Most supplement brands tell you their shilajit contains "85+ minerals." It's a number that gets repeated across dozens of product pages, and it's rarely supported by anything more specific than a generic claim attached to a stock image. The figure usually traces back to traditional Ayurvedic texts or generalized statements about the geological composition of mountain rock, not a specific analysis of the product actually being sold. We've never seen a brand publish the actual panel behind that number, show the result for each mineral, explain what it means in context, and be honest about what a typical daily serving actually contributes.
This post is that panel. Our current batch, lot 02.00600, sourced from the Kosh-Agach district of the Altai Mountains and tested through a full technical specification analysis, came back with a detailed breakdown across minerals and trace elements, vitamins, and amino acids. We're going to walk through the significant numbers, put them in honest context, and be straight about what a panel like this actually tells you about the material versus what it doesn't. Some of the numbers are genuinely impressive. Some are trace amounts that matter more as markers of authentic origin than as dietary contributors. Both kinds deserve the same honest treatment.
Why this data exists and what it's actually for
Before getting into the numbers, it's worth explaining what a mineral panel on shilajit is doing. It's not primarily a nutritional facts panel the way you'd read the back of a multivitamin. Shilajit is taken in small amounts, typically between 250 and 500 milligrams per day, and the minerals in it are present in the kind of concentrations that matter more as a fingerprint of authentic geological origin than as standalone supplemental doses.
When a batch of shilajit comes back with potassium at 42,300 milligrams per kilogram and calcium at 24,800, those are real, measured numbers from the material. But translated to a 500 milligram serving, potassium becomes roughly 21 milligrams and calcium becomes about 12 milligrams, modest amounts that aren't going to replace your electrolytes on their own. The daily requirement for potassium is somewhere between 3,500 and 4,700 milligrams; shilajit is contributing less than one percent of that. The mineral richness of shilajit matters not because a single daily dose significantly covers your mineral requirements the way a dedicated supplement would, but because the complexity and variety of the mineral profile is part of what distinguishes genuine, properly sourced material from adulterated or synthetic products, and because the fulvic acid that makes up 72 percent of our batch appears to function partly as a delivery mechanism for minerals from dietary and supplemental sources more broadly.
That's a meaningfully different story than "85+ minerals," but it's the accurate one, and it's the one this panel actually supports rather than contradicts. The per-serving math and the authenticity argument are two separate things, and conflating them is how this category ends up with marketing that sounds impressive and means less than it implies.
How to read these numbers in context
The mg/kg figures in a panel like this are the format laboratories use to report concentrations in bulk material, and they can look impressive without that context. Before treating any single number as a reason to expect a specific outcome from taking shilajit, it helps to run the serving-size math and compare it to what your body actually needs.
The daily recommended intake of potassium for an adult is around 3,500 to 4,700 milligrams. At 42,300 mg/kg in the material and a 500mg daily serving, shilajit contributes about 21 milligrams. That's less than one percent of your daily need. Calcium needs sit around 1,000 milligrams daily for most adults; shilajit contributes roughly 12 milligrams at a 500mg serving. Magnesium's recommended intake is 300 to 400 milligrams; shilajit provides under 1 milligram per serving from this panel.
None of that makes the numbers on the panel meaningless. It makes them mean something different from what "rich in minerals" usually implies in a marketing context. What the mineral complexity tells you is that this material is what it claims to be, formed the way shilajit is formed, over a long time, in the kind of environment that produces exactly this elemental profile. That's an authenticity argument, not a supplemental dosing argument, and the two things shouldn't be conflated.
The one place where the per-serving contribution does approach meaningful territory is in the B vitamins, particularly B5 and folate. Those are worth understanding at a more granular level, which is what the vitamin section below covers.
The mineral panel: what's here and what it means
The macrominerals present in meaningful amounts. Potassium leads the panel at 42,300 mg/kg, calcium at 24,800, magnesium at 1,958, and sodium at 1,478. Phosphorus tested at 900 mg/kg. These are the major minerals your body uses in largest quantities, and their presence in this profile reflects the plant matter origin of the material: plants concentrate potassium heavily, and calcium is abundant in many geological environments where shilajit forms. Per serving these don't move the needle on your daily requirements in any significant way, but their presence confirms the organic complexity you'd expect from genuine material rather than something synthesized or heavily processed.
Iron and manganese. Iron came back at 240 mg/kg, manganese at 40 mg/kg. At 500 milligrams of product, that works out to 0.12 mg of iron and 0.02 mg of manganese per serving, so this isn't a meaningful iron source in the way a dedicated iron supplement would be. The presence of both, in the ratio they appear here, is consistent with the geological iron-rich environments where high-altitude shilajit tends to form.
Boron. Boron came in at 48 mg/kg, which translates to 0.024 mg per 500mg serving, a trace amount but one that's consistent with the boron levels you'd expect from a mineral-rich geological source. Boron has generated some genuine research interest around bone metabolism and testosterone-related hormone pathways, though the amount present here per serving isn't the kind of intake being studied in that research. Worth noting because it appears in the panel, worth being honest that the per-serving amount is trace.
Trace elements present in smaller concentrations. Zinc came back at 11.5 mg/kg, copper at 6.84, nickel at 1.07, selenium at 1.20, cobalt at 0.69, lithium at 3.25, vanadium at 0.41, molybdenum at 1.23, barium at 5.00, lanthanum at 0.17, aluminum at 230, and silver at 0.18. Several of these, particularly chromium, tungsten, bismuth, beryllium, tin, thallium, tellurium, and titanium, came back below the detection threshold at less than 0.1 or less than 5 mg/kg. The breadth of this trace element profile is itself a marker of authentic geological origin: this is what a substance formed over centuries in mineral-rich mountain rock actually looks like at a chemical level.
Aluminum at 230 mg/kg sometimes raises questions, so worth addressing directly: aluminum is among the most abundant elements in earth's crust and shows up in virtually all geological materials and in many plant-based foods. The level here is well within what's considered normal for geological and plant-derived substances, and the safety concerns around aluminum are generally associated with far higher chronic exposures from industrial sources, not from trace amounts in mineral supplements.
The fulvic and humic acid context
Understanding what the mineral panel means requires understanding what fulvic acid is doing, since these two things aren't separate stories.
Fulvic acid is a product of the same long-term organic decomposition process that creates shilajit. At the molecular level, it's a relatively small, water-soluble organic compound with a high density of oxygen-containing functional groups, which makes it chemically active and capable of binding to mineral ions. This binding capacity is the basis for the "mineral carrier" mechanism often attributed to fulvic acid: by binding to a mineral, fulvic acid may change how readily that mineral crosses cell membranes compared to the free ionic form.
The proposed mechanism is plausible and has some in vitro support, meaning research done in cell cultures rather than in living human subjects. What it doesn't yet have is robust, large-scale human clinical trial evidence demonstrating that taking fulvic acid at the concentrations present in a daily shilajit serving meaningfully improves the absorption of dietary minerals in people eating a varied diet. That's an honest statement of where the science actually is, not a reason to dismiss the concept. It's a genuinely interesting mechanistic hypothesis with supporting plausibility, in the early stages of the kind of evidence you'd need to confidently make it a clinical claim.
If that mechanism holds in practice, it means the value of the mineral content in shilajit isn't simply in the absolute amount of each mineral it provides per serving. It means the 72 percent fulvic acid in our batch may enhance the cellular availability of minerals from other dietary and supplemental sources taken alongside it. That's a more interesting story than "we have 85 minerals," and it's one that's better supported mechanistically, though it needs more robust human clinical evidence before it can be stated as a clinical fact with confidence.
Our batch: fulvic acid at 72 percent, humic acid at 8.3 percent. Those are the primary active fractions of the material, and they're the numbers that tell you the most about whether what's in the jar is functionally similar to what the research has actually been done on.
The vitamin profile: honest about what's here
The vitamin analysis on our batch shows a genuinely interesting picture, and an honest one requires saying clearly what's present versus what's present in amounts that would meaningfully contribute to daily intake at a typical serving size.
Vitamin B3 came back at 4.5 grams per kilogram, and vitamin B5 at 9.7 grams per kilogram. Those are the standout numbers in the vitamin panel, and they reflect the niacin and pantothenic acid content that accumulates in decomposed plant material over time, both of which are synthesized by the microorganisms involved in the decomposition process itself. B vitamins are synthesized by plants and microorganisms and are among the more stable water-soluble nutrients, which is why they persist in organic matter even through long decomposition processes. At 500 milligrams of shilajit per day, B3 contributes roughly 2.25 milligrams and B5 roughly 4.85 milligrams. The recommended daily intake for B3 is around 16 milligrams for adult men, and for B5 around 5 milligrams. So B5 from shilajit at a full 500mg dose is getting close to a meaningful standalone contribution, while B3 represents a partial supplement to dietary intake rather than a standalone source. Neither is a reason to skip a dedicated B-complex if that's something you're managing, but B5 specifically earning a mention as a real dietary contributor from a daily shilajit serving is an honest observation.
Vitamin Bc, the common name for folate, tested at 1.8 grams per kilogram. That translates to 0.9 milligrams per 500mg serving, which is actually a notable amount relative to the daily recommended intake of 0.4 milligrams for most adults. Folate is well known for its role in cell division and DNA synthesis, and its presence here at a level that contributes meaningfully per serving is one of the more interesting findings in the vitamin section. The important caveat: naturally occurring folate from food sources has different bioavailability characteristics than synthetic folic acid, and the clinical relevance of this specific level in shilajit hasn't been formally studied. The number is interesting. The jump from "interesting" to "clinically proven benefit" requires research that hasn't been done yet.
Vitamin E came back at 10.20 milligrams per kilogram, which at 500 milligrams of shilajit translates to about 0.005 milligrams per serving, a genuinely trace amount. Vitamin A at 0.62 milligrams per kilogram similarly contributes a trace amount per serving. Vitamin D3 came back below the detection threshold at less than 0.1 milligrams per kilogram.
B1 and B2 both came back below 0.5 grams per kilogram, and B6 below 1 gram per kilogram. These are present but at levels that contribute very modestly to daily intake.
The overall picture on vitamins: a few genuinely interesting numbers, particularly B5 and folate, some modest contributions from B3, and a range of trace amounts that confirm the organic complexity of the material without being clinically transformative on their own. This is how the vitamin content of shilajit should be talked about, specifically rather than as a vague "rich in vitamins" claim that could mean anything.
The amino acid profile: where it gets interesting
Shilajit contains amino acids because it's formed from the long-term decomposition of plant matter, and amino acids are the nitrogen-containing building blocks of protein that persist in that process. The amino acid profile on our batch is one of the more revealing parts of the full panel, and it tells a story about where this material came from.
Alanine leads the panel at 800.5 milligrams per 100 grams. Tyrosine at 720.50 mg/100g. Proline at 620.10. Cystine at 350.72. Glycine at 330.45. These five amino acids dominating the profile is consistent with the kinds of plant matter that typically contributes to shilajit formation, and with the structural proteins that remain after organic decomposition over geological timescales. In particular, the relatively high glycine and proline content echoes the amino acid profile of connective tissue proteins like collagen, which is a product of both animals and plants using similar structural amino acid sequences in fibrous tissues. The dominance of non-essential amino acids over essential ones in this profile is also consistent with what you'd expect from aged, decomposed plant material where labile amino acids like tryptophan and methionine degrade more readily than structurally stable ones like proline and alanine.
The essential amino acids are present in smaller but measurable concentrations. Valine at 200.34, serine at 200.67, arginine at 250.22, threonine at 85.00, leucine at 93.47, histidine at 95.82, tryptophan at 98.05, lysine at 80.3, isoleucine at 35.40, methionine at 33.98, phenylalanine at 22.48.
The comparison worth making explicitly: a product made entirely from inorganic minerals and synthetic compounds cannot produce an amino acid profile like this. The pattern here, including which amino acids are elevated and which are lower, reflects something that was once organic matter that underwent decomposition. It's a geological signature as much as a nutritional fact. A lab analyzing an adulterated or synthetic product would not find these specific amino acids in these specific ratios, which is part of why the amino acid section of a shilajit panel is as relevant to the authenticity question as the fulvic acid percentage.
Here's the honest per-serving math: at 500 milligrams of shilajit per day, even alanine at the highest concentration contributes about 4 milligrams per serving. Shilajit is not a meaningful protein source by any standard.
What the radionuclide result says
The batch was also screened for strontium-specific activity, coming back at less than 3 becquerels per kilogram. Radionuclide testing isn't standard practice for shilajit sold in the American market, and we include it specifically because our material comes from the Russian Altai region, where confirming that radioactivity is at safe levels is the right thing to verify rather than assume. The Chernobyl disaster in 1986 deposited radioactive material across parts of the Soviet Union, and while the Altai region is geographically distant from the affected areas and the levels detected here are well within safe ranges by any international reference standard, running the test is what responsible sourcing from that region requires. Under 3 becquerels per kilogram is comfortably below any threshold of concern. The fact that this test was run at all is as meaningful as the result itself, since it reflects a decision to ask the question rather than leave it unasked because the answer probably wouldn't cause a problem anyway.
What a panel like this actually tells you
Stepping back from the individual numbers: the significance of a batch analysis this complete is primarily in what it proves about the material's authenticity and sourcing quality, and secondarily in the specific nutritional contributions it makes per serving.
A substance with this mineral profile, this amino acid distribution, this fulvic acid content, and these vitamin markers is a substance that was formed the way shilajit is supposed to be formed, over a very long time, from complex organic matter, in mineral-rich geological environments. You can't fake this panel. You can't synthesize a substance that produces these results across all these dimensions simultaneously without also producing exactly the substance you're claiming to have made, which would be a strange way to approach adulteration. The point is that the complexity itself is the authenticity marker, which is exactly why a full panel is worth publishing rather than summarizing as "85+ minerals and a proprietary blend."
The per-serving contributions of most individual components are modest by the standards of standalone supplements. The value of shilajit isn't in replacing your mineral supplement or your B-vitamin complex. It's in the fulvic acid-driven delivery mechanism, the complex organic and mineral composition that research has associated with mitochondrial function and hormonal support, and the authenticity that a panel like this one confirms, rather than just claims.
Publishing a panel like this is its own kind of commitment, because it sets a standard you then have to maintain across batches. If the next batch comes back with a meaningfully different fulvic acid percentage, or with a mineral profile that doesn't match this one, those are things you have to explain and address rather than quietly swap in behind a static "lab tested" badge. That accountability is the point. This is what the jar actually contains. Not a count. Not an approximation. A result, from a specific batch, at a specific analysis, that can be compared against anything else on the market.
Most brands won't show you this. We think that's the whole point of showing you ours, and it's the reason each new batch will get the same treatment rather than this being a one-time post we point to indefinitely while the actual testing quietly stops.
