Muira Puama for Libido: Examining the Claims

This is the claim almost everybody arrives for. Muira puama's nickname is "potency wood," it has been marketed as an aphrodisiac for well over a century, and it is a standard ingredient in male-performance capsules and women's libido blends. So the honest answer needs to come first, before the explanation: there is no adequate human evidence that muira puama on its own improves libido, arousal, erectile function or sexual satisfaction.

Note the phrasing carefully, because it is doing real work. That is not the same as saying the herb has been tested and failed. It has not been adequately tested at all. The claim sits in the epistemic state of being absent rather than refuted, and those are different verdicts that deserve different language — collapsing them flatters an untested herb in one direction and unfairly condemns it in the other.

What does exist is worth walking through in detail, because each piece looks like evidence and each falls short in a specific, nameable way. There is a French clinical observation from around 1990 that is cited constantly and is close to unverifiable. There is rodent work on mating behaviour. There is a genuinely interesting isolated-tissue study of a Brazilian multi-herb formula. And there are human trials of multi-ingredient products in which muira puama is one line on a label, often alongside Ginkgo biloba, and often in women. None of them is a trial of muira puama.

Table of Contents

1. The Short Answer, Stated Plainly
2. The Problem Underneath the Problem
3. The Waynberg Material: What It Actually Was
4. The Percentages We Are Not Reproducing
5. Rodent Mating-Behaviour Studies
6. Catuama: A Four-Herb Formula in Rabbit Tissue
7. Multi-Ingredient Trials in Women, and the Ginkgo Confound
8. Borrowed Evidence, Applied Here
9. Is There Even a Proposed Mechanism?
10. Why Expectation Effects Are Unusually Large Here
11. What a Real Trial Would Require
12. Comparators That Do Have Trials
13. Evidence Ledger
14. If You Want to Try It Anyway
15. Key Research Papers
16. External Resources
17. Connections

The Short Answer, Stated Plainly

Sorted from strongest to weakest, here is the entire human and animal case for muira puama as an aphrodisiac:

1. Multi-ingredient human trials of formulas containing muira puama, mostly in women, mostly with Ginkgo biloba as a co-ingredient, with the muira puama dose typically undisclosed. These are real published human studies and they cannot attribute anything to muira puama.
2. An isolated-tissue study of a four-herb Brazilian formula relaxing rabbit corpus cavernosum. Real pharmacology; four species removed from a person taking a capsule.
3. Rodent mating-behaviour observations, which measure mounts and latencies in animals whose sexual behaviour is not a model of human desire.
4. An open, uncontrolled clinical observation from around 1990, presented at a conference, routinely cited as though it were a randomised trial, and difficult to retrieve as a primary document at all.
5. Tradition, which is genuine, long, and not evidence of efficacy.

There is no randomised, placebo-controlled trial of a defined single-herb muira puama extract using a validated sexual-function instrument. Not a small one, not an old one, not a negative one. The trial has not been run.

Back to Table of Contents

The Problem Underneath the Problem

Before any of this can be assessed, there is a prior difficulty that the rest of this page inherits: "muira puama" is a trade name applied to more than one Amazonian plant, and the traded material is unauthenticated bark and root-wood. The identity page works through that in full; here is why it bites on this page specifically.

Suppose, generously, that the 1990 clinical observation had been a properly controlled trial with a clear positive result. You would then know that some Amazonian woody material supplied to one French clinic in the late 1980s did something. Whether the powder in a capsule bought today shares a species with it is a separate question nobody has answered. An identity problem does not merely add noise to an evidence base — it breaks the chain between a study result and a purchasable product, which is the chain the entire supplement claim depends on. Worth noting too: the Waynberg citation, as usually reproduced, names the plant Ptychopetalum guyanna — a fourth name again. That is an observation about the citation, not a taxonomic claim.

Back to Table of Contents

The Waynberg Material: What It Actually Was

Nearly every page on the internet asserting that muira puama has clinical support is ultimately citing the same source: work reported by the French sexologist Jacques Waynberg, presented around 1990 at an international ethnopharmacology congress in Strasbourg. Follow the citation trail on a dozen supplement sites and it converges on that one presentation, each retelling slightly more confident than the last. This is the classic shape of citation drift, and it is worth being precise about what is at the end of the trail.

Here is what can be said about it with reasonable confidence, and what cannot:

• It was an open, uncontrolled clinical observation, not a randomised trial. Every account of it — including sympathetic ones — describes men with low desire or erectile complaints being given a muira puama preparation and then reporting on their symptoms. No placebo arm, no randomisation, no blinding.
• It appears to be a conference presentation rather than a peer-reviewed paper. A search of PubMed for the work does not retrieve it as an indexed primary article. That is not a criticism of the author; congress presentations are a normal part of ethnopharmacology. It does mean the document that anchors the entire clinical claim is not one a reader can pull up and check.
• We cannot verify its methods, its extract, its dose, its duration, or its outcome definitions. Every one of those is a thing a reader would need in order to know what the result means, and every one of them reaches us only through secondary retelling.
• An open study of a sexual complaint is the design most vulnerable to the effect it is measuring. More on that below, but briefly: desire and erectile confidence respond powerfully to expectation, attention and the act of doing something about the problem. An uncontrolled design cannot separate any of that from a drug effect. This is not a technicality; in sexual-medicine trials the placebo response is routinely large.

So the fair summary is that muira puama's headline clinical evidence is an unretrievable, uncontrolled observation, in an indication with a famously large placebo response, on material of uncertain botanical identity. It is a lead worth following. It is not support for a claim, and it should never have been cited as though it were.

Back to Table of Contents

The Percentages We Are Not Reproducing

Specific success rates from the Waynberg material circulate very widely — particular percentages of men reporting improved desire, particular percentages reporting improved erectile function, a particular patient count. You will see them on retail pages, in herbal monographs and in secondary reviews, usually stated without qualification.

This page is deliberately not reproducing them, and it is worth saying why rather than just quietly omitting them.

1. The primary document is not retrievable to check the figures against.
2. Every secondary source traces to the same untraceable presentation, so agreement between them is not independent confirmation. Ten pages copying one another look like a literature and are one source.
3. Percentages from an uncontrolled open observation are not efficacy figures at all, even if perfectly transcribed. A response rate without a control arm is a description of what happened in a group of people who knew they were being treated. Printing it next to a drug's trial results implies a comparability that does not exist.
4. Precise numbers are persuasive out of proportion to their reliability. A figure carried to the percentage point reads as measurement. Repeating it here would lend this page's credibility to a number we cannot stand behind.

If you encounter those percentages elsewhere, the useful question is not whether they are correctly copied but what design produced them. The answer is: an open-label observation with no control group.

Back to Table of Contents

Rodent Mating-Behaviour Studies

There is preclinical work on Ptychopetalum olacoides and rodent behaviour, and some of it touches sexual and arousal-type behaviour rather than only memory and stress. Before reporting any such result, the design deserves a look, because three flaws recur across the aphrodisiac-herb literature generally and naming them is more useful than a generic "animal study" caveat.

• What the endpoint actually measures. Rodent sexual behaviour is scored as mount latency, intromission latency, mount frequency, ejaculation latency and post-ejaculatory interval. These are motor and reflex parameters in an animal placed with a receptive female. They are a reasonable model of copulatory mechanics and a poor model of human desire, which is the complaint muira puama is actually sold for. A shortened mount latency in a rat does not translate into wanting sex more.
• General stimulation versus specific effect. The muira puama literature independently reports stimulant and arousal-like central effects for the same extract — one early behavioural characterisation described anxiogenic, arousal-type properties in mice. An extract that raises general activity will look better on latency-based sexual endpoints without having any sexual specificity at all. That is a real alternative explanation and it is rarely excluded.
• A positive control validates the assay; it does not rank the drugs. Where a herbal extract is compared against a reference agent in a rodent sexual-behaviour model and appears to do as well or better, the honest reading is that the model responded — not that the herb rivals the drug. Reference-drug arms exist to prove the assay works.

Read that way, the rodent literature supports a modest conclusion: an ethanol extract of this plant has central stimulant activity detectable in behavioural assays. That is consistent with the traditional "tonic" framing and it is a long way from an aphrodisiac claim in humans.

Back to Table of Contents

Catuama: A Four-Herb Formula in Rabbit Tissue

The most mechanistically interesting item in this whole area is a study of the Brazilian proprietary herbal medicine Catuama, which combines Paullinia cupana (guarana), Trichilia catigua (catuaba), Ptychopetalum olacoides (muira puama) and Zingiber officinale (ginger). Work published in Phytotherapy Research around 2001 examined the relaxation of isolated rabbit corpus cavernosum by the formula and by its individual constituents.

Corpus cavernosum relaxation is the correct target tissue for erectile function, so this is not a frivolous experiment. But every layer of it needs labelling, and the labels stack up:

• Formula substitution. The intervention is a four-herb product. Muira puama is one of four, and the formula's purpose is combination — which makes single-component attribution unsound twice over: you cannot assign the effect to one herb, and the product's own rationale is that the effect requires the mixture.
• Check the per-component data before crediting anything. To its credit, this study included individual constituent arms, which is better than most formula work. That means the honest reader's job is specific: look at what the muira puama arm alone did rather than at the headline formula result. A formula result quoted as a muira puama result is the error; the paper itself provides the material to avoid it.
• Isolated tissue is not a person. Strips of rabbit cavernosal tissue in an organ bath are bathed directly in extract at a concentration the experimenter chooses. An oral capsule must survive the gut, the liver and distribution before reaching that tissue at some far lower and entirely unmeasured concentration. Nothing about the organ-bath concentration tells you whether an oral dose reaches it.
• Route and species both differ. Direct application to excised rabbit tissue and oral administration to a human are different interventions, and a different route is a different intervention as a matter of principle, not of degree.

What the study legitimately supports is that something in a four-herb Brazilian formula relaxes erectile tissue in vitro, which is a reasonable hypothesis-generating result and an argument for running a trial. It does not support a claim about muira puama capsules.

Back to Table of Contents

Multi-Ingredient Trials in Women, and the Ginkgo Confound

The clearest human data involving muira puama comes from trials of botanical blends in women. The best known reported improvements in libido and sexual activity in premenopausal and postmenopausal women taking a combination product that paired muira puama with Ginkgo biloba and other ingredients; it appeared in Advances in Therapy around 2000 with Waynberg as an author.

Take the result at face value — assume the women genuinely improved. Here is everything that still stands between that and "muira puama works":

1. The intervention was a blend. Any benefit could belong to ginkgo, to another ingredient, to an interaction, or to the whole mixture.
2. The muira puama dose is not something a reader can act on. Blend trials characteristically report the product, not the per-ingredient milligrams, and marketing that cites such trials does not state the promoted ingredient's dose either. You cannot reproduce a dose you were never told.
3. Ginkgo is the co-ingredient with the better independent record for effects plausibly related to sexual function, and it is also the ingredient with a real pharmacological reputation. When the promoted ingredient is not the one with the strongest mechanism in the mixture, that is a tell rather than a coincidence — the promoted one is the one being sold.
4. The design constraints of the original. Whether the study was randomised and placebo-controlled, how sexual function was measured, and how many women completed it all bear directly on how much weight the result carries; a reader assessing it should check those in the paper rather than accept a marketing summary.
5. The population is women; much of the marketing is aimed at men. A result in postmenopausal women does not transfer to erectile function in men, and the two are routinely quoted interchangeably.

This is the single most-cited piece of human evidence for muira puama's flagship claim, and it is a trial of a different intervention in a different population from the one most buyers belong to.

Back to Table of Contents

Borrowed Evidence, Applied Here

The structural move above — supporting a claim about ingredient X with a trial of a formula containing X — has a name, and it is set out in full on the damiana aphrodisiac page, which lays out the tells: the cited trial's name is a brand rather than a plant; the intervention line lists several botanicals; the promoted ingredient is not the one with the strongest mechanism; the promoted ingredient's dose is never stated; and the citation trail converges on one or two papers retold with increasing confidence. Rather than re-derive that pattern, it is worth simply scoring muira puama against it.

• Brand, not plant. Yes, twice over — Catuama in the tissue work, a branded blend in the human work.
• Several botanicals in the intervention. Yes. Four herbs in one case, ginkgo plus others in the other.
• Promoted ingredient is not the strongest mechanism. Yes. Ginkgo has the better independent record; guarana at least brings a known stimulant.
• Dose of the promoted ingredient undisclosed. Yes, consistently. Neither the trials nor the marketing give a muira puama figure a reader could act on.
• Citation trail converges. Yes, and unusually tightly — on one conference presentation plus one or two blend papers, with the same author appearing across them.

Five out of five. Muira puama is close to a textbook case, and one thing distinguishes it from damiana in a way worth naming: damiana at least has a substantial rodent and enzyme literature aimed directly at sexual function. Muira puama's own strongest pharmacology points somewhere else entirely — at the brain, memory and stress, which is the subject of the fatigue and mood page. Its best science is not about the claim it is sold on.

The same structure runs across this shelf, and it is worth seeing where muira puama sits. Tribulus is sold on animal data plus multi-ingredient sports blends. Tongkat ali has a better single-herb record and is still constantly bundled. Maca has several small single-herb trials, which is more than muira puama has. Ginseng has the strongest single-herb human record of the group by a wide margin. Muira puama sits at the weak end for evidence and near the strong end for fame.

Back to Table of Contents

Is There Even a Proposed Mechanism?

A thin evidence base is easier to forgive when there is at least a coherent mechanistic story. Here the story is weaker than the marketing implies, and the honest position is that no active principle for a sexual effect has been established.

The constituents reported from the plant are mostly generic. Beta-sitosterol and campesterol are pan-plant sterols; beta-sitosterol in particular occurs across a very large fraction of the plant kingdom, so a beta-sitosterol effect is not a muira puama effect, and any argument built on it applies equally to a great many cheaper plants. Long-chain fatty acids and their esters make up much of the woody material and carry no sexual mechanism anyone has proposed. Coumarin is present and is not a plausible sexual mechanism either. The diterpene ptychonal is the genuinely distinctive chemistry and the interest in it comes from nerve-growth-factor-related activity, not from anything erectile. The dose and safety page goes through the chemistry, including why "contains coumarin" does not make a plant a blood thinner.

Three mechanisms are sometimes asserted for muira puama, and each needs a direct answer:

• "It raises testosterone." No human hormonal data supports this. There is no published trial measuring testosterone before and after a defined single-herb muira puama extract. This is asserted, not demonstrated.
• "It works through nitric oxide, like the ED drugs." The nearest supporting datum is the four-herb formula relaxing rabbit cavernosal tissue, which is a formula result in isolated tissue. If you want the nitric-oxide pathway explained properly, with the evidence that does exist for it, the arginine and erectile function page is the honest treatment.
• "It is a central nervous stimulant, and desire is central." This is the most defensible of the three, because the central activity is genuinely documented in rodents. But it proves less than it appears to: general central stimulation is compatible with the observed effects, is not specific to sexual function, and the same extract has been characterised as arousal-inducing in a way that also reads as anxiogenic — which is not obviously desirable.

Back to Table of Contents

Why Expectation Effects Are Unusually Large Here

It is tempting to treat "placebo" as a dismissal. It is better treated as a measurement problem that this particular indication has in an extreme form, because understanding it explains both why uncontrolled reports look so positive and why a real trial is genuinely necessary.

• The outcomes are self-reported and subjective. Desire, satisfaction and confidence are reported by the person taking the product. There is no blood test for libido.
• The complaint fluctuates naturally. Low desire and erectile difficulty vary with sleep, stress, alcohol, relationship context and mood. Anyone who seeks a remedy tends to do so at a low point, and regression to the mean alone will produce apparent improvement.
• Erectile function has a genuine psychological loop. Performance anxiety worsens function, and anything that reduces anxiety about performance can improve it. A capsule taken with confidence is a real intervention on that loop — which is exactly why it cannot be distinguished from a pharmacological effect without a placebo arm.
• Taking action is itself an intervention. Buying a remedy, planning for intimacy, paying attention to the problem: all of these change behaviour independently of chemistry.
• The tradition primes the expectation. A wood called "potency wood," with a century of reputation attached, arrives pre-loaded with suggestion in a way that an unnamed white capsule does not.

Put together, this is an indication in which an uncontrolled study is close to guaranteed to produce a positive result whatever is in the capsule. That is the reason the missing placebo arm is not a pedantic objection.

Back to Table of Contents

What a Real Trial Would Require

The strongest honest move available is not to hedge but to specify. The tools to test this claim properly exist, are standard, and are used routinely in sexual medicine. Nobody has pointed them at muira puama. Here is what pointing them at it would look like.

1. Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled. Non-negotiable, for all the reasons in the section above.
2. A single herb, not a blend — one species, one plant part, one extraction method. Everything else is a trial of a product.
3. A defined, characterised extract with a stated dose: species and part named, solvent stated, milligrams of a specified preparation, fingerprint archived, and identity confirmed by sequencing rather than a marker assay — see the identity page for why that distinction is decisive.
4. Validated primary outcome instruments. For men, the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF), erectile-function domain as primary endpoint, with Sexual Encounter Profile diary questions supporting. For women, the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) and the Female Sexual Distress Scale, desire and arousal domains specified in advance. These are the accepted currency of the field; a trial that invents its own questionnaire is comparable to nothing.
5. Adequate duration, a defined population and a pre-registered analysis. Several weeks minimum; men with mild-to-moderate erectile dysfunction and women meeting criteria for hypoactive sexual desire are different trials with different endpoints; and the endpoint and analysis plan registered publicly on ClinicalTrials.gov before enrolment, so a null result cannot be quietly reframed.

None of that is exotic. It is what every erectile-dysfunction drug trial does as a matter of course, and it kills the "you cannot trial a traditional herb" defence on the spot: the instruments are validated, the design is standard, the regulatory path for a botanical is well trodden. The trial is absent because nobody has funded it, not because it is impossible.

Back to Table of Contents

Comparators That Do Have Trials

Naming what has been tested pre-empts the objection that traditional remedies are held to an unfair standard. Several botanicals in this exact space have single-herb randomised evidence, of varying quality:

• Korean red ginseng — the most substantial single-herb randomised record for erectile function of any botanical, with placebo-controlled trials and meta-analyses. Its limitations can be argued over rather than guessed at. See ginseng and erectile function.
• Maca — several small single-herb randomised trials, some using validated instruments. Imperfect, but real. See maca and sexual function.
• Tongkat ali — single-herb human trials on hormonal and sexual endpoints, alongside a serious product-quality problem. See tongkat ali.
• Tribulus — tested as a single herb, and the testosterone claim largely failed those tests. A genuinely negative verdict rather than an absent one, which is the distinction this page keeps insisting on. See tribulus testosterone claims.
• L-arginine and L-citrulline — mechanistic plausibility plus human trials: arginine and erectile function.
• Epimedium — a middle position: icariin has real PDE5-inhibitory activity in vitro and the human trials still have not been done. See the icariin question.

Muira puama has none of this. It is not that traditional plants cannot be trialled — several of its shelf-mates have been.

Back to Table of Contents

Evidence Ledger

Distinguishing absent from negative matters, so each row states which it is.

1. Improves libido in men (single herb): ABSENT. No adequate trial exists. Not tested and failed — not tested.
2. Improves erectile function in men (single herb): ABSENT. Same position. The nearest data is a formula in rabbit tissue.
3. Improves sexual function in women (single herb): ABSENT. The human data in women is entirely from blends.
4. Improves sexual function as part of a multi-herb blend: WEAK POSITIVE, UNATTRIBUTABLE. Published human results exist for blends; none of them can be assigned to muira puama, and the muira puama dose is undisclosed.
5. Relaxes erectile tissue in vitro: POSITIVE FOR A FOUR-HERB FORMULA. Isolated rabbit tissue, per-component arms present in the paper and worth checking before anything is credited to muira puama.
6. Alters rodent mating behaviour: PLAUSIBLE, CONFOUNDED BY GENERAL STIMULATION. Latency-based endpoints in an animal with central stimulation on board are hard to interpret as sexual specificity.
7. Raises testosterone: UNTESTED IN HUMANS. Asserted in marketing; no human hormonal data located.
8. Central stimulant activity: ESTABLISHED PRECLINICALLY. Genuinely documented in rodents — and pointing at the tonic claim, not the sexual one.
9. Traditional use as an aphrodisiac: WELL DOCUMENTED AS TRADITION. Long, real, and not evidence of efficacy.
10. Botanical identity of commercial material: UNVERIFIED. Which undercuts every row above it, positive or negative.

Read the ledger top to bottom and the shape is unmistakable: the two best-established facts about muira puama and sex are that it has a long reputation and that its evidence has never been collected properly.

Back to Table of Contents

If You Want to Try It Anyway

Plenty of people will read all of the above and try it regardless, and that is a legitimate choice about a traditional plant with no documented pattern of serious harm. This site exists to inform the decision, not to make it. The full practical guidance is on the dose and safety page; three points belong here because they are specific to the sexual claim.

• Avoid proprietary sexual-performance blends. They hide the dose, and this is the product category most often found adulterated with undeclared prescription erectile-dysfunction drugs — the concrete risk on this shelf, and the reason an "herbal" capsule can produce a convincing effect that has nothing to do with the herb.
• Judge it over weeks, not one evening. A single-occasion judgement in a naturally fluctuating condition is not information.
• Get persistent symptoms evaluated. New or persistent erectile difficulty is a recognised early marker of cardiovascular and metabolic disease and can also reflect low testosterone, medication effects, depression or sleep apnoea. See erectile dysfunction and low testosterone. Treating a possible warning sign with an untested bark is the real risk here — larger than anything the bark itself is likely to do.

Back to Table of Contents

Key Research Papers

Citations link PubMed topic searches rather than fixed records, so you see the current literature on each question. Where metadata is uncertain, that is stated rather than smoothed over.

1. Waynberg's clinical observations on muira puama. PubMed topic search — run this search yourself. The near-absence of retrievable primary work is the finding. The presentation that anchors muira puama's clinical reputation appears not to be indexed as a peer-reviewed article, and we have deliberately not asserted its methods, patient numbers or response rates.
2. Waynberg J, Brewer S. "Effects of Herbal vX on libido and sexual activity in premenopausal and postmenopausal women." Advances in Therapy, 2000. Find on PubMed — formula substitution: a multi-ingredient product containing muira puama and Ginkgo biloba, in women, with the muira puama dose not usable by a reader. Cited here as the most-quoted human evidence and as the clearest example of why it cannot be attributed to this herb.
3. Antunes E and colleagues. "The relaxation of isolated rabbit corpus cavernosum by the herbal medicine Catuama and its constituents." Phytotherapy Research, 2001. Find on PubMed — formula substitution plus route and species substitution: a four-herb Brazilian product applied to excised rabbit tissue. Its individual-constituent arms are the part worth reading; the formula headline is the part usually quoted.
4. Composition of the Catuama formula. PubMed topic search — confirm for yourself which four species are in the product before accepting any claim that credits one of them. Verifying that a formula contains the herb, and in what company, is a step that is skipped remarkably often.
5. Siqueira IR and colleagues. "Psychopharmacological properties of Ptychopetalum olacoides Bentham (Olacaceae)." Pharmaceutical Biology, 1998. Find on PubMed — the early behavioural characterisation describing a stimulant, tonic-like central profile in mice. Relevant here as the alternative explanation for latency-based sexual endpoints.
6. da Silva AL and colleagues. "Anxiogenic properties of Ptychopetalum olacoides Benth. (Marapuama)." Phytotherapy Research, 2002. Find on PubMed — arousal-type effects in mice, reported by the authors in anxiogenic terms. Worth holding alongside the marketing, which presents the same central activity as uncomplicatedly desirable.
7. Rodent sexual-behaviour models and what they measure. PubMed topic search — the methods literature behind this page's argument that mount and intromission latencies model copulatory mechanics rather than human desire.
8. Validated sexual-function instruments. IIEF validation on PubMed and FSFI validation on PubMed — the tools a real muira puama trial would use. Their existence is what makes the missing trial a choice.
9. Placebo response in sexual-medicine trials. PubMed topic search — the quantitative basis for treating an uncontrolled open observation in this indication as uninformative rather than merely weak.
10. Undeclared PDE5 inhibitors in sexual-enhancement supplements. PubMed topic search — the analytical literature documenting the category's real adulteration problem, and the reason a "herbal" libido product can produce a convincing effect that has nothing to do with the herb on the label.
11. Erectile dysfunction as a cardiovascular marker. PubMed topic search — why self-treating this particular symptom with an untested botanical carries an opportunity cost that most herbal risks do not.

Back to Table of Contents

External Resources

• PubMed — the index behind every search above.
• ClinicalTrials.gov — search it for muira puama and note what is not registered.
• National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health — plain-language assessments of botanical evidence.
• FDA: Health Fraud Scams — the agency's public warnings, which repeatedly feature sexual-enhancement supplements containing undeclared drug ingredients.
• Memorial Sloan Kettering: About Herbs — conservative, referenced monographs written for clinicians.

Back to Table of Contents

Connections

• All Herbs
• Muira Puama — main article
• Muira Puama Benefits — hub
• Which Plant Is Muira Puama?
• Muira Puama for Fatigue, Mood and Memory
• Muira Puama: Dose, Formulations and Safety
• Damiana: Aphrodisiac Claims Examined
• Maca: Libido and Sexual Function
• Tribulus: Testosterone Claims Examined
• Tribulus: Libido and Sexual Function
• Tongkat Ali: Testosterone and Male Fertility
• Ginseng: Erectile Function
• Epimedium: The Icariin PDE5 Question
• Ashwagandha: Testosterone and Vitality
• Arginine: Erectile Function
• Erectile Dysfunction
• Low Testosterone and TRT
• Ginkgo Biloba

Back to Table of Contents