Question
I heard about Turkesterone on Joe Rogan’s podcast. My question is about delivery systems. I’m deciding between cyclodextrin , fulvic acid and something called, “Amber-boost.”
Which one works best?
Answer
None of the “delivery systems” you mentioned works any better than the other, they’re all just marketing IMO.
And even if they did, the real problem is the parent compound itself, Turkesterone.
Trust me, I’ve seen this cycle repeat over and over for the past 20 years. The story always has the same ending – people spend a lot of $ to find out… it just isn’t worth it.
When it comes to bodybuilding applications, it almost always comes up short.
The Cycle
The cycle usually goes something like this: Some new guru digs up one paper in particular (Practical uses for ecdysteroids in mammals including humans: an update) published way back in 2001.
All the hype boils down to a single sentence in that paper which reads as follows, “Recent structure-activity studies as measured by a stimulation of leucine incorporation into proteins showed that among the compounds tested turkesterone was the most active, followed by cyasterone and 20E.”
The paper and that line in particular is misleading IMO. Misleading because 1.) The Turk/Leucine findings were never reproduced anywhere else ever again, 2.) For all we know, more leucine incorporated could come at the expense of the other EAA’s and 3.) They were studying the pharmacodynamics of various phytoecdysteroids and nerobol in rats with experimental renal damage…”
Incredibly, people are still trying to convince themselves (and you) that these findings are applicable to healthy human being involved in strength training.
They aren’t, and anyone telling you so is lying to you.
The guy on Rogan’s podcast who mentioned Turk actually compared it to Deca. His name is Andrew Huberman, a “renowned neuroscience.”
He quickly followed that initial praise of it up with, “I’ve never tried it…”
Take it from someone who has – Turk works NOTHING like Deca or any other steroid. I know because over the past 15 years I’ve used more Turkesterone than most people can possibly imagine.
And my material ALWAYS came from ICPS, the Institute of Chemistry and Plant Sciences in Uzbekistan – so it was genuine.
It doesn’t do anything noticeable and is expensive as hell.
In fact some jokers are selling it for $1/pill online, an outrageous amount.
Mark my words: I may not get millions of views on youtube videos. I may not have been a guest on Joe Rogan. But I will happily be the only guy telling you right now that Turk is a waste of money – because that’s the truth.
10 years from today, let’s see if I was right, OK? I already know the answer and it’ll probably only take 1 or 2.
At this point I feel like going on Joe Rogan’s show myself to correct this injustice, but it seems destined to happen every 10 years or so. Stick around long enough in this business, and that’s what you’ll see.
Why Does It Keep Happening?
So why does this keep happening? Honestly, I don’t think Derek from MPMD is TRYING to scam people, he just believes too much of what he reads and lacks enough practical, real world use to know this is a scam.
It’s an easy mistake to make (and this is true for 20-hydroxyecdysterone as well) – because both look great in the research. Especially Turk.
In the real world though, both are far inferior to full spectrum Rhaponticum Carthamoides, and it’s not hard to understand why.
Full spectrum RCE contains DOZENS of Ecdysterones (including Turk and 20H), and in particular a grouping of 10-12 (depending upon who’s literature you read) along with various other tannins, resins and anti-oxidants with known biological activity.
Turk (from a different plant, Ajuga Turkistanica) contains just 3 primary Ecdysterones – Turkesterone, Cyasterone and 20-H.
That’s 3 vs. dozens in RCE with more found every passing year.
If you’re hell bent on using Ecdy then, I’d use full spectrum RCE. That story is different, and usually has a happier ending..
Back Story
Initially, Russian farmers noticed that the deer eating the stuff survived harsh Siberian winters much better than their counterparts who didn’t.
Incidentally, the Russian word for deer is Maral, and thus “Maral Root” is just another name you’ll see for RCE
Anyway, the farmers began using it themselves and noted it helped them bounce back much faster from colds, sickness and improved their ability to tolerate long days in the field.
Eventually, the Russian military got involved given they were looking for compounds that helped soldiers in WWII survive extreme conditions such as hunger, cold and lack of sleep.
After analyzing the plant they determined Ecdysterones were the real actives, and in 1961 Rhaponticum was formally added to Russian pharmacopeia as a medicine.
OTOH Turkesterone never was, despite the fact it was first first discovered nearly 50 years ago (1975). What does that tell you?
Back to the Russian medication “Ecdysten” – it was prescribed for recovery from sickness, burns, to treat fatigue and as a general tonic to increase resistance to disease and other environmental stressors.
Using a quality version and getting 500 to 1,000mg/day, you should notice much better recovery from exercise, a slight bump in VO2 max and in general, the ability to handle bigger workloads
Anyway, I’d suggest avoiding Turkesterone – especially if you’re new to Ecdysterone.
It seems inevitable though for the curious about the compound…you’ll probably wind up paying what I call the hefty Turk Tax, only to find out it does little to nothing
For the money then, it just isn’t worth it IMO.
