Chlorella

View my plan →

The short answer

Small trials examine lipid, blood-pressure, and nutrient markers; clinical benefit is uncertain.

Evidence and scope: Mixed evidence
This status does not grade the ingredient for every goal, outcome, or person.
Important limitation: Trials are inconsistent or small, so a reliable clinically important benefit is not established.
Before deciding: Key concern: Warfarin because of vitamin K, iodine sensitivity, allergy, immunosuppressants, and contamination require review.

01 / PRACTICAL GUIDE

Dose, absorption, and combinations

These are indication-specific reference or studied ranges—not a personalized prescription. Start with the objective, then check the form, label, medicines, and health conditions.

Reference range by objective

Meeting usual needs2–5 g/day in many trials; no established health dose

Reference or studied range—not a personalized prescription. The product label or a clinician may specify a different dose.

Dose source ↗

More is not automatically better. A clinician or product label may specify a different amount.

Absorption / solubilityFat/water classification is not the key factor

Fat/water solubility is not the useful decision point; preparation, fluid, timing, or strain identity matters more.

How it is commonly taken

Choose broken-cell-wall, contaminant-tested products.

Do not combine casually

Warfarin because of vitamin K, iodine sensitivity, allergy, immunosuppressants, and contamination require review.

Dose and use source ↗

Dose and use links lead to primary or official source material. Search links are discovery tools, not proof that every returned paper applies.

02 / EVIDENCE

What the research says

We keep supportive, mixed, negative, safety, and contextual findings together. The headline never replaces the underlying papers.

1research papers in this ledger

19unique primary studies represented

797unique participants represented

These are audited counts for this JIVANA collection, not search-result totals. Participants are counted once when multiple papers use the same cohort; review papers are not added again to participant totals.

Open the research timelineResearch timeline

Entries are ordered by publication year. A study period appears only when the source reports it.

2017

Mixed or qualifiedPMID 29037431

Chlorella supplementation and cardiovascular risk factors

Small pooled reductions occurred in total and LDL cholesterol, blood pressure, and fasting glucose, while triglycerides, HDL, and body mass index did not improve. Subgroup findings by dose, duration, and health status remain surrogate evidence and do not establish cardiovascular benefit.

Published: 2017n=797 participants19 primary studies represented

Study design and methods

Design: Systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of 19 randomized controlled trials
Population: 797 participants with varied health status
Intervention: Chlorella supplementation versus control
Outcome: Lipids, blood pressure, fasting glucose, and body mass index

Open research record ↗

Unscreened discovery appendix—not evidence36 candidate publicationsSearch run: Aug 21, 2026

Complete for the displayed PubMed query at the search timestamp—not for all databases or every possible synonym. Candidates can be irrelevant, duplicate the same study, or report negative findings. They are never summed as evidence or participants until screened.

03 / SOURCES

Start with the source material

Official evidence overviewPubMed bounded human-evidence search Live PubMed discovery searchNational Library of Medicine

The live search is for discovery only. Search-result counts change and are not included in the audited totals above.

Recent PubMed discovery recordsDirect links to the first 12 records returned by the reproducible search. These are discovery candidates—not reviewed summaries or a count of supportive findings.

04 / EXPERT CONTEXT

Expert context—not evidence

Expert positions are dated context—not scientific evidence. They never raise the evidence status or become consensus by repetition.

No direct, source-verified endorsement is currently recorded. Research authorship or discussion alone is not treated as endorsement.