Turkesterone or Laxogenin: What's the Difference

Turkesterone and laxogenin are advertised as 'natural anabolics' without the side effects of steroids. Both substances have a steroid skeleton, but different origins, different rationales, and very modest data. Our editorial team compared them based on scientific sources.

Two 'natural anabolic' compounds

Turkesterone and laxogenin are two compounds sold as 'plant anabolics': supposedly they help gain muscle without hormonal side effects. They are often compared, and sometimes combined in one product. However, by their chemical nature and source of origin these are different substances.

Turkesterone belongs to the ecdysteroids - compounds that in insects and crustaceans work as molting hormones, and in plants probably protect against insects. It is obtained from the plant Ajuga turkestanica (Turkestan bugleweed), which grows in Central Asia.

Laxogenin, or more precisely 5α-hydroxylaxogenin, which most often appears on labels, is a steroidal sapogenin of the spirostane series. In marketing it is associated with brassinosteroids - plant growth hormones - and with the plant Smilax sieboldii. However, in commercial products it is usually obtained semi-synthetically from other plant steroids, for example diosgenin.

Both substances have a steroid skeleton, but this does not make them anabolic steroids in the pharmacological sense: they are not ligands of the androgen receptor. So what then is their claimed action and how do they differ - we look into this below.

Chemistry and origin

Turkesterone is the 11α-hydroxy derivative of 20-hydroxyecdysone (ecdysterone), the most common phytoecdysteroid. Its content in Ajuga turkestanica is relatively small, so the price of quality extracts is high. This is precisely why products with false or overstated turkesterone content are common on the market.

5α-hydroxylaxogenin is structurally closer to steroidal sapogenins such as diosgenin than to ecdysteroids. In plants it occurs in trace amounts, and commercial-scale production is possible only through chemical modification of precursors. So the 'naturalness' of laxogenin is more of a marketing argument.

Independent analyses of supplements, in particular the work of Cohen et al. (2023), showed that the actual content of plant 'anabolic' ingredients in products often differs substantially from what is declared, and some products do not contain them at all.

Claimed mechanisms of action

For ecdysteroids, cell-culture studies have shown enhanced protein synthesis in muscle cells (Gorelick-Feldman et al., 2008) via the PI3K/Akt signaling pathway. Parr et al. (2014) linked the anabolic effect of ecdysterone to estrogen receptor beta, not to the androgen receptor. For turkesterone there are far fewer separate mechanistic studies, and the data are usually extrapolated from ecdysterone.

Laxogenin is advertised through analogy with brassinosteroids. Indeed, Esposito et al. (2011) showed that the plant brassinosteroid homobrassinolide enhances protein synthesis in muscle cells and increases the muscle mass of rats, also via an Akt-dependent mechanism. But laxogenin is not a brassinosteroid, and transferring these results to it is incorrect.

Thus turkesterone has at least an indirect preclinical base through its belonging to the ecdysteroids. Laxogenin relies on an analogy with a different class of compounds.

In neither case has it been shown that ordinary oral doses in humans provide concentrations sufficient for the effects obtained in a test tube.

Level of evidence

Historically, the anabolic action of ecdysteroids, including turkesterone, was studied mainly by Soviet researchers in rats; Syrov (2000) compared phytoecdysteroids with steroidal anabolics in experimental models. This work is interesting but methodologically does not meet modern standards.

The best-known study of ecdysteroids in humans is the work of Isenmann et al. (2019), in which taking ecdysterone for 10 weeks was accompanied by a greater gain in muscle mass and strength than placebo. At the same time, earlier Wilborn et al. (2006) found no effect of ecdysterone on training adaptations. For turkesterone as a separate compound there are practically no quality randomized studies.

For laxogenin, no published clinical human studies are known to our editorial team. The entire evidence base is limited to marketing materials and references to studies of other compounds.

That is, both substances have a weak evidence base, but to different degrees: turkesterone is a 'relative' of a compound with several human studies, laxogenin is a substance that has not been studied in humans.

Safety, quality, and anti-doping status

There is no data on the safety of long-term use for either substance. Ecdysteroids showed low toxicity in preclinical work (Dinan and Lafont, 2006), but this does not replace clinical observations. For laxogenin there is practically no information on safety for humans.

As for anti-doping: ecdysterone is included in the WADA Monitoring Program, meaning the agency tracks its prevalence among athletes, although it is not prohibited. Laxogenin is not directly named in the Prohibited List, but section S1 contains an open-ended formulation regarding other anabolic agents, and the market of such supplements is known for contamination with genuine steroids.

• the actual composition does not match what is declared;
• possible impurities of prohormones and anabolic steroids;
• absence of data on long-term use;
• the uncertain regulatory status of laxogenin in a number of countries.

Athletes who undergo doping control are advised by our editorial team to refrain from both categories of products if they do not have independent certification.

Editorial conclusions

Turkesterone and laxogenin are different compounds: the first is a phytoecdysteroid from a plant, the second a semi-synthetic steroidal sapogenin sold with reference to brassinosteroids.

For turkesterone there is an indirect preclinical base via ecdysteroids, for laxogenin - only analogies. There are no quality human studies for either.

The main practical risks are the mismatch of composition and the contamination of supplements.

We give a practical view on the choice in the article 'Turkesterone vs Laxogenin: What to Choose and for Whom'. We also recommend the materials 'Ecdysterone or Laxogenin: What's the Difference' and a review of the doping risks of sports supplements.

References

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Gorelick-Feldman J, Maclean D, Ilic N, et al. Phytoecdysteroids increase protein synthesis in skeletal muscle cells. J Agric Food Chem. 2008;56(10):3532–3537.
5. Dinan L, Lafont R. Effects and applications of arthropod steroid hormones (ecdysteroids) in mammals. J Endocrinol. 2006;191(1):1–8.
6. Esposito D, Komarnytsky S, Shapses S, Raskin I. Anabolic effect of plant brassinosteroid. FASEB J. 2011;25(10):3708–3719.
7. Syrov VN. Comparative experimental investigation of the anabolic activity of phytoecdysteroids and steranabols. Pharm Chem J. 2000.
8. 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.