CHAMGAP
VERIFIEDPassed the Codex final verification and publication gate. Evidence-verification cutoff: 2026-07-10. AI was used for research and drafting; the existence of all 3 cited sources was verified at the original page, followed by blind grading, adversarial audit, and build validation. Methodology v1.0.
Verdict No. 197 · Search date 2026-07-10 · Methodology v1.0

Ecdysterone/turkesterone,
does it really help with Muscle and strength?

30-Second Summary
C
Evidence Grade C · 45 · Safety unknown
Relative to the muscle claim, the human evidence is still thin
What the
research shows
The ingredients should be separated. For ecdysterone, Isenmann 2019 (n=46) reported signals for increased lean mass and bench press, but Wilborn 2006 (n=45) found no effect on resistance-training adaptations. Therefore ecdysterone is placed at C. Turkesterone is effectively separated in the body text as ? (no human evidence) because it has essentially no separate human muscle or strength evidence.
What the
ads claim
Advertisements mention "natural anabolic," "steroid alternative," "muscle mass," "strength," and "high-potency turkesterone." Actual human evidence centers on ecdysterone and is difficult to generalize to turkesterone.
*

Useful facts when choosing a product

  • Analytical studies report that commercial products may differ between labeled content and actual ecdysteroid content.
  • Turkesterone cannot be treated as having the same human evidence as ecdysterone.
  • WADA has placed ecdysterone on its monitoring program, and prohibited status must be checked separately against the latest rules.
  • Long-term high-dose safety data are limited.
ID

Chamgap Semantic Classification Code

Candidate index · review held

UNK.ecdysterone.UNK.muscle-and-strength.assess.placebo

Unknown > Ecdysterone > Unknown > Muscle and strength > Association or change assessment > Placebo

An automated migration candidate, not an issued permanent code; exact claim scope remains under review. This machine-generated migration candidate helps retrieval but is not a permanent assignment. The original verdict ID and URL remain authoritative.

Download semantic index (JSON) · Codebook v1

Gap Measurement · Verdict 197 · C 45
What advertising claims
What independent, higher-quality research supports
△ GAP
01

What the research actually shows

Ecdysterone: Isenmann 2019 divided 46 young men during 10 weeks of resistance training into ecdysterone supplement groups and control groups and reported larger increases in lean mass and 1RM bench press. The study found differences from the label in actual supplement content analysis and proposed the need to review inclusion on the WADA prohibited list. Wilborn 2006 reported that supplements including ecdysterone 30 mg/day did not improve body composition, training adaptations, or hormone measures in 45 resistance-trained men. Turkesterone: animal, cell, and ingredient-analysis data predominate, and evidence separated as a human RCT for muscle or strength is essentially not confirmed.

02

Why this is classified as C (45)

Ecdysterone is C at 45 points because Isenmann 2019 (n=46) positive findings and Wilborn 2006 (n=45) null findings are split and independent large-scale replication is lacking. Turkesterone is separated because separate human evidence is essentially absent.

Counterpoint. The 2019 ecdysterone study results are not extended to all turkesterone products.

Rejudgment record. Draft — For ecdysterone, Isenmann 2019 (n=46) positive findings and Wilborn 2006 (n=45) null findings coexist; turkesterone lacks separate human evidence

✓

Cross-check — AI research and Codex final gate

AI was used for research and drafting. Blind grading, adversarial audit, and the methodology boundary rules were then reapplied before Codex performed the final evidence, grade, copy, and build checks. If a grade cannot be narrowed, both evidence positions and their reasons are published.
03

Evidence Table

StudyDesignSampleFundingEndpointResultWeight
Isenmann E et al. 2019Randomized placebo-controlled resistance-training study46WADA-supportedLean mass and 1RM bench pressThe ecdysterone groups had greater increases in muscle mass and bench press.Core
Wilborn CD et al. 2006Randomized placebo-controlled resistance-training study45Academic/mixedBody composition, strength, and hormonesEcdysterone 30 mg/day and other supplements did not improve training adaptations.Core
Label-content analyses 2020Product analysis studyPublic/academicLabel content and ingredientsContent and labeling mismatch problems were reported for alternative anabolic supplements.Product fact
§

Receipt — 3 References

All 3 cited sources were verified for existence at the original page (as of 2026-07-10).

Isenmann E, Ambrosio G, Joseph JF, et al. Ecdysteroids as non-conventional anabolic agent: performance enhancement by ecdysterone supplementation in humans. Arch Toxicol. 2019;93:1807-1816. DOI: 10.1007/s00204-019-02490-x.
checked
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;3:19-27. DOI: 10.1186/1550-2783-3-2-19.
checked
Cohen PA, Avula B, Katragunta K, et al. Analysis of ingredients of supplements in the National Institutes of Health supplement database marketed as containing a novel alternative to anabolic steroids. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3:e202818. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.2818.
checked
Research and draft: AI used · Cross-check: blind grading and adversarial audit
Final verification and publication gate: Codex · Evidence date: 2026-07-10 · Corrections: none
↗

Cite this verdict

Ecdysterone/turkesterone x muscle and strength Evidence Grade C card
[Chamgap] Ecdysterone/turkesterone x muscle and strength — Evidence Grade C·45. 3 cited sources checked. Source: https://chamgap.com/en/verdicts/sports/ecdysterone-turkesterone-muscle-strength/ · CC BY 4.0

CC BY 4.0 — free to use with attribution; do not distort grades, numbers, or verdict meaning.

!

What this document does and does not do

Chamgap is an information source. It reports what research has and has not confirmed; it does not tell readers what to take or buy. That decision belongs to readers and, when needed, medical or legal professionals. This verdict reflects literature available up to the search date and may change as new research appears. Nothing here is medical advice.
↑