MPMD Video Addressing the ND Lab Test Results on Turkesterone

First link is a sci-hub link to the full paper. Is your network blocking it? I will link you a non Sci-hub link to the abstract.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31123801/

Here is the clinical trial: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03906201

I think maybe delayed because of COVID. I can't find any recent updates. Might have to write the researchers.

First link is dead for me, but I found some study indeed from another link someone posted. The Isenmann study, I presume? I'm not a research guru so I'm gonna check what a guy like greg nuckols thinks of this one. But if I just read through it, then the first thing I see is that they measured MM and BW with electrical Impedance, which is a huge red flag. The placebo group lost muscle. the control group gained even more than them. LMAO. The bench press finding is cool I guess and the non toxic markers also. Was this a blinded study? Not mentioned, so that can be a problem with lab workers knowing which group they coach a bit harder or differently...

I'll quote the findings from the full paper.

The positive effect of ecdysterone administration and training on body weight (BW) and muscle mass (MM) could be clearly shown (Fig. 3). In both parameters, a positive time effect was generated in Ec1 and Ec2. In addition, a dose-dependent effect could be observed. Ec2 (high dose) additionally showed significant time × group differences to CO and PL. Similar positive effects on bodyweight and muscle hypertrophy have been demonstrated in 600 mg testosterone administration (Bhasin et al. 1996). Although the effects are not as strong as with testosterone supplementation (in human), significant differences between PL, Ec1, Ec2, and CO can be detected. These results are corroborated by the in vitro study (hypertrophy in C2C12 myotubes). The anabolic effects of the Ecdy cap are similar to the hypertrophic effects of DHT, E2, and Ecdy lab (Supplementary Material). Similar anabolic effects in vitro have been reported earlier by different groups (Parr et al. 2014, 2015a; Zheng et al. 2018). In addition, the positive effect of ecdysterone in various animal experiments was also demonstrated earlier as well (Bathori et al. 2008; Courtheyn et al. 2002; Dinan 2001, 2009; Dinan and Lafont 2006; Gorelick-Feldman et al. 2008; Parr et al. Parr et al. 2014, 2015a). As a result, it can be concluded that ecdysterone has a positive anabolic effect on muscle growth in humans, similar to cell culture and animal studies.

In performance, all three training groups increased their power (CMJ) and strength (1-RM BS, 1-RM BP) performance significantly. In CMJ, the improvement of the training groups was most likely due to motoric learning. Thus, the increased leg strength may have caused the increase in performance (Wisløff et al. 2004). However, on average, the jump performance is not fully developed, so that neural adaptations are more likely to improve the jump performance. For the training intervention, a linear periodization model was used, which systematically increases the weight to maximize strength. In 1-RM BS, the improvement in each group is similar to the investigation of Schoenfeld et al. (Schoenfeld et al. 2015) and Joao et al. (Joao et al. 2014), who also used a linear periodization model. This means that the conceptual training design achieves similar results as the previous studies. Compared to the strength development during testosterone supplementation and strength training (Bhasin et al. 1996), there was no significant difference between the placebo and the two ecdysterone groups. However, there is a tendency for an increase in performance by the supplementation of ecdysterone as well as a dose-dependent effect (Fig. 4 left). This can be confirmed by the enhancement of the average training weights in the squat of the individual training groups (Supplementary Material). In upper body strength development, significant differences between the groups were observed. Both ecdysterone groups increased their performance significantly compared to the placebo group (Fig. 4 right). These results are in contrast with Wilborn (Wilborn et al. 2006), who found no differences between ecdysterone and the placebo group. The different observations can be attributed to different training systems as well as ecdysterone concentrations. Wilborn et al. did not use a systematic linear training model, but a wave-shaped training model with individual increase and a different ecdysterone concentration. Both factors play a decisive role, which can lead to different observations. In this study, it can be clearly recognized that ecdysterone has a positive effect on upper body performance.

Pretty good results in humans. Could there be confounding variables? Sure, as there always can be.

The first sentence on the page reads: 'It is a powerful supplement for increasing muscle strength and size'

Based on the research we have, that statement is not off-base. Again, the assertion was that there was no human clinical data. That's not true. There is. Is it robust enough to make a 100% certain determination? No, probably not. However, it's not just a completely untested substance. I've also personally used it and felt it gave some beneficial effects that warranted bringing it out and seeing how people reacted.