marketing must be authorised on the GB nutrition and health claims register.[6][7] “Used for 3,000 years to boost vitality” combines a heritage statement with a health claim. See what sellers can and can’t claim and separating traditional use from clinical evidence.
The bottom line
Shilajit’s long traditional history is real and worth respecting, and it helps explain why researchers chose to study it. But history isn’t a clinical trial. When you see “used for 3,000 years”, read it as heritage, then look for two things the history can’t provide: human evidence for the specific effect you care about, and a batch laboratory report for the product you are buying.
How shilajit is used in Ayurveda today
Shilajit isn’t only historical. It remains part of Ayurvedic practice, appearing in classical formulations and in proprietary products sold today.[1] In that setting, it is typically prescribed by a practitioner, purified by traditional methods and combined with other ingredients for an individual. That context is very different from a UK consumer buying a jar online and taking it alone at a label serving. When a brand borrows Ayurvedic heritage, it is worth asking whether the product actually follows any Ayurvedic preparation, or simply uses the history as branding.
Tradition as a research agenda
Traditional use has real scientific value: it points researchers towards questions worth testing. Several modern shilajit trials investigated themes with traditional roots, such as male vitality and bone health.[8][9] That is the right relationship between tradition and evidence. History suggests the question; controlled trials answer it. Where trials haven’t been done, the honest position is “traditionally used for X; not yet tested”, not “used for 3,000 years, so it works”. Our evidence gaps page lists traditional uses that still lack human trials.
How to read heritage claims on a label
When you see a heritage claim, separate it into two parts: the history, which may be accurate, and any promise attached to it, which needs evidence. “Traditionally used in Ayurveda” is a fair historical statement. “Used for 3,000 years to restore vitality” adds a health promise that the history can’t support. The same habit works for other traditional supplements too, and it keeps the respect for tradition without the overclaiming.
Frequently asked questions
Has shilajit really been used for 3,000 years?
Does long traditional use prove shilajit works?
No. It shows shilajit was valued. Whether it works is answered by controlled human trials, which are few and small.
Is shilajit safe because it has been used for so long?
Not automatically. Traditional use doesn’t detect uncommon or long-term effects, and contaminants depend on each batch.[5]
Why do brands quote different numbers of years?
Because there is no agreed date. Figures range from “centuries” to “5,000 years”, which is a sign they aren’t precise.
Was traditional shilajit the same as today’s resin?
No. Classical preparation used herbal decoctions and combinations;[4] modern resin is usually water-extracted and taken alone.
Can sellers use heritage claims in the UK?
Where can I read the evidence instead?
See evidence by topic.
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.
- Wilson E, Rajamanickam GV, Dubey GP, et al.. Review on shilajit used in traditional Indian medicine. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 136(1):1–9, 2011. doi:10.1016/j.jep.2011.04.033; PMID 21530631. View source (opens in a new tab) [Review]
- Shahriari M, Zare F, Nimrouzi M. The curative role of bitumen in traditional Persian medicine. Acta medico-historica Adriatica 16(2):283–292, 2018. doi:10.31952/amha.16.2.6. View source (opens in a new tab) [Historical review]
- 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]
- Quazi et al.. Shilajit review: "A powerful molecule of Ayurveda science". Pharmacognosy Research 15(3):455, 2023. View source (opens in a new tab) [Review]
- 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]
- 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]
- Pandit S, Biswas S, Jana U, De RK, Mukhopadhyay SC, Biswas TK. Clinical evaluation of purified Shilajit on testosterone levels in healthy volunteers. Andrologia 48(5):570–575, 2016. PMID 26395129. View source (opens in a new tab) [Randomised controlled trial]
- 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 105:154334, 2022. doi:10.1016/j.phymed.2022.154334; PMID 35933897. View source (opens in a new tab) [Randomised controlled trial]