Ecdysterone vs Laxogenin: What to Choose and for Whom
Between ecdysterone and laxogenin, those who are looking for an 'anabolic' supplement without steroids make their choice. The difference between them lies in the depth of scientific data, product quality, and risks for athletes. Our editorial team explains how to make a considered decision.
Who is interested in this choice at all
Ecdysterone and laxogenin are sought mainly by people who do strength training and want additional support for muscle gain without using anabolic steroids. Sometimes these supplements are considered a 'safe alternative' to hormonal drugs, sometimes an addition to already-established nutrition.
Before comparing products, it is worth formulating the goal: is it about a gain in strength, muscle mass, recovery, or a general desire to 'try something natural'. The answer determines whether it makes sense to spend money on supplements with a limited evidence base at all.
It is also important whether you compete in events with doping control. For such a person, the answer to the question 'what to choose' may be 'none of the above', and below we explain why.
A detailed comparison of the chemistry and mechanisms is given in the material 'Ecdysterone or Laxogenin: What's the Difference'. Here we will focus on the practical decision.
Arguments in favor of ecdysterone
Ecdysterone has a noticeable advantage in the form of at least a minimal evidence base. The study by Isenmann et al. (2019) showed a greater gain in muscle mass and strength alongside training compared with placebo, and the mechanism via estrogen receptor beta is described in the work of Parr et al. (2014).
At the same time, the result cannot be considered definitively confirmed: the study by Wilborn et al. (2006) found no effect, and there are still few independent replications. A realistic expectation is a possible moderate additional effect in people who already train systematically.
Ecdysterone can be considered by an experienced amateur who does not compete in events with doping control, has no chronic diseases, and understands that they are buying a supplement of uncertain effectiveness. There is no established 'effective dose': the doses on labels are set by manufacturers, and studies used different products and regimens.
Ecdysterone is also present in food, for example in spinach and quinoa, but its content in foods is too small to reach the levels studied in supplement research.
Why laxogenin loses out
Laxogenin has not a single published clinical human study. Its promotion relies on analogy with brassinosteroids, for which Esposito et al. (2011) showed an anabolic effect in rats. But laxogenin is a different compound, and this analogy proves nothing.
Moreover, commercial 5α-hydroxylaxogenin is obtained semi-synthetically, and there is no independent data on its pharmacokinetics and safety in humans. The regulatory status of such an ingredient in many countries is also uncertain.
As a result, the consumer pays for a substance for which it is unknown whether it works, whether it is safe, or whether it is even present in the capsule in the declared amount.
Therefore, of the two options, our editorial team considers ecdysterone the less uncertain choice, and advises refraining from laxogenin.
How to choose a quality product
The ecdysterone market is heterogeneous. The raw material is most often cyanotis (Cyanotis vaga), maral root, or spinach, and the declared percentage of active substance in different products differs several-fold. Independent analyses show that the actual content of plant 'anabolic' ingredients often does not match the label (Cohen et al., 2023).
Our editorial team advises paying attention to several key signs of quality.
- The label states the name of the compound (20-hydroxyecdysone / beta-ecdysterone), the source plant, and the percentage of standardization.
- There is a certificate of analysis (CoA) from an independent laboratory, preferably using the HPLC method.
- The product is single-component, without 'proprietary blends'.
- For athletes - certification by programs testing for doping substances.
- There are no aggressive claims such as 'stronger than steroids'.
| Criterion | Ecdysterone | Laxogenin |
|---|---|---|
| Composition can be verified by independent analysis | Yes, methods are established | More difficult, few standards |
| There are human studies | A few, contradictory | None |
| Regulatory certainty | Relative | Low |
| WADA status | Monitoring Program | Not directly mentioned, risk of contamination |
Special cases: athletes and people with diseases
For athletes who undergo doping control, ecdysterone is a substance from the WADA Monitoring Program. It is not prohibited, but the authors of the Isenmann study directly recommended including it in the Prohibited List, and such a decision may be made in the future. Follow the current version of the list each year.
Laxogenin is not named in the list, but products with it are often sold in 'anabolic' complexes, where the risk of hidden prohormones and steroids is high (Geyer et al., 2008). For a professional athlete this risk is unacceptable.
People with hormone-dependent conditions, liver or kidney diseases, pregnant and breastfeeding women, and adolescents are not recommended either supplement due to the absence of safety data.
And finally, if your goal is simply to move forward in the gym, supplements with proven effectiveness, such as creatine (Kerksick et al., 2018), will give more than any 'natural anabolic'.
Editorial conclusions
If choosing between ecdysterone and laxogenin, ecdysterone is the more justified option: it has a described mechanism and several human studies, albeit with contradictory results. Our editorial team does not recommend laxogenin due to the complete absence of clinical data.
Ecdysterone is appropriate only for experienced amateurs without doping control and without chronic diseases, provided a quality certified product is chosen.
Realistic expectations and the priority of basic factors - training, nutrition, sleep - remain more important than any supplement.
We also recommend reading 'Turkesterone vs Laxogenin: What to Choose and for Whom', our review of creatine, and an article on how to read certificates of analysis for sports supplements.
References
- Isenmann E, Ambrosio G, Joseph JF, et al. Ecdysteroids as non-conventional anabolic agent: performance enhancement by ecdysterone supplementation in humans. Arch Toxicol. 2019;93(7):1807–1816.
- Parr MK, Zhao P, Haupt O, et al. Estrogen receptor beta is involved in skeletal muscle hypertrophy induced by the phytoecdysteroid ecdysterone. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2014;58(9):1861–1872.
- Wilborn CD, Taylor LW, Campbell BI, et al. Effects of methoxyisoflavone, ecdysterone, and sulfo-polysaccharide supplementation on training adaptations in resistance-trained males. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2006;3(2):19–27.
- Esposito D, Komarnytsky S, Shapses S, Raskin I. Anabolic effect of plant brassinosteroid. FASEB J. 2011;25(10):3708–3719.
- World Anti-Doping Agency. The 2024 Monitoring Program. Montreal: WADA; 2024.
- Cohen PA, Avula B, Katragunta K, Khan I. Presence and quantity of botanical ingredients with purported performance-enhancing properties in sports supplements. JAMA Netw Open. 2023.
- Geyer H, Parr MK, Koehler K, et al. Nutritional supplements cross-contaminated and faked with doping substances. J Mass Spectrom. 2008;43(7):892–902.
- Kerksick CM, Wilborn CD, Roberts MD, et al. ISSN exercise & sports nutrition review update: research & recommendations. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2018;15(1):38.
Andriy Melnyk
A strength-sports coach and author of programs for beginner and intermediate levels. Writes about training planning.
