Cinnamon extract

View my plan →

The short answer

Trials show inconsistent, usually modest glucose and lipid changes; species and preparation matter.

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: Cassia coumarin can injure liver; review diabetes drugs, anticoagulants, pregnancy, and allergy.

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

Glucose-related research1–2 g/day powder-equivalent or standardized extract in trials

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 / solubilityFormulation-dependent

Not usefully classified as a fat- or water-soluble vitamin; absorption depends on the salt, extract, delivery system, and meal.

How it is commonly taken

Take with meals and identify Ceylon versus cassia.

Do not combine casually

Cassia coumarin can injure liver; review diabetes drugs, anticoagulants, pregnancy, and allergy.

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

28unique primary studies represented

3,054unique 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.

2025

Mixed or qualifiedPMID 38917435 · CRD42022370332

Cinnamon supplementation and metabolic markers in type 2 diabetes

Pooled glucose and some lipid markers improved, including HbA1c by about 0.56 percentage points, but heterogeneity was very high for most estimates (often 88%–100%). Short trials, varied species and preparations, and surrogate outcomes prevent treating cinnamon as a replacement for diabetes care.

Published: 2025Duration: 30–120 daysn=3,054 participants28 primary studies represented

Study design and methods

Design: Systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of 28 randomized controlled trials
Population: 3,054 adults and older adults with type 2 diabetes
Intervention: Cinnamon supplements, including capsules and varied doses, versus placebo or control
Outcome: Fasting and postprandial glucose, HbA1c, insulin resistance, lipids, and body mass index

Open research record ↗

Unscreened discovery appendix—not evidence51 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.