The history of Laxogenin: how the supplement became popular

In just a few years, laxogenin went from a little-known plant sapogenin to one of the "hits" of sports nutrition. The editorial team traced which scientific discoveries, market circumstances, and marketing techniques made this substance popular — and which of its promises hold up to scrutiny by the evidence.

Where the molecule came from

Laxogenin belongs to the steroidal sapogenins of the spirostane series — plant compounds that have a steroid skeleton but are not human hormones. Chemists knew similar substances long before the sports nutrition industry became interested in them: sapogenins were studied as a raw material for pharmaceutical synthesis back in the mid-20th century.

The best-known "relative" of laxogenin is diosgenin from the tubers of wild yam. It was from diosgenin that, in the 1940s, the American chemist Russell Marker developed an industrial route to progesterone, which later made the production of sex hormones and corticosteroids cheaper. This story is important because it explains why plant steroids are still associated in popular consciousness with "natural hormones," although in the human body they do not become hormones on their own.

In marketing, laxogenin is usually associated with plants of the genus Smilax, and in supplements its synthetic derivative — 5α-hydroxy-laxogenin — more often appears. Industrially this compound is obtained by semi-synthesis from more accessible sapogenins rather than by extraction from plants, since the natural content of laxogenin is very low.

Before it appeared in sports stores, laxogenin remained mostly a subject of phytochemical catalogs. For chemists it was one of dozens of similar structures, with no particular reputation. The turning point turned out to be not a new experiment with the substance itself, but a growing interest in a broader group — brassinosteroids.

Brassinosteroids: the scientific basis of the myth

Brassinosteroids are phytohormones that regulate cell growth, division, and plant resistance to stress. The first member of the group, brassinolide, was isolated from rapeseed pollen in the late 1970s, and since then these compounds have become a standard object of plant physiology (Clouse, Sasse, 1998). In plants they act through their own membrane receptors, which mammals do not have.

The sports industry's interest was sparked by the work of Esposito and colleagues (2011), in which the synthetic brassinosteroid 28-homobrassinolide had an anabolic effect in rats: the animals gained more muscle mass, and in cell cultures protein synthesis increased through the Akt signaling pathway. The authors emphasized that the effect was not mediated by androgen receptors.

The key point: this study did not investigate laxogenin. Its structure only distantly resembles brassinosteroids, and there is no rigorous proof in the peer-reviewed literature that it has similar activity. Yet for marketing, the formula "a plant steroid with anabolic action without hormonal side effects" was enough.

This is how a scientific result for one substance began to be "transferred" to another. The editorial team considers this episode a telling example of how trends are born in sports nutrition: a real animal study, simplification in advertising copy, and a quick product launch to the market without clinical trials in humans.

Stages of popularity

Laxogenin's path from a laboratory compound to a shelf product can be broken into several stages. Below is a simplified chronology in which we deliberately do not give exact launch dates of individual brands, since they differ across markets.

An important context was the ban on prohormones in the United States under the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004 and its 2014 update. After this, some buyers looked for products that would promise a similar effect without legal risks. Laxogenin filled this niche perfectly in advertising rhetoric.

The popularity was fueled by forums, bloggers' reviews, and "stacks" with other substances. Subjective reviews along the lines of "my muscles got fuller" spread faster than any data from controlled studies, of which, in fact, there were none.

Another factor was the low barrier to entry for manufacturers: the raw material is relatively accessible, a capsule is easy to make, and the name sounds scientific. As a result, within a few years dozens of products appeared with different dosages, different forms, and very different quality.

What sellers said and what science showed

Advertising descriptions of laxogenin relied from the outset on several promises. It is useful to list them to see how much confirmation each of them has.

• "Increases protein synthesis" — shown only for a different brassinosteroid and only in animal and cell models.
• "Does not affect hormones" — there are no direct human studies regarding testosterone, estradiol, or LH.
• "Safe because it's plant-based" — plant origin does not guarantee safety; toxicological data for humans are scarce.
• "Not detected by doping tests" — an incorrect and risky claim, especially in view of possible impurities.

As we can see, none of these theses has direct clinical confirmation. This does not automatically mean the substance is harmful or completely ineffective, but it does mean the buyer is essentially taking part in an uncontrolled experiment on themselves.

The problem of composition deserves a separate mention. Analytical work has long shown that some sports supplements contain undeclared substances, in particular prohormones and stimulants (Geyer et al., 2008; Cohen et al., 2014). For "anabolic" products this risk is traditionally higher than, for example, for protein.

This is precisely why the attitude of expert organizations toward such supplements is restrained. The IOC consensus on dietary supplements emphasizes that the athlete bears full responsibility for the composition of what they consume, and that products without independent testing pose a risk (Maughan et al., 2018).

Why the interest does not fade

Despite the lack of evidence, laxogenin is still present in the range of many stores. The editorial team sees several reasons for this persistence, and most of them are related not to pharmacology but to consumer psychology.

The first reason is the expectation effect. A person who has started taking an "anabolic" supplement usually also tightens up their nutrition, sleep, and training at the same time. The progress they see is sincerely attributed to the capsules, although the main contribution comes from the basic factors.

The second reason is the perception of an "intermediate" option. For those who are not ready for hormonal drugs but want "something stronger" than creatine, laxogenin looks like a compromise. Marketing skillfully exploits this niche, avoiding words that might raise alarm.

The third reason is that research interest in brassinosteroids and phytosteroids in general has not disappeared: the scientific literature continues to discuss their possible metabolic effects, in particular for diosgenin (Raju, Mehta, 2009). For the consumer, this creates the impression that "science is just about to confirm it," although laxogenin specifically hardly features in clinical protocols.

Finally, regulatory uncertainty plays a role. The status of 5α-hydroxy-laxogenin as a food ingredient is interpreted differently in various jurisdictions, and the WADA Prohibited List contains an open category of "other anabolic agents." For athletes who undergo doping control, this is a weighty argument in favor of caution.

Editorial conclusions

Laxogenin became popular thanks to a combination of several factors: the long-standing reputation of plant steroids, an interesting animal study of a different brassinosteroid, and a market demand for a "legal alternative" to prohormones.

The scientific base for laxogenin remains very weak: there are no randomized controlled trials in humans that would confirm an effect on muscle mass or strength, nor systematic data on safety.

If you are considering such supplements, choose products with independent certification, keep your expectations realistic, and do not forget that nutrition, training, and recovery make a contribution to the result that is an order of magnitude greater.

To dig deeper into the topic, we recommend reading our materials "Laxogenin: what it is and how it works," "Myths about laxogenin," and "Turkesterone or laxogenin: what is the difference."

References

1. Clouse SD, Sasse JM. Brassinosteroids: essential regulators of plant growth and development. Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol. 1998;49:427–451.
2. Esposito D, Rathinasabapathy T, Poulev A, Komarnytsky S, Raskin I. Akt-dependent anabolic activity of natural and synthetic brassinosteroids in rats. FASEB J. 2011;25(10):3708–3719.
3. Raju J, Mehta R. Cancer chemopreventive and therapeutic effects of diosgenin, a food saponin. Nutr Cancer. 2009;61(1):27–35.
4. 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.
5. Cohen PA, Maller G, DeSouza R, Neal-Kababick J. Presence of banned drugs in dietary supplements following FDA recalls. JAMA. 2014;312(16):1691–1693.
6. 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.
7. World Anti-Doping Agency. World Anti-Doping Code International Standard: Prohibited List. Montreal: WADA (чинна редакція).