CHAMGAP
APPROVEDReviewed and approved by the Chamgap Editorial Team (2026-07-11). The draft was written by AI, the existence of all 2 cited sources was verified at the original page, and the verdict passed blind grading and adversarial audit. Methodology v0.6.
Verdict No. 232 · Search date 2026-07-11 · Methodology v0.6

Wild yam extract,
does it really help with Menopausal symptoms and a 'natural progesterone' effect?

30-Second Summary
D
Evidence Grade D · 27 · Safety unknown
Wild-yam cream did not improve menopausal symptoms or progesterone in the direct trial
What the
research shows
A 23-person double-blind crossover RCT of Dioscorea villosa wild-yam cream was null for both menopausal symptoms and serum or salivary progesterone. There is also no human pathway converting diosgenin to progesterone. A positive oral D. alata trial used a different species and formulation and cannot be attributed to this claim; because there is only one direct disconfirming trial, the grade is D rather than F.
What the
ads claim
Advertisements use phrases such as 'natural progesterone cream,' 'hormone balance,' and 'relieves hot flashes and night sweats.' Industrial chemical conversion of diosgenin and conversion inside the human body are different processes, and progesterone did not increase in the direct trial.
*

Useful facts when choosing a product

  • The key trial used topical D. villosa cream twice daily for two separate three-month periods.
  • Different species and formulations, including D. villosa and D. alata, are sold under the wild-yam name.
  • Diosgenin is a laboratory synthesis raw material and is not the same as progesterone in a finished product.
  • No serious events emerged in the short topical trial, but composition and long-term safety of varied marketed creams are unclear.
Gap Measurement · Verdict 232 · D 27
What advertising claims
What independent, higher-quality research supports
△ GAP
01

What the research actually shows

Komesaroff 2001 had 23 women with menopausal symptoms use active D. villosa cream and placebo for three months each in random order. Some symptoms changed in both periods, but there was no between-treatment difference and no change in FSH, estradiol, or serum or salivary progesterone. The Hsu 2011 oral D. alata trial is a positive psychological-symptom signal for a different species and formulation without product equivalence.

02

Why this is classified as D (27)

The direct crossover RCT of the target species, D. villosa, was null for menopausal symptoms and hormones, and there is no human diosgenin-to-progesterone conversion pathway. The positive D. alata trial differs in species and formulation. Because there is only one direct disconfirming trial, the grade is D rather than F, with 27 points.

Counterpoint. An oral extract of another Dioscorea species produced a symptom signal, but it is not the same ingredient or formulation. This judgment focuses on D. villosa products and the human progesterone-conversion claim.

Rejudgment record. Reassessment (cross-check reflected) — The direct 23-person D. villosa crossover RCT was null for symptoms and hormones, no human conversion pathway exists, and D. alata differs in species and formulation; one direct disconfirming trial supports D rather than F

Sub-claim grades by effect

This ingredient is marketed for several effects. A single overall grade blends strong and weak claims together, so each effect is graded separately here. The overall grade reflects the strongest disconfirming or core claim.

Effect (sub-claim)GradeBasis
Relief of menopausal symptomsDThe direct placebo-controlled D. villosa cream trial was null, with no replication.
A natural progesterone effectFSerum and salivary progesterone did not increase in the direct trial, and human conversion has not been demonstrated.

Cross-check — Codex and Claude

This verdict was drafted by Codex through literature review and source-existence checks, cross-checked through blind grading and adversarial audit, and settled by reapplying the methodology boundary rules. Cases with split grades were resolved through rejudgment.
03

Evidence Table

StudyDesignSampleFundingEndpointResultWeight
Komesaroff PA et al. 2001Double-blind randomized placebo-controlled crossover trial23UnknownHot flashes, night sweats, other symptoms, and serum and salivary hormonesThere was no symptom difference between active cream and placebo and no change in progesterone, estradiol, or FSH.Decisive
Hsu CC et al. 2011Double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial50UnknownGreene Climacteric Scale and plasma hormonesReported primarily psychological-domain improvement with oral D. alata, a different species and formulation from D. villosa cream.Counterevidence; low directness
§

Receipt — 2 References

All 2 cited sources were verified for existence at the original page (as of 2026-07-11).

Komesaroff PA, Black CV, Cable V, Sudhir K. 2001. Effects of wild yam extract on menopausal symptoms, lipids and sex hormones in healthy menopausal women. Climacteric. 2001;4(2):144-150. PMID: 11428178.
checked
Hsu CC, Kuo HC, Chang SY, Wu TC, Huang KE. 2011. The assessment of efficacy of Diascorea alata for menopausal symptom treatment in Taiwanese women. Climacteric. 2011;14(1):132-139. PMID: 20653397. DOI: 10.3109/13697137.2010.498594.
checked
Draft and rewrite: Codex (AI) · Verification: Codex blind grading and adversarial audit · Final adjudication: Claude
Reviewed and approved: Chamgap Editorial Team · Approval date: 2026-07-11 · Corrections: none

Cite this verdict

Wild yam extract x menopausal symptoms and a 'natural progesterone' effect Evidence Grade D card
[Chamgap] Wild yam extract x menopausal symptoms and a 'natural progesterone' effect — Evidence Grade D·27. 2 cited sources checked. Source: https://health-receipt.pages.dev/en/verdicts/womens/wild-yam-menopause-progesterone/ · CC BY 4.0

CC BY 4.0 — free to use with attribution; do not distort grades, numbers, or verdict meaning.

!

What this document does and does not do

Chamgap is an information source. It reports what research has and has not confirmed; it does not tell readers what to take or buy. That decision belongs to readers and, when needed, medical or legal professionals. This verdict reflects literature available up to the search date and may change as new research appears. Nothing here is medical advice.