Ive seen two camps in the turkesterone debate: those claiming direct muscle-building effects and those dismissing it entirely because studies don't show anabolic properties. Both miss the point.
Turkesterone's primary benefit appears to be appetite suppression. No studies show direct lean muscle gains, and I dont think user reports suggest that either. I think benefits exponentially emerge when people are dealing with constant hunger from calorie deficits or maintaining low body fat percentages.
If you need robust clinical trials to justify supplements, turkesterone isn't for you. But if you're open to experimentation, this appetite suppression angle explains the inconsistent results. Being in a deficit or very lean creates fatigue that reduces NEAT (non-exercise activity thermogenesis) - the calories you burn through small daily movements. It also can limit gym performance or how hard you can train.
For those responsive to turkesterone's appetite-suppressing effects, it's most effective precisely when they're lean, cutting, or battling constant hunger. The reduced hunger allows better energy levels and training intensity.
The muscle gains come indirectly - through being able to put more effort into training. Someone like Greg benefits because he can handle the stress of staying very lean better, maintain higher energy levels, and lift harder. The same applies to overweight people cutting - turkesterone helps them manage deficit side effects, which lets them train with more intensity.
This explains why results vary so much between users. It's not building muscle directly; it's removing the barrier of constant hunger that prevents effective, intense training and higher daily activity when your body is fighting against you.