Turkesterone vs Laxogenin: What to Choose and for Whom

Turkesterone and laxogenin promise an 'anabolic effect without steroids', but there is little evidence for either. If you are facing a choice, it is important to understand what to realistically expect and for whom these supplements are simply not suitable. Our editorial team put together a practical guide.

An honest starting point

The query 'turkesterone or laxogenin' is usually posed by people who want to speed up muscle gain but are not ready for the risks of anabolic steroids. The motivation is understandable, but before choosing between two products, it is worth acknowledging an uncomfortable fact: for neither of them are there quality randomized human studies confirming muscle gain.

This does not mean that the substances are guaranteed 'not to work'. It means we do not know whether they work and under what conditions. The choice between them is a choice between two uncertainties of differing degree, not between two proven tools.

Therefore our editorial team suggests looking at the question more broadly: who can consider such supplements at all, who definitely should not, and what to pay attention to if the decision has already been made.

We examined the chemistry and mechanisms of both substances in detail in the material 'Turkesterone or Laxogenin: What's the Difference', so here we will focus on practical aspects.

Turkesterone: for whom and with what expectations

Turkesterone belongs to the phytoecdysteroids, and its appeal is based on data regarding its 'relative' - ecdysterone. The study by Isenmann et al. (2019) showed a greater gain in mass and strength when taking ecdysterone alongside training, although other works, such as Wilborn et al. (2006), found no effect. For turkesterone itself there is no convincing human data.

So turkesterone may interest an experienced amateur who does not compete in events with doping control, already has established nutrition and training, and is ready to spend money on an experiment with an uncertain result.

Realistic expectations are, at best, a small additional effect that is hard to distinguish from natural progress. Neither studies nor biochemistry promise a noticeable 'steroid' result.

The biggest practical risk is quality: turkesterone is expensive to produce, so products with understated content or substituted raw material are common. Without a certificate of analysis from an independent laboratory, a purchase turns into a lottery.

Laxogenin: why our editorial team is skeptical

In favor of laxogenin, studies of brassinosteroids are usually cited, in particular the works of Esposito et al. (2011), where homobrassinolide enhanced protein synthesis in the muscles of rats. But laxogenin is a different molecule, and it has no human studies of its own.

Moreover, 5α-hydroxylaxogenin in commercial products is a semi-synthetic compound, and its regulatory status as a food ingredient in a number of countries is questionable. This increases the likelihood of ending up with a product of unknown composition.

Supplements 'based on laxogenin' are often sold together with other substances in aggressively advertised 'anabolic stacks'. In such combinations the risk of hidden prohormones is higher than in single-component products.

• there are no clinical studies of effectiveness;
• there is no data on safety for humans;
• the rationale is through analogy with a different class of compounds;
• uncertain legal status.

Who should not take either substance

There are groups of people for whom the question of choice does not arise at all. First of all, these are athletes subject to doping control. Ecdysterone is in the WADA Monitoring Program, and the market of 'natural anabolics' is known for contamination with prohibited substances (Geyer et al., 2008). The principle of strict liability means that the athlete is responsible for any substance in their body.

The second group is adolescents, pregnant women, and breastfeeding women: there is no safety data, and the steroid structure of the molecules requires caution. The third is people with hormone-dependent diseases, liver or kidney diseases, and those who take medications on an ongoing basis.

Finally, these supplements make no sense for beginners. In the first years of training, progress is determined by the program, nutrition, and recovery, and any supplement with an uncertain effect only diverts resources.

What to spend the budget on instead

If the goal is muscle mass and strength, there are supplements with a powerful evidence base. Creatine monohydrate, according to the position of the International Society of Sports Nutrition (Kerksick et al., 2018), is one of the most effective ergogenic supplements. Adequate protein intake, including from protein supplements, is another basic element.

The IOC consensus on dietary supplements (Maughan et al., 2018) also classifies creatine and caffeine as agents with proven benefit, and most 'anabolic' plant products as categories with weak or absent evidence.

The cost of a month's course of turkesterone or laxogenin is often several times higher than the cost of creatine. From the standpoint of 'effect per hryvnia', the choice is obvious.

Therefore our editorial team proposes the following order of priorities: training program and recovery, adequate protein and calories, creatine, and only then - if desired - experiments with less-studied substances.

Editorial conclusions

If choosing between turkesterone and laxogenin, turkesterone has a slight advantage thanks to the indirect evidence base of ecdysteroids. Our editorial team does not recommend laxogenin due to the absence of human studies, its semi-synthetic origin, and its uncertain status.

For athletes with doping control, beginners, and people with chronic diseases, both substances are inadvisable.

The better choice for gaining mass is supplements with proven effectiveness and well-established basic factors.

Read also 'Ecdysterone vs Laxogenin: What to Choose and for Whom', our review of creatine for strength training, and an article on the risks of sports supplement contamination.

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. 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.
3. Esposito D, Komarnytsky S, Shapses S, Raskin I. Anabolic effect of plant brassinosteroid. FASEB J. 2011;25(10):3708–3719.
4. Dinan L, Lafont R. Effects and applications of arthropod steroid hormones (ecdysteroids) in mammals. J Endocrinol. 2006;191(1):1–8.
5. World Anti-Doping Agency. The 2024 Monitoring Program. Montreal: WADA; 2024.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Maughan RJ, Burke LM, Dvorak J, et al. IOC consensus statement: dietary supplements and the high-performance athlete. Br J Sports Med. 2018;52(7):439–455.