This article will review the scientific literature to determine who wins the clash of titans ‘Ecdysterone vs Turkesterone’. Recently these two natural compounds have received an influx in media coverage, which has resulted in a surge in popularity. However, unlike so many supplement hypes that have no scientific basis, the effectiveness of Turkesterone and Ecdysterone is somewhat supported by clinical data. This article will assess this data to uncover what is the best supplement for muscle growth, and the difference between Ecdysterone and Turkesterone.
What Are The Similarities Between Turkesterone and Ecdysterone?
Before we analyse the academic literature to see their differences and determine which one has more beneficial effects, we must address the similarities between Turkesterone and Ecdysterone.
They are types of Ecdysteroids
Firstly, both of these compounds are ecdysteroids and have very similar molecular structures. As explored and explained in the ‘Ecdysteroids Explained’ article, Ecdysteroids are a class of naturally-occurring hormones found in certain plants and insects, called phytoecdysteroids. Although the name may raise eyebrows, ecdysteroids are not synthetic testosterone variations like anabolic steroids.
They are natural muscle building supplements
Turkesterone and Ecdysterone are both marketed and used as muscle building supplements. Both compounds are supported by research to have anabolic properties and to be effective for accelerating muscle growth, which this article will explore more shortly.
Additionally, the results from our Turkesterone Review indicate that most people used this supplement to help increase muscle mass and strength. Our survey also found that 72.1% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that Turkesterone made them feel stronger.
They do not cause steroidal side effects
Although Ecdysteroids have a similar molecular structure to testosterone, they do not bind to androgen receptors or unnaturally augment hormonal levels. Consequently, Ecdysteroids, such as Turkesterone and Ecdysterone, do not cause suppression or hormonal disharmony. Therefore, supplementing these natural compounds will not increase the risk of hormone shut down, gynecomastia, hair loss or blood clotting. Additionally, there is no toxicity reported in the scientific literature, suggesting that these natural extracts will not harm the liver or kidneys, unlike most anabolic steroids.
What Are The Differences Between Turkesterone and Ecdysterone?
Now we understand that Turkesterone and Ecdysterone are very similar. The most significant difference between these two is the extent of the research assessing their abilities. Let’s breakdown the literature;
Ecdysterone: We Know That It Works In Humans & Rats
Firstly, rat studies have shown Ecdysterone to accelerate muscle protein synthesis (1), and that it binds to estrogen receptor-beta (ERβ), which plays a role in skeletal muscle growth (2). Furthemore, a literature review even suggests that the anabolic abilities of ecdysterone matches and may even exceed that of anabolic androgenic steroids, SARMs or IGF-1 (3).
However, unlike Turkesterone, Ecdysterone’s effects have been investigated in human trials. This 10 week intervention, designed to assess the effects of ecdysterone on human exercise performance, found supplementation to significantly increase muscle growth and 1 rep max scores (4).
Turkesterone: More Anabolic But Limited Evidence In Humans
As Turkesterone is an analog of Ecdysterone, one can expect it to have similar effects. However, no investigations into Turkesterones effects on humans have been published. Only rat and in-vitro studies have been conducted so far.
There is a study supporting the idea that Turkesterone is an effective muscle building compound. This piece of research administered various phytoecdysteroids and steranabols into rats, and then measured and compared their anabolic activity (5). The results suggested that Turkesterone is more anabolic and increases weight to a greater extent than dianabol and ecdysterone.
Due to the lack of research in humans, we conducted a Turkesterone Survey. This provided some insight into Turkesterone’s effectiveness and benefits. This survey found that over 70% of users agreed or strongly agreed that Turkesterone increased their strength, muscle mass and athletic performance.
Do I need PCT after using Ecdysterone or Turkesterone?
No. Ecdysterone and Turkesterone are natural compounds, and therefore do not bind to androgen receptors or take testosterone levels above and beyond the natural realm. Therefore, you will not experience suppression or hormonal disharmony post-cycle.
Can you stack Ecdysterone and Turkesterone?
Both Ecdysterone and Turkesterone are natural extracts that have similar molecular structures. There is no risk of using these compounds simultaneously. This combination may help unleash greater benefits. You can purchase these products together at a discounted price via the choose your muscle bundle stack.
Do I need to cycle Ecdysterone or Turkesterone?
Based on available evidence, ecdysterone and turkesterone do not need to be cycled. With that said, they are expensive, and realistically they will offer diminishing returns over time. For that reason, many people do take breaks from using both supplements.
Are Ecdysterone and Turkesterone better than creatine?
Firstly, Ecdysterone and Turkesterone are suggested to work by supporting testosterone and anabolic pathways. Creatine, although shown to help with muscle growth, works by increasing energy production within muscles, enhancing athletic performance. Therefore, it is difficult to compare these two supplement types.
The Turkesterone Review Survey reported 65% of users to agree or strongly agree that Turkesterone is one of the best natural muscle builder supplements. Additionally, testimonials from the respondents also suggest that Turkesterone is better than creatine at improving performance.
Ecdysterone vs Turkesterone Summary: Which Is Better?
It is difficult to answer this question as Ecdysterone has been shown to increase muscle mass and strength in human trials, whereas Turkesterone has not been studied in humans, but has been shown to be more anabolic in rats. However the results from the Turkesterone Review Survey suggest that most users experience noticeable muscle growth and strength gains. Therefore, there is currently not enough evidence to provide a direct answer to this question.
It also must be highlighted that responses will differ from one person to another. According to the Turkesterone Review Survey, most users (87.8%) experienced the benefits of Turkesterone (87.8%), whereas others (12.2%) did not. This will likely also be the case for Ecdysterone. Therefore, one can assume that Ecdysterone may work better for one person, and Turkesterone may work better for another.
When analysing the data and information available, it appears that Turkesterone and Ecdysterone are just as effective as each other. Further research is needed before confirming the winner of the ‘Ecdysterone vs Turkesterone’ battle.