Shilajit, Fulvic & Humic — What’s Actually the Difference?

Here's another rabbit hole I didn't realise I was going to end up down.

I knew about shilajit. I'd used shilajit.

Then I started looking at fulvic and humic mineral products and thought...

Hang on. Aren't these basically the same thing?

Well — yes and no.

You'll often see the words shilajit, fulvic acid, humic acid and humic minerals thrown around as though they're interchangeable.

They're related, but they're definitely not identical.

So let's make this considerably less complicated.

First — what are humic substances?

Humic substances are complex mixtures of naturally occurring organic material associated with the long-term transformation and decomposition of plant and microbial matter.

Traditionally, scientists have separated these substances into different fractions according to their chemical behaviour and solubility.

Two you'll hear about most often are:

Fulvic acid

and

Humic acid.

Think of humic substances as the broader family, with fulvic and humic acids representing different fractions within that family.

So what is fulvic acid?

Fulvic acid is traditionally defined as the humic fraction that remains soluble across the pH range.

In simple terms, it generally consists of smaller, more soluble organic components than the fraction traditionally classified as humic acid.

This is partly why fulvic acid has become such a popular ingredient in mineral supplements.

You'll see it promoted for nutrient transport, mineral availability, gut health, antioxidant activity, energy, detoxification and all sorts of other things.

And this is where I think we need to separate interesting biology from established human evidence.

Fulvic substances have genuinely interesting chemical properties, and laboratory and animal research has investigated a number of potential biological effects.

But that doesn't mean every claim printed on a fulvic supplement has been demonstrated in good-quality human clinical trials.

That's an important distinction.

Interesting research isn't the same thing as proof.

And what is humic acid?

Humic acid is another fraction traditionally grouped within humic substances.

It behaves differently chemically from fulvic acid and is generally associated with larger, more complex components. Unlike fulvic acid, its traditional definition is based partly on becoming insoluble under acidic conditions.

That's why you'll sometimes see products containing both fulvic and humic substances.

They aren't simply two different names for exactly the same ingredient.

Then where does shilajit fit in?

This is where it gets interesting.

Shilajit isn't simply another name for fulvic acid.

Shilajit is a naturally occurring dark, resinous material found in mountainous rock formations, particularly across regions of Asia.

It has a very long history of use in traditional medicine, particularly Ayurveda, where it has traditionally been regarded as a rasayana or rejuvenating substance.

Modern chemical analysis shows that shilajit is complicated.

It contains humic substances — including fulvic components — alongside minerals, organic acids, amino acids and numerous other compounds.

And its composition isn't identical everywhere.

Where it originates, the surrounding geology and plant material, environmental conditions and processing can all influence what ultimately ends up in the material.

So although shilajit may contain fulvic and humic substances:

Fulvic acid isn't automatically shilajit.

And a bottle of fulvic/humic minerals isn't simply liquid shilajit under another name.

The easiest way I remember it:

Humic substances = the broader family.

Fulvic acid = one fraction traditionally separated from that family.

Humic acid = another fraction.

Shilajit = a complex natural material that contains humic substances plus many other constituents.

Suddenly it makes considerably more sense.

Shilajit isn't just a bottle of minerals

This was another misconception I had.

You'll often see shilajit advertised with impressive statements about the number of minerals it contains, which can make it sound like some sort of ancient naturally occurring multivitamin.

That's an oversimplification.

Research examining shilajit from different geographical regions has found substantial variation in its composition.

Its organic components are an important part of what makes shilajit shilajit.

So two products with SHILAJIT written across the front aren't necessarily equivalent.

One may be a purified resin.

Another may be an extract.

Their concentrations can differ.

Their geographical sources can differ.

And their contaminant profiles can differ.

Which brings me to something I now think matters far more than an impressive label.

Source and testing matter

Natural doesn't automatically mean clean.

And I say that as somebody who loves natural products.

Shilajit and humic substances originate in complex natural environments involving soil, rock and organic matter.

Those environments contain naturally occurring minerals and metals — and depending upon the source, potentially unwanted contaminants as well.

So when I'm looking at one of these products now, I want to know:

Where did it come from?

Has the raw material been purified?

Has the finished product actually been tested?

Has it been screened for lead, arsenic, cadmium and mercury?

What about microbiological contamination?

Does the company provide a Certificate of Analysis or meaningful testing information?

And if the label gives me a particular fulvic or humic percentage, how was that determined?

Independent supplement testing has found meaningful differences between commercial shilajit products, which reinforces something I keep coming back to:

The quality of the product matters just as much as the name of the ingredient.

A beautiful label telling me something is ancient, pure, Himalayan, mineral-rich or natural isn't enough for me anymore.

Show me what's actually in the bottle.

But does shilajit actually do anything?

This is where the conversation gets much more interesting — and much less black and white.

Shilajit has been used traditionally for a very long time, and modern researchers have investigated a range of possible biological effects.

There is laboratory and animal research exploring antioxidant, inflammatory, metabolic, neurological and other mechanisms.

There are also some human studies.

For example, one randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study investigated purified shilajit in healthy men aged 45–55. After 90 days, researchers reported increases in total testosterone, free testosterone and DHEAS compared with placebo.

That's interesting.

But one clinical trial doesn't establish that every shilajit product will produce that result in everybody.

The preparation matters.

The dose matters.

The population being studied matters.

And replication matters.

An earlier critical review of traditional shilajit research also concluded that, despite its long history of use, many of its claimed biological effects still lacked strong scientific evaluation.

I actually appreciate research like that.

I don't want someone simply telling me something works.

I want researchers asking:

Does it really?

Traditional knowledge still deserves a seat at the table

I also don't believe thousands of years of traditional use should simply be dismissed because something hasn't yet accumulated dozens of modern randomised controlled trials.

Traditional medical systems can give us valuable clues about plants, foods and natural substances worth investigating.

Shilajit is a perfect example.

Its history in Ayurveda is part of its story.

But I think we can respect traditional knowledge without pretending traditional use and modern clinical proof are the same thing.

They're different kinds of information.

Traditional use can tell us:

Humans have used this substance in this way for generations.

Modern research can then ask:

What's in it?

How might it work?

Does the proposed effect occur under controlled conditions?

At what dose?

For whom?

And what are the risks?

To me, those approaches don't need to be enemies.

They can inform each other.

What about fulvic acid research?

Fulvic acid has attracted considerable scientific interest too.

Researchers have investigated its chemical, antioxidant, immune, inflammatory and metabolic properties, among others.

But again, much of this field remains preclinical — meaning laboratory or animal research rather than large human clinical trials.

That doesn't make the research worthless.

It simply tells us what stage the evidence is at.

This is something I've become increasingly conscious of when reading health information.

A cell study can tell us something fascinating about a possible mechanism.

An animal study can tell us whether that mechanism might operate in a living system.

A human observational study can identify associations.

A controlled human trial can help determine whether an intervention actually produces a measurable effect.

And even then, one trial isn't necessarily the final word.

Each piece adds something to the puzzle.

Should you take fulvic, humic AND shilajit?

This was actually one of my questions.

If they're different, should we be taking all of them?

Not necessarily.

More isn't automatically better, and there's potentially considerable overlap between these products.

A fulvic/humic product may already provide both fractions.

Shilajit naturally contains humic substances as part of its much more complicated composition.

So rather than thinking:

Shilajit is good.

Fulvic is good.

Humic is good.

Therefore I need all three every day...

I'd rather ask:

What am I actually trying to achieve, and what does each product add?

Sometimes rotating products may suit someone.

Sometimes choosing one quality product makes more sense.

And sometimes we probably don't need another supplement at all.

Yes, I said it. 😂

How I approach the research

One other thing has changed enormously for me during my own health journey.

I don't rely on one source of information anymore.

I read published research.

I read reviews.

I look at human trials where they're available.

I look at laboratory research when human research hasn't caught up yet.

I'm interested in traditional use.

I look at independent product testing.

And I pay attention to conflicts of interest, funding, study design, sample size and whether other researchers have been able to reproduce the findings.

I don't automatically believe something because it's published.

And I don't automatically dismiss something because it sits outside conventional medicine either.

Science isn't a collection of unquestionable facts handed down to us.

It's a process of asking questions, testing ideas, challenging results and continually refining what we think we know.

That's the approach I want to take here in the CYD Journal.

Curious.

Open-minded.

But still willing to ask for evidence.

My biggest takeaway

The biggest thing I've learnt from digging into these products is that the name on the front of the bottle tells you surprisingly little.

“Fulvic.”

“Humic.”

“Shilajit.”

They're not guarantees of quality.

Source matters.

Processing matters.

Purification matters.

Testing matters.

And the actual composition of the finished product matters.

I'm still fascinated by shilajit and humic substances, and I'll continue following the research around them.

But as with so many things I've investigated during my own health journey, I've become much less interested in extravagant promises and much more interested in asking better questions.

What exactly is it?

Where did it come from?

What's actually in it?

Has it been tested?

What evidence supports what I'm being told?

And what don't we know yet?

Because natural and ancient might sound wonderful on a label.

But I'd still like to see the receipts.

Sources & further reading

International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) — Gold Book: Fulvic Acid
A useful chemistry reference for understanding the scientific definition and solubility characteristics of fulvic acid.

https://goldbook.iupac.org/terms/view/14703?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Mirzaei et al. — “A Comprehensive Review on Shilajit: What We Know about Its Chemical Composition” — Critical Reviews in Analytical Chemistry
A modern review examining what is actually known about the composition of shilajit, including humic substances, minerals and the considerable variation between sources.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408347.2023.2293963?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Wilson et al. — “Review on Shilajit Used in Traditional Indian Medicine” — Journal of Ethnopharmacology
Particularly useful because it looks at both shilajit's long traditional history and the limitations of the scientific evidence supporting some of its proposed biological effects.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S037887411100273X?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Pandit et al. — “Clinical Evaluation of Purified Shilajit on Testosterone Levels in Healthy Volunteers” — Andrologia
A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled human trial investigating purified shilajit in healthy men aged 45–55.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26395129/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Winkler & Ghosh — “Therapeutic Potential of Fulvic Acid in Chronic Inflammatory Diseases and Diabetes” — Journal of Diabetes Research
A review exploring fulvic acid research and, importantly, illustrating how much of the evidence base remains laboratory or animal research rather than established human clinical evidence.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1155/2018/5391014?utm_source=chatgpt.com

ConsumerLab — Shilajit Supplements Review
Independent consumer-focused testing and analysis of commercial shilajit products, including differences in composition and contaminant testing. Some of ConsumerLab's detailed results require membership.

https://www.consumerlab.com/reviews/shilajit/shilajit-supplements/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

This article shares my own learning and experience and is provided for general information only. It isn't medical advice or a recommendation that everyone should use shilajit, fulvic or humic products. Research in these areas is continuing and evidence for individual health effects varies considerably. Supplements may interact with medications and may not be appropriate for everyone. If you have a medical condition, are pregnant or breastfeeding, or take medication, discuss supplementation with an appropriately qualified healthcare professional.