BIO101 dosage and evidence
Written by Aaron CuhaReviewed Sep 2026
The short answer
In 233 older adults losing muscle with age, BIO101 missed its main walking speed target when everyone was counted. It did better among people who stuck to the plan. Covid wiped out 55 percent of the final check-ups.
Evidence grade for BIO101: Moderate. The rule: at least one finished study in people, and at least 100 people who took it. The sum on this page: 1 completed trial, 233 people given it. A grade counts how much has been done to people, not whether it works.
- People given it
- 233
- Human studies
- 1
- Found nothing
- 1
Dose
No human dose established
Amounts that were given in studies sit in Human evidence on this page. None of them is a personal dose.
1 completed trial, 233 people given it
3 effects reported, 2 unwanted, 1 wanted, by people using it, not a trial
Goal pages: Muscle and strength
In plain English
In plain English, from Aaron
This is how I would explain it to a friend. The evidence, with the numbers, is further down the page.
BIO101 is the drug company version of ecdysterone, a plant steroid. It is being tested for muscle loss that comes with age. There is no approved drug for that anywhere. BIO101 is not approved either.
What people take it for
- Keeping older people strong enough to walk and stay independent.
- Slowing muscle loss with age.
What studies in people showed
233 older adults losing muscle with age took BIO101 or a dummy pill for six to nine months. Their average age was 75.5. The main test was how fast they could walk 400 metres. Counting everyone, walking speed rose 0.07 metres per second more than on the dummy pill. That was too small to be sure it was real. Counting only people who stuck to the plan, it rose 0.09 metres per second, and that held up. Doctors treat about 0.1 as the smallest change that matters. Covid wiped out 55 percent of the final check-ups. Side effects were no more common than on the dummy pill.
What people report
Reports, not study results
The good
- Side effects linked to the drug were about as common as on the dummy pill in the study. Rates were 16.0 percent on the dummy pill, and 13.3 and 13.5 percent on the two doses.
The bad
- When everyone was counted, it did not clearly help walking speed.
- Many of the study's authors work for or advise the company that makes it.
Where these come from: The side effect rates and results are from the one study on this page. There are no forum reports, since it is not sold.
My bottom line
It is a real test of a real problem, and it came close. But close is not a win. For muscle loss with age, lifting weights and eating enough protein have far better proof than any drug here.
An opinion, not a finding. I am a coach, not a doctor.
What it has been measured to do
Measured in people
Goals BIO101 has been tested for in people, biggest studies first. We count only what the studies on this page say, so the real numbers may be higher.
- Keeping or building muscle233 people · 2 studies · 1 found nothing
- Getting stronger233 people · 1 study · 1 found nothing
34 of the 36 indexed goals have no study of any kind behind BIO101
No study in people, animals or cells on this page reports a result for these. That does not prove BIO101 does nothing for them. It does mean anything you have heard about BIO101 and one of these did not come from a study cited here.
Show full evidence
What is BIO101?
In 233 older adults losing muscle with age, BIO101 missed its main walking speed target when everyone was counted. It did better among people who stuck to the plan. Covid wiped out 55 percent of the final check-ups.
BIO101 is the drug company version of the same molecule sold as an ecdysterone supplement. Its study tells you more than anything else on these three pages.
The study took 233 older adults living at home who were losing muscle with age. Their average age was 75.5. They took one of two doses of BIO101 or a dummy pill for six to nine months. The main thing measured was how fast they could walk 400 metres. That is a real-life ability, not just a blood test.
The result needs both halves. On the higher dose, counting everyone, walking speed rose by 0.07 metres per second more than on the dummy pill. That was too small to be sure it was real. Counting only the people who stuck to the plan, it rose by 0.09 metres per second, and that result held up. Covid wiped out 55 percent of the final in-person check-ups, which made any effect harder to spot.
So it missed its main target when everyone was counted. It hit it when only people who finished as planned were counted. And there was a real outside reason for the missing data.
How does BIO101 work?
BIO101 is a drug-grade form of 20-hydroxyecdysone. The company describes it as switching on the MAS receptor. That receptor is part of a system in the body that protects against muscle loss, scarring and swelling. Switching it on is meant to push back against the signals that waste muscle. That is a different idea from the estrogen receptor route usually given for ecdysterone in sport. Nobody has worked out which is right for this molecule.
What have studies in people found about BIO101?
One well-run study in 233 older adults, measuring walking speed, hurt by Covid. It missed its target when everyone was counted and hit it when only people who stuck to the plan were counted.
- 233 older adults living at home and losing muscle with age took one of two doses or a dummy pill for six to nine months.
- The main measure was walking speed over 400 metres. Counting everyone, it rose 0.07 metres per second more than on the dummy pill. That was too small to be sure.
- Counting only people who stuck to the plan, it rose 0.09 metres per second, and that held up. Doctors usually treat about 0.1 metres per second as the smallest change that matters.
- Covid wiped out 55 percent of the final in-person check-ups, which made any effect harder to spot.
- In higher-risk groups picked in advance, speed rose 0.047 to 0.066 metres per second, a little more at the higher dose.
- Side effects were no more common on the drug than on the dummy pill.
- The authors wrote of strong trends toward a real benefit. That is careful wording for a missed main target.
What this does not tell you: The gap between the two ways of counting is the whole story. Counting only people who finished as planned drops the people who quit because of side effects or because it was not helping. That tends to make a drug look better than it is. Counting everyone is the fair test. Covid really did cause the missing data, but that does not turn the count-everyone result into a win. Many authors work for, used to work for, or advise the company that makes it.
The state of the research
This is a good page to practise reading evidence. There is a real, well-run study here. It measured something that matters in daily life, walking speed, in a condition with no approved treatment anywhere. That deserves respect.
The result missed when everyone was counted and hit when only people who finished were counted. The honest reading sits between the two stories you will hear. The company stresses the people who finished and blames Covid. A dismissive take says it failed. Both leave something out. What we can say is this. No drug for age-related muscle loss exists. In people who finished, this one came close to the smallest change that matters. When everyone was counted, the result was not clear. Only a second, bigger study will settle it.
Ecdysteroids are steroid hormones that control shedding of the shell in insects. Some plants have them too, like spinach, quinoa and Ajuga turkestanica. They are not built like testosterone and do not attach to its receptor. That is where the claim comes from that they build muscle without steroid side effects. Read this family together, not one at a time. Ecdysterone, also called 20-hydroxyecdysone, has a study in people that found more muscle and bench press strength. Its drug version was tested in 233 older adults losing muscle with age, and missed its main target when everyone was counted. Turkesterone, the one the ads push hardest, has never been tested in people at all. Results for one member do not carry over to another. The one with the most proof is not the one sold hardest.
The evidence, in charts
Fig. 1a · how many people
233people, across 1 study in people cited here
| Study | People | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle 2025 | 233 | 100% |
The whole total is one study of 233. Counts are the number of people each study on this page says it signed up. That includes studies that only watched people and gave nobody the compound. 1 more study in people gives no headcount and is not counted here. Studies still signing people up are left out, and only studies cited on this page are counted.
Fig. 1b · evidence mix
All 2 sources here are studies in people.
- Study in people · done in people2100%
Counted from the list of sources on this page. It counts only what we cite, so there may be more studies out there. A review counts once, however many studies it sums up.
Fig. 2 · evidence over time
Sources here come from just two years, 2019 and 2025.
Too few different years on this page to draw a timeline.
Fig. 3 · legal status at a glance
US
Not approved
UK
Not approved
AU
Not approved
CA
Not approved
Not approved in any of the four countries shown. This is what the law says, not a verdict on the science. See Legal status below for the full text and any notes.
Fig. 4 · how much does what
Nobody has tested different amounts in people
This chart would show how the effect changes as the amount goes up. For this compound, nobody has measured that in people. So we leave it empty. We will not borrow an animal chart and pretend it works the same in people.
Fig. 5 · what the molecule is
- Kind of compound
- Small molecule
- Molecule weight
- 480.6 Da, the same molecule as 20-hydroxyecdysone.
- Half-life
- Stated in words, not a numbersee the exact wording below
- Chain length
- None on file
Half-life as stated on file: Not asserted. No human half-life figure for this formulation was resolved in the sources loaded.
No amino acid sequence is on file for BIO101, which is expected: a small molecule is not built from amino acids.
The studies we cite
- Study in people2025BIO101 in sarcopenic seniors at risk of mobility disability: results of a double-blind randomised interventional phase 2b trial
It missed the target it was built to hit. 233 older adults losing muscle with age, average age 75, took BIO101 at one of two doses or a dummy pill for six months. The measure was walking speed over 400 metres. Counting everyone, the drug made almost no difference. Covid wiped out more than half the final in-person check-ups, which made any effect harder to spot. Many authors work for or advise the company that makes it.
SARA-INT. 233 randomised, mean age 75.5, 54.3% female, three arms at 175 mg twice daily, 350 mg twice daily or placebo, planned six months and up to nine in 50 subjects. Eligibility required meeting FNIH sarcopenia criteria and a Short Physical Performance Battery score of 8 or less out of 12. Primary endpoint was change in gait speed on the 400-metre walk test. At 350 mg twice daily, gait speed improved 0.07 m/s against placebo in the full analysis set, not significant, and 0.09 m/s in the per-protocol population, p = 0.008. COVID-19 cost 55% of on-site end-of-treatment efficacy assessments, reducing power. Predefined higher-risk subpopulations showed effects of 0.047 to 0.066 m/s with a trend toward dose response. Safety was good, with related treatment-emergent adverse events in 16.0%, 13.3% and 13.5% of the placebo, 175 mg and 350 mg groups. Many authors are employees, former employees, advisory board members or consultants of the sponsor, Biophytis.
- Study in people2019Ecdysteroids as non-conventional anabolic agent: performance enhancement by ecdysterone supplementation in humans
The same molecule worked in young people who train and fell short in frail older people. In a sports study, ecdysterone added muscle and bench press strength. In older adults losing muscle with age, the drug version did not clearly improve walking speed. A gain in the gym in young healthy bodies does not mean an older person can walk further.
The same molecule in a sports context, where a controlled human trial found increased muscle mass and bench press performance. Included because the contrast between a positive strength result in trained young people and a missed functional endpoint in sarcopenic older adults is the central fact about this compound.
Common questions
Has BIO101 been tested in people?
Yes. 233 people given it across 1 completed trial cited here, 1 of which found nothing. In 233 older adults losing muscle with age, BIO101 missed its main walking speed target when everyone was counted. It did better among people who stuck to the plan. Covid wiped out 55 percent of the final check-ups.
What is the BIO101 dosage?
No human dose established. Amounts that were given in studies sit in Human evidence on this page. None of them is a personal dose. 1 completed trial, 233 people given it
Is BIO101 FDA-approved?
Investigational, meaning still being tested. Not approved for any use. No drug for sarcopenia, age-related muscle loss, exists anywhere.
Did BIO101 work for sarcopenia?
Not clearly. Counting everyone, walking speed rose 0.07 metres per second more than on a dummy pill, which was too small to be sure. Counting only people who stuck to the plan, it rose 0.09 metres per second, and that held up. Covid wiped out 55 percent of the final check-ups, which made any effect harder to spot.
Why does per-protocol versus full analysis matter?
Counting only the people who finished as planned quietly drops those who quit because of side effects or because it was not helping. That can make a drug look better than it is. Counting everyone is the fair test. When everyone was counted, this study did not show a clear effect.
Is this the same as buying ecdysterone?
It is the same molecule. But the product, how sure you can be of the dose, and how it is made are not the same. Most of a swallowed dose of this molecule never reaches the blood, so those differences likely matter. No supplement has been tested in people losing muscle with age, and this study does not carry over to one.
Is there any approved drug for sarcopenia?
No, not anywhere. That is why this drug is worth watching even though it missed its target. The treatment today is lifting weights and eating enough protein. Both are covered in this site's training and diet sections, and both have better proof than any drug here.