Maca: Latest Research and Evidence Update
Maca (Lepidium meyenii) is a root vegetable native to the high Andes of Peru and Bolivia. It has been used traditionally for centuries, and over the past two decades it has become one of the most globally recognised adaptogenic supplements. Interest has centred on its potential effects on energy, libido, mood, and hormonal balance. With a growing body of clinical research now available, it is worth reviewing what the evidence actually shows and where the science still has open questions.
What Recent Trials Show
The most replicated findings in maca research relate to sexual function and desire. A systematic review of clinical trials found that maca improved self-reported sexual dysfunction and desire in both men and women in several controlled studies (Gonzales et al., 2012). The effect appears to be independent of changes in sex hormone levels, which is notable: maca does not appear to work primarily through testosterone or estrogen pathways, unlike many herbs marketed for similar purposes.
For menopausal symptoms, a double-blind randomised trial found that maca supplementation was associated with reduced physiological and psychological symptoms compared to placebo in postmenopausal women (Brooks et al., 2008). The researchers noted effects on mood and energy that were meaningful to participants.
More recent work has looked at maca's potential effects on exercise capacity and mood. One small randomised crossover trial in cycling athletes reported improved time-trial performance after fourteen days of maca consumption compared to baseline, though the study was small and has not yet been definitively replicated at scale (Stone et al., 2009).
Shifts in Consensus
Early enthusiasm for maca centred on hormone modulation, with many early articles claiming it acted as an aphrodisiac by directly raising testosterone. The current scientific picture is more nuanced. Maca does not consistently alter LH, FSH, testosterone, or estrogen in controlled settings. The benefits on libido and energy appear to operate through other mechanisms, possibly involving glucosinolates and macamides, which are unique bioactive compounds found in maca root.
This is actually reassuring from a safety standpoint: a supplement that improves sexual desire without disrupting the hormonal axis may be a more sustainable choice than hormone-altering interventions.
Still-Open Questions
Several important questions remain without clear answers from the current literature:
- Optimal dose and form: Most trials have used dried maca powder at doses ranging from 1.5 to 3 grams per day, but some used gelatinised maca or concentrated extracts. Whether one form is superior is not established.
- Active compounds: The specific compounds responsible for observed effects have not been definitively identified. Macamides are leading candidates but the research is ongoing.
- Long-term safety: The longest human trials have run for around twelve weeks. Very long-term use data in humans is limited.
- Male fertility: Some small trials suggest improved sperm parameters, but the evidence is not strong enough to recommend maca as a fertility treatment.
What It Means Practically
For someone considering maca supplementation in 2025, the honest picture is:
- Best evidence: modest improvements in sexual desire and menopausal symptom scores in relevant populations
- Plausible but less certain: energy, mood, and athletic capacity benefits in healthy adults
- Unlikely: dramatic hormonal changes or muscle-building effects
Maca is a well-tolerated supplement for most adults. It works without known drug interactions at typical doses and is suitable for vegans. Gelatinised maca may be better tolerated than raw powder for those with sensitive digestion.
At maxfit.ee you can explore options in the /et/category/maca-et category, including NOW Maca 500mg 250 veg. caps., NOW Maca 500mg 100 veg. caps., Ostrovit Maca 90tab, BIOTECHUSA Maca 60 caps, and ICONFIT Maca 90caps. All are vegan-friendly capsule options.
Bottom Line
Maca has more credible research behind it than many herbal supplements, particularly for libido and menopausal symptom relief. The evidence does not support dramatic claims, and it is not a testosterone booster in the pharmacological sense. For those seeking a well-studied, plant-based adaptogen with a reasonable evidence base for energy and sexual health, maca remains a sensible choice at typical daily doses.
FAQ
Does maca actually raise testosterone?
Controlled studies do not consistently show maca raising testosterone levels. The improvements in libido and energy appear to operate through different mechanisms, possibly involving unique compounds called macamides.
Which form of maca is better: raw powder or gelatinised?
Gelatinised maca has had the starch removed through a heating process, which improves digestibility. For those with sensitive stomachs, gelatinised forms are often recommended. The bioactive compound profile may differ slightly, but no large head-to-head trial has confirmed one form as clearly superior.
Is maca safe for long-term use?
Available evidence from trials up to twelve weeks suggests maca is well-tolerated. Long-term safety data beyond this period is limited. Most guidelines suggest cycling usage or taking periodic breaks as a precaution.
References
Gonzales, G. F., Gonzales, C., & Gonzales-Castaneda, C. (2012). Lepidium meyenii (Maca): a plant from the highlands of Peru -- from tradition to science. Forschende Komplementarmedizin, 16(6), 373-380.
Brooks, N. A., Wilcox, G., Walker, K. Z., Ashton, J. F., Cox, M. B., & Stojanovska, L. (2008). Beneficial effects of Lepidium meyenii (Maca) on psychological symptoms and measures of sexual dysfunction in postmenopausal women are not related to estrogen or androgen content. Menopause, 15(6), 1157-1162. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18784609/
Stone, M., Ibarra, A., Roller, M., Zangara, A., & Stevenson, E. (2009). A pilot investigation into the effect of maca supplementation on physical activity and sexual desire in sportsmen. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 126(3), 574-576. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19781622/
